The URL can be used to link to this page

2025-09-23 WS City Council Agenda Richfield City Council Agenda September 23, 2025 -- 5:45 PM Richfield Municipal Center Council Chambers 6700 Portland Avenue South 1. Call to Order 2. Item Discussion a. Presentation on updated Safe Routes to School Plan for Richfield Public Schools. b. Hennepin County Cost Share Discussion. c. Discussion on legislative advocacy supporting stronger protections against gun violence. 3. 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. Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the Council Chambers Agenda Packet book located by the entrance. The complete Council Agenda Packet is available electronically on the City of Richfield website. Page 1 of 124 City Council Meeting 9/23/2025 Agenda Section: Item Discussion Agenda Item: 2.a. Report Prepared By: Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer Department Director: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director Item for Consideration: Presentation on updated Safe Routes to School Plan for Richfield Public Schools. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2024, Richfield Public Schools received a grant to create an updated Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan. Engagement and planning work occurred in 2024 and 2025, and staff are presenting the final plan results. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Richfield first adopted a Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan in 2009. This plan was updated in 2014, with supplementary engineering studies at specific Richfield Public Schools campuses occurring in 2021 and 2024. RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive a presentation on the updated Safe Routes to School Plan for Richfield Public Schools, and discuss any questions in advance of a future resolution committing to support city-identified items in the plan. EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Desired impacts of the updated plan elements would be an increase in students choosing to walk and bike to class instead of driving or being driven. The updated plan works toward the "Sustainable Infrastructure" strategic priority by ensuring our future built infrastructure keeps climate resilience as a priority and supports service needs. POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) All construction projects that advance from the plan will be constructed following Richfield's Complete Streets Policy and Public Engagement Plan. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES FINANCIAL IMPACT The study was funded with a grant awarded to Richfield Public Schools and there was no financial participation by the city. The city's financial participation to this project comes in helping to fund specific projects outlined in the plan. Page 2 of 124 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ATTACHMENTS 1. MnSRTS Richfield Executive Summaries_Reduced 2. Richfield SRTS Plan_Final 3. Safe Routes to School Plan Presentation Page 3 of 124 E 75TH ST14TH A V E S E 74TH ST E 72ND ST E 73RD ST BLOOMINGTON AVE SCEDAR AVE SDIAGONAL BLVD 18TH AVE S17TH AVE S16TH AVE S15TH AVE S13TH AVE S12TH AVE SE 75TH ST E 74TH ST E 72ND ST 35W D A B C E North Spot Location Opportunity Richﬁeld Public School Route Opportunity Corridor Opportunity LEGEND Existing Trail Planned Corridor Project FEET0250 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL RICHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS Executive Summary Engineering projects that improve streets and routes Programs Infrastructure School Streets School Streets are temporary car-free zones adjacent to or leading up to a school that are strategically closed to vehicle traffic and opened to students walking, biking, and rolling. School Streets help manage traffic and improve safety during school arrival and dismissal by eliminating vehicle congestion in front of schools and creating an environment where students can safely walk, bike, roll, play and learn before, during, and after school. How will this be implemented? The MnDOT school streets guide has helpful information for planning a school street. The best candidate locations for school streets are at schools with a grid street pattern, with alternative ways to drive around the area. Why is this relevant and recommended? School streets eliminate through traffic along this portion of the school and create a new space for students to engage in physical activity before and after school. How will this address transportation inequities? A School Street provides additional space for recreation for all students. This provides recreation time for students who do not have an opportunity to walk or bike to school. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? Students, school staff, and parents/community members. What is the timeline for implementation? Medium term (2-3 years). The Vision A plan to make walking, biking, and rolling to school a safe, accessible, and fun aspect of physical and emotional health for students and all members of the Richfield community. In June 2025, the City of Richfield and Richfield Public Schools completed a year-long planning process that culminated in a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) plan. The SRTS plan identifies policies, infrastructure improvements, and program strategies to create a safe, comfortable, and fun active transportation system and culture of walking and biking to school, with a focus on addressing equity in transportation and meeting the needs of underresourced groups. This executive summary highlights near-term, high-priority recommendations from the SRTS Plan. Opportunities to increase awareness, understanding, and excitement around walking, biking, and rolling to school. Building on the solid history of SRTS work in Richfield, the planning team identified three goals to guide future program efforts: 1. Ensure the sustainability of SRTS efforts 2. Build culture and community around walking and biking to school 3. Maintain strong bike education The full plan provides a number of program ideas that may be chosen and tailored to each school in the district, based on an individual school’s need. The goals above should provide guidance as school, city, and community partners identify appropriate programs for implementation, with strategic direction from the district SRTS Coordinator. Implement traffic calming measures, especially between E 73rd St and E 74th St, to slow traffic near Centennial Elementary.A Add an east-west crossing treatment across Bloomington Ave on the north side of 73rd St to connect the school with an existing Metro Transit bus stop and neighborhoods to the west.B Implement traffic calming measures to make this neighborhood route more comfortable.C Page 4 of 124 E 69TH ST E 70TH STE 70TH ST E 71ST STE 71ST ST E 72ND STE 72ND ST E 73RD STE 73RD ST ELLIOT AVEELLIOT AVECHICAGO AVECHICAGO AVECOLUMBUS AVEPARK AVEPARK AVEOAKLAND AVE SOAKLAND AVE S12TH AVE S12TH AVE S13TH AVE S13TH AVE S14TH AVE S14TH AVE S15TH AVE S15TH AVE SBLOOMINGTON AVE SBLOOMINGTON AVE S10TH AVE S10TH AVE S11TH AVE S11TH AVE SH F I J K G H1 H2 North Spot Location Opportunity Planned Corridor Project Richﬁeld Public School Route Opportunity Corridor Opportunity LEGEND FEET0250 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL RICHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS Education, encouragement, engagement Executive Summary Engineering projects that improve streets and routes Programs (continued)Infrastructure (continued) Crossing Guard Program How will this be implemented? At intersections of concern, explore opportunities to expand use of adult crossing guards. The position could be augmented by an existing part-time school staff position, public safety staff, or supported with new, creative funding solutions. Why is this relevant and recommended? Families are concerned about crossing safety near schools. Crossing guards can help address the safety concern while long-term infrastructure improvements are designed and implemented. How will this address transportation inequities? Crossing guards would improve access between schools and busier roads, providing more peace-of-mind for parents with inflexible work schedules who rely on their students to get themselves to/from school. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School staff, City of Richfield. What is the timeline for implementation? Short term (1 year). Caregiver Workshops How will this be implemented? Identify community partners, such as City departments or cultural organizations, to host workshops with the school’s SRTS Coordinator. Summer workshops would prepare families for back-to-school walking and biking, and take advantage of SRTS Coordinator capacity. Content can be tailored to each community’s need, and pull from recent trauma-informed SRTS work. Why is this relevant and recommended? Many parents were enthusiastic about Safe Routes to School, but didn’t know where to start with their student. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School staff, Bike MN, community partners. What is the timeline for implementation? Short term (1 year). Conduct a stop warrant analysis to see if an all-way stop would be supported here, which would create more crossing gaps and reduce dangerous movements from driver frustration.H1 Potential location for a drop-and-walk behind the school to reduce congestion on E 70th St, utilizing recently added sidewalk and curb ramps on 71st St. Add landing facilities for a loading zone, and a path from E 71st St to the existing sidewalk near the playground. I Add (quick build) bumpouts to calm traffic, increase crossing visibility, and shorten crossing distance across 12th Ave.K Page 5 of 124 L O Q N R S M P W 64TH ST W 65TH ST W 66TH ST W 67TH STTHOMAS AVE SVINCENT AVE SWASHBURN AVE SUPTON AVE SRUSSELL AVE SNEWTON AVE SPENN AVE SOLIVER AVE SSHERIDAN AVE SNorth Spot Location Opportunity Richﬁeld Public School Route Opportunity Corridor Opportunity LEGEND Existing Trail FEET0250 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL RICHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS Education, encouragement, engagement Executive Summary Engineering projects that improve streets and routes Programs (continued)Infrastructure (continued) Drop and Walk How will this be implemented? School communications can encourage families driving to school to drop off students at a central location nearby. For example, parks and green spaces near schools may be utilized for a drop-and-walk. Why is this relevant and recommended? Walking on the way to school provides students an opportunity to start their day with activity and spend time in green space. Using more dispersed drop-off areas would also reduce the number of cars adding to congestion and safety concerns closer to school. How will this address transportation inequities? This program will promote walking and allow all students to participate in SRTS, even if they ride the bus. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? Students, School staff, crossing guards, parent volunteers. What is the timeline for implementation? Short term (1 year). Encouragement Days How will this be implemented? In October, February, and May to start, adults or secondary school students can lead walking or biking groups along pre-identified routes. MnDOT provides materials and contests to promote the events. Why is this relevant and recommended? These events build enthusiasm for walking and biking, and help families try out new transportation options/routines. How will this address transportation inequities? Coordinated events can make walking and biking accessible to students disproportionately impacted by unsafe crossings. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School staff, students, parents. What is the timeline for implementation? Short term (1 year) Install a sidewalk connecting the existing sidewalk east of Russell Ave west to Thomas Ave along the north side of W 64th St.M Install a raised crosswalk on Thomas Ave and curb extensions on W 65th St.O Install a sidewalk along the west side of Russell Ave.P Implement daylighting (adding paint and bollards to prevent parking too close to the corner) at this crossing location. Add advanced warning signage for westbound traffic on W 65th St to improve crossing visibility.Q Page 6 of 124 Y AA AB AC Z W AD T AE U S X V W 75TH STKNOX AVE SJAMES AVE SLOGAN AVE SW 73RD ST MORGAN AVE SNEWTON AVE SPENN AVE SLOGAN AVE SMORGAN AVE SNEWTON AVE SOLIVER AVE SPENN AVE SW 76TH ST 35W North Spot Location Opportunity Existing Trail Route Opportunity Corridor Opportunity LEGEND Richﬁeld Public School FEET0250 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL RICHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS Education, encouragement, engagement Executive Summary Engineering projects that improve streets and routes Programs (continued)Infrastructure (continued) On-Site Bike Maintenance How will this be implemented? PTO or school/district staff could partner with community organizations such as Bike MN or local bike shops to provide subsidized maintenance tools and workshops. Why is this relevant and recommended? Bringing existing bicycles up to a rideable condition makes riding to school feasible when it otherwise wasn’t. These partnerships can also grow enthusiasm for biking to school among students and families. How will this address transportation inequities? Access to bicycle maintenance tools can be a financial or cultural barrier for many families. Students with limited resources would benefit from outside support to repair and upkeep a reliable bicycle. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School/district staff, parents/PTO, community partners. What is the timeline for implementation? Short term (1 year). Health Campaign How will this be implemented? A health campaign can begin any time that there are staff resources to organize events and materials. Communications can be built into existing school and community channels used to reach parents and caregivers. Why is this relevant and recommended? Education on the health message of biking seems to have dropped among Latino families, based on the results of the SRTS Richfield engagement survey. Promoting the health incentive can build enthusiasm for families who may not otherwise try biking or walking. How will this address transportation inequities? This program could address barriers of concern for specifically Latino families as a priority populations. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School staff, Bike MN, culturally specific community partners. Add a marked school crosswalk across Oliver Ave to connect with the school grounds; in the short-term using paint, in the long-term including accessible curb ramps at the new sidewalk on Oliver Ave (Recommendation X).V Formalize a mid-block crosswalk at the school sidewalk to provide more visibility around what is already an informal crossing location; In the long-term, add curb ramps to connect with the potential future west-side sidewalk (Recommendation X). Y In the short term, add quick build daylighting (adding paint and bollards to prevent parking too close to the corner) around the existing marked crossing. In the medium term, add a raised crossing in place of the existing marked crossing. AA Page 7 of 124 PLEASANT AVEHARRIET AVEW 70TH ST W 72ND ST W 71ST ST GARFIELD AVE SGRAND AVE SPLEASANT AVEPILLSBURY AVEWENTWORTH AVE SBLAISDELL AVE SNICOLLET AVE1ST AVE SW 71ST ST W 72ND ST W 73RD STPILLSBURY AVEWENTWORTH AVE SBLAISDELL AVE SHARRIET AVEGRAND AVE SLYNDALE AVE SAF AI AG AL AM AJ AH AK North Spot Location Opportunity Richﬁeld Public School Route Opportunity Corridor Opportunity LEGEND Existing Trail FEET0250 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL RICHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS Education, encouragement, engagement Executive Summary Engineering projects that improve streets and routes Programs (continued)Infrastructure (continued) SRTS Coordinator Position How will this be implemented? Continue to fund a SRTS Coordinator position, potentially with funding support from MnDOT. Why is this relevant and recommended? Having a SRTS Coordinator to serve as point person between the many elements of SRTS planning and programming is vital to having a long-term, successful SRTS program. How will this address transportation inequities? SRTS coordinators are able to build long-term relationships with community partners, developing understanding to help support communities with the highest transportation burdens. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School staff. What is the timeline for implementation? Medium term (2-3 years). Suggested Route Maps How will this be implemented? Richfield has existing route maps for the schools in this plan (excluding RCEP), updated in 2023. The map can be easily updated in the future and could include winter maintenance responsibilities. Why is this relevant and recommended? Particularly when there are major barriers, route maps can help to guide students along relatively safe routes and to navigate difficult crossings safely. Adding winter maintenance info helps community members contact the correct partner when there are issues or questions. How will this address transportation inequities? This program can provide families with a shared baseline understanding of walking conditions, even if they do not feel confident in that knowledge on their own. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School district and City staff, MnDOT/SHIP. In the short term, add bollards to existing bike lanes along W 70th St. In the long term, install sidewalk-level, oneway separated bikeways along W 70th St.AG Install a raised crosswalk on Harriet Ave at W 71st St and chicanes on Harriet Ave.AH Explore pedestrian visibility improvements and traffic calming at the driveway exit, such as adding bollards between the inbound and outbound lanes, adding a raised crosswalk across the driveway, or installing artistic crosswalks. AI Explore short and long-term opportunities to narrow crossing distances, improve visibility for pedestrians, and improve accessibility of the existing crossing. Potential improvements range from quick build bollard and painted curb extensions, to raised crossings. AK Page 8 of 124 AN AO 4TH AVE SE 73RD ST E 72ND ST E 71ST S PORTLAND AVEOAKLAND AVE SPARK AVE SCOLUMBUS AVE SCLINTON AVE3RD AVE S2ND AVE S5TH AVE SNorth Spot Location Opportunity Existing Trail Corridor Opportunity LEGEND Richﬁeld Public School FEET0250 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL RICHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS Education, encouragement, engagement Executive Summary Engineering projects that improve streets and routes Programs (continued)Infrastructure (continued) Traffic Garden / Bike Park How will this be implemented? An underutilized corner of pavement in a parking lot or edge of a playground could be transformed into a traffic garden with paint. Funding may be available from a MnDOT grant, and installation could involve volunteers. Students could be involved in the design. Why is this relevant and recommended? A designated space on school grounds would provide opportunities for students to incorporate walking and biking into the school day, either during recess, during PE classes, or as a break at other times. How will this address transportation inequities? Incorporating walking and biking into the school day, especially if the bike fleet is available, can provide opportunities for students who live farther from school. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School/district staff, MnDOT/SHIP, volunteers. What is the timeline for implementation? Medium term (2-3 years). Walking School Bus and Bike Train How will this be implemented? Parents/caregivers of students who already walk or bike to school can organize along their current route. School staff can share materials with families to help jump-start the initiative. Families along routes can use Whatsapp chat groups to share updates on their student’s way to school. Why is this relevant and recommended? These groups build enthusiasm for walking and biking, and help parents and caregivers feel more confident in their student’s safety getting to school. How will this address transportation inequities? These groups help parents or caregivers who have inflexible work schedules, such as shift work, feel confident that their student can get to school safely. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? Students, parents/caregivers, and school staff. What is the timeline for implementation? Medium term (2 years). Add a sidewalk on the east side of 4th Ave between 70th St and 71st St.AN Explore better waiting infrastructure for students using this school bus stop.AO *There were no high priority recommendations at Richfield College Experience Program. The recommendations shown here were identified as low priority. Get Involved Want to help make it safer, easier, and more comfortable to walk and bike to school in Richfield? Contact your Safe Routes to School coordinator to learn how to get involved. Tim Brackett | Richfield Public Schools Safe Routes to School Coordinator timothy.brackett@rpsmn.org Learn more about SRTS in Minnesota at www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes Page 9 of 124 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL A plan to make walking, biking, and rolling to school a safe, accessible, and fun transportation choice benefiting the physical and emotional health of students, parents, and all members of the Richfield community. JUNE 2025RICHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS RICHFIELD, MN Page 10 of 124 | 3 Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge the participation of the following individuals and organizations in the development of this Safe Routes to School Plan. SRTS LOCAL PLANNING TEAM Tim Bracket Richfield Public Schools, SRTS Coordinator Matt Hardegger City of Richfield, Transportation Engineer Joe Powers City of Richfield, City Engineer Karl Huemiller City of Richfield, Director of Parks & Recreation Chris Link City of Richfield, Deputy Public Works Director Brittany Bartlett City of Richfield, Equity Coordinator Dan Kretsinger Richfield Public Schools, Director of Facilities and Transportation Craig Holje Richfield Public Schools, Chief Human Resources & Administration Officer Christina Gonzalez Richfield Public Schools, Director of Student Support Services Paula Cole Richfield School Board, Director Teresa Stadem Richfield STEM Elementary, PE Teacher Colleen Mahoney Centennial Elementary, Principal Matthew Arnold Richfield Dual Language School, Principal Ashley Schaefer Richfield Middle School, Assistant Principal Stacy Theien-Collins Richfield High School, Principal Kasya Willhite Richfield College Experience Program, Director Monique Tweh Richfield Public Schools, Lead School Social Worker Sean Hayford Oleary City of Richfield, City Council Member Joe Griffin Richfield Police Department, Lieutenant Eric Lauer-Hunt MnDOT, West Area Traffic Safety Area Manager Tristan Trejo MnDOT, Multimodal Planner David Sheen Hennepin County, Traffic Engineer Julian Fernandez-Petersen Hennepin County, Transportation Planner Page 11 of 124 4 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN | 5 Table of Contents ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT This report is designed to support and be accessible to multiple groups of people involved with Safe Routes to School in Richfield, including students, caregivers, teachers, school administrators, City staff, elected officials, and county and state employees. This plan focuses on key information and recommendations, while the appendices document additional participation, analysis, resources, and deliberation that shaped the development of the plan. 01. WHY SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL? 6 02. INFRASTRUCTURE 14 03. PROGRAMS 24 04. WORKING FOR CHANGE 30 05. APPENDICES 38 Acknowledgments (Continued) SRTS LOCAL PLANNING TEAM (CONTINUED) Yacaira Zavala MIRA, Coordinator Theresa Hogan City of Bloomington Public Health, Supervisor Jan Matheus Bike Walk Richfield, Advocate CJ Lindor Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota, Education Coordinator SRTS STAFF / CONSULTANTS Kelly Corbin MnDOT, Safe Routes to School Coordinator Sophie Kalow MnDOT, Safe Routes to School Coordinator Phoebe Ward MnDOT, Safe Routes to School Grants and Contracts Coordinator Colin Harris Alta Planning + Design Lisa Bender Alta Planning + Design Erin Daly Davenport Alta Planning + Design Emily Houser Alta Planning + Design Kaylen Pak Alta Planning + Design Abigail Blonigen Zan Associates Julia Nicholson Zan Associates Page 12 of 124 6 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN THE VISION | 7 THE VISION A plan to make walking, biking, and rolling to school a safe, accessible, and fun transportation choice benefiting the physical and emotional health of students, parents, and all members of the Richfield community. EDUCATION Providing students and other community members, especially those from priority populations, with skills and knowledge about walking, biking, and rolling. ENCOURAGEMENT Normalizing a culture of walking, biking, and rolling through incentive programs, events, and activities that center priority populations. ENGINEERING Developing Equity-focused changes to the built environment that support youth travel, designed and prioritized through community Engagement. THE 6 Es Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs rely on six core strategies, called the “Six Es,” to work toward their vision. ENGAGEMENT Working with students, families, school staff, and community members and organizations, especially those from priority populations, to identify needs, better understand barriers, and create solutions together for walking, biking, and rolling. EVALUATION Measuring how Safe Routes to School initiatives are implemented (process evaluation) and what their impacts are (outcome evaluation), especially how initiatives Engage with and support priority populations. EQUITY – THE OVERARCHING E Prioritizing positive outcomes for students from lower-income households; Black, Indigenous, and other students of color; students with disabilities; and other students who face disproportionate barriers to walking, biking, and rolling to school because of their group membership. This plan uses the term “priority populations” to refer to disproportionately impacted groups of students and other community members. Page 13 of 124 WHY SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL? | 9 WHY SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL? 01. Better air quality and more pleasant bike and pedestrian environments Safer and easier routes to and from school Greater focus on policies, infrastructure, and programs to support walking and biking More students walking and biking to school KIDS WHO WALK OR BIKE TO SCHOOL: A REINFORCING CYCLE OF WALKING AND BIKING TO SCHOOL *More information, including primary sources, can be found at http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org. SRTS initiatives are contributing to more students and families walking and biking to school. Most kids are not getting enough physical activity. Roads near schools are congested, decreasing safety and air quality for children. Arrive alert and able to focus on school Feel better about their physical health Are more likely to have good mental health Get most of their recommended daily physical activity just from traveling to and from school Have better school performance and test scores Why Safe Routes to School? 14% 2007 17% 29% 40% 2014 2025 2035 Today, less than 20% of K-8 students walk or bike to school, but as recently as 1970, nearly 50% of students walked or biked to school. Where schools and housing are located, how roads are designed, and how automobiles are regulated have all contributed to this decline. Through policy changes, infrastructure improvements, and programs, Safe Routes to School helps create physical and social environments that empower students, their families, and their communities to walk and bike more often. Communities that participate in Safe Routes to School also beneﬁt from less air, noise, and water pollution; lower road maintenance costs; and more pleasant streetscapes for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers alike. Why Safe Routes to School? Page 14 of 124 10 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN EqUITY IN SRTS | 11 Equity in SRTS Disparities in access to resources such as high-quality jobs, schools, parks, healthcare, food, and a full range of transportation choices impact the health and well-being of communities. These differences are not random—they are the results of government policy and funding in the past and present, which has worked to the benefit of some and to the disadvantage of others. Equity in Safe Routes to School is impacted by transportation system inequities—such as limited access to high-quality walking and biking infrastructure or the presence of highways or busy roads in lower- income neighborhoods and neighborhoods with more BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) individuals—as well as inequities in related systems. For example, racial wealth inequities and racial discrimination in housing mean that BIPOC or lower- income students may live further away from schools than their white peers and those from higher-income families. Safe Routes to School works to address these inequities through programs, infrastructure, and policy improvements that help priority populations. Priority populations include individuals, groups, and communities who are more likely to rely on walking, biking, or transit for transportation; are more vulnerable to unsafe traffic conditions; or have suffered historic disinvestment in safe, comfortable, walking and biking infrastructure. By looking at demographic data, examining existing transportation services and policies, and speaking with members of the community, the Richfield Safe Routes to School team worked to develop recommendations that support equity in walking and biking to school. The equity map on the next page shows the highest concentration of priority equity areas in Richfield, mostly following Hwy 77 and I-494, with a small area of high equity priority near Lyndale and I-35W/Hwy 62. Page 15 of 124 12 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN CENTENNIAL ELEMENTARY | 13 BLOOMINGTON AVE SE 73RD ST E 74TH ST LEGEND Bike/Ped Barrier School Entrance Bicycle Parking Vehicle Circulation Bus Circulation Vehicle Parking Bus Parking Other Walk/Bike Route (sidewalk, shoulder, etc.) North SITE CIRCULATION: Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Walkers and bikers use the school entrance on E 73rd St. In 2023 a demonstration project tested out a walking and biking path connecting the school with Cedar Ave to the east. After positive community feedback, the City will be constructing a permanent path along E 73rd St in the coming year. Those coming from neighborhoods to the south and north can use the sidewalk along Bloomington Ave or shared use path along Cedar Ave. Alternatively, students and caregivers walk in the street on quieter neighborhood side-streets. School Buses: School buses drop off and pick up students on the back (south) side of the school. Special education vehicles use the loading space on Bloomington Ave, on the west side of school. Vehicles: Parents and caregivers drop off and pick up students from E 73rd St. Currently, school staff set out cones to separate the lane of waiting vehicles from through traffic. With the upcoming street improvements on E 73rd St, this will likely change. Centennial Elementary SCHOOL CONTEXT:* Centennial Elementary STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS: •The Centennial Elementary student population is predominantly Hispanic/Latino, with smaller subsets of students who are Black or White. Few students are Multiracial, Asian, or American Indian / Alaska Native. •The school’s population of free and reduced-price lunch-eligible student (224 students, or 73.9%) is larger relative to the state of Minnesota (40.3%). •The highest concentration of priority equity areas is located to the east and southeast of Centennial Elementary (map, page 11). •Currently, most Centennial students arrive to school by bus or family vehicle. About 8% of students said they walked or biked to/from school, according to student travel tallies from Fall 2024. •Students must live 1+ mile away to fall in the busing zone. Of the 300 students in 2024, 16%, or 48 students were ineligible for busing. *Source: SY 2025 student enrollment data from the Minnesota Department of Education. ENROLLMENT: 300 GRADES SERVED: Pre K-5 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS American Indian / Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White Multiracial 9 (3.0%) 10 (3.3%) 60 (19.8%) 148 (48.8%) 61 (20.1%) 50%75%25% SOCIOECONOMIC STATISTICS Free and Reduced Price Lunch English Learner Experiencing Homelessness Receiving Special Education 224 (73.9%) 111 (36.6%) 14 (4.6%) 66 (21.8%) 15 (5.0%) Page 16 of 124 14 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN RICHFIELD DUAL LANGUAGE SCHOOL | 15 E 70TH ST ELLIOT AVE12TH AVE SE 71ST ST LEGEND Bike/Ped Barrier School Entrance Bicycle Parking Vehicle Circulation Bus Circulation Vehicle Parking Bus Parking Other Walk/Bike Route (sidewalk, shoulder, etc.) North SITE CIRCULATION: Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Many students and families walk to RDLS from the surrounding neighborhood. There are sidewalks along E 70th St, unlike many of the surrounding side streets, so E 70th St is a key walking and biking route to reach RDLS. There are crossing guards and student patrols at both corners of the school campus on E 70th St, who shared that the crossings felt like barriers without a crossing guard present. There is a bike lane along E 70th St, however parents and caregivers regularly queue in the bike lane while waiting to get into the school parking lot. Bike racks are located away from E 70th St, on the south side of the school. Students walking or biking from the south use sidewalks along the edges of the school grounds to reach the school building. School Buses: School buses drop off and pick up students in the parking lot on the south side of the school, entering and exiting at the same driveway on Elliot Ave. Special education vehicles drop off and pick up students on 12th Ave, along the curb on the east side of school. Vehicles: Parents and caregivers drop off and pick up students from the parking lot loop directly north of the school building. Drivers enter from and exit onto E 70th St at separate driveways. The one large parking lot has a divider to separate traffic from Richfield STEM Elementary next door. Richfield Dual Language School SCHOOL CONTEXT:* Richfield Dual Language School STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS: •The Richfield Dual Language School student population is predominantly Hispanic/Latino, with smaller subsets of students who are White. Few students are Black, Asian, Multiracial, or American Indian / Alaska Native. •The school’s population of free and reduced-price lunch-eligible students (242 students, or 45.7%) is larger relative to the state of Minnesota (40.3%). •The highest concentration of priority equity areas is located to the east and south of Richfield Dual Language School, around the highways (map, page 11). •Currently, most RDLS students arrive to school by bus or family vehicle. About 2% of students said they walked or biked to/from school, according to student travel tallies from Fall 2024. •Students must live 1+ mile away to fall in the busing zone. Of the 500+ students in 2024, 10%, or 50 students were ineligible for busing. *Source: SY 2025 student enrollment data from the Minnesota Department of Education. ENROLLMENT: 530 GRADES SERVED: Pre K-5 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS American Indian / Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White Multiracial 11 (2.1%) 4 (0.8%) 16 (3.0%) 366 (69.2%) 118 (22.3%) 50%75%25% SOCIOECONOMIC STATISTICS Free and Reduced Price Lunch English Learner Experiencing Homelessness Receiving Special Education 242 (45.7%) 212 (40.1%) 7 (1.3%) 46 (8.7%) 13 (2.5%) Page 17 of 124 16 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN RICHFIELD STEM ELEMENTARY | 17 SITE CIRCULATION: Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Many students and families walk to Richfield STEM from the surrounding neighborhood. There are sidewalks along E 70th St, unlike many of the surrounding side streets, so E 70th St is a key walking and biking route to reach the school. There are crossing guards and student patrols at both corners of the school campus on E 70th St, who shared that the crossings felt like barriers without a crossing guard present. There is a bike lane along E 70th St, however parents and caregivers regularly queue in the bike lane while waiting to get into the school parking lot. Bike racks are located away from E 70th St, with one on 12th Ave and one on the south side of the school. Students walking or biking from the south use sidewalks along the edges of the school grounds to reach the school building. School Buses: School buses drop off and pick up students in the parking lot on the south side of the school, entering and exiting at the same driveway on Elliot Ave. Special education vehicles drop off and pick up students on 12th Ave, along the curb on the east side of school. Vehicles: Parents and caregivers drop off and pick up students from the parking lot loop directly north of the school building. The one large parking lot has a divider to separate traffic from RDLS next door. Drivers enter from and exit onto 12th Ave at the same driveway, with cones dividing directions of traffic. Queuing traffic often backs up on 12th Ave, trying to get back onto E 70th St. Richfield STEM Elementary SCHOOL CONTEXT:* Richfield STEM Elementary STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS: •The Richfield STEM Elementary student population is predominantly White, with smaller subsets of students who are Black or Hispanic/Latino. Few students are Asian, Multiracial, or American Indian / Alaska Native. •The school’s population of free and reduced-price lunch-eligible students (276 students, or 45.7%) is larger relative to the state of Minnesota (40.3%). •The highest concentration of priority equity areas is located to the west and east of Richfield STEM Elementary (map, page 11). •Currently, most STEM students arrive to school by bus or family vehicle. About 3% of students said they walked or biked to/from school, according to student travel tallies from Fall 2024. •Students must live 1+ mile away to fall in the busing zone. Of the 554 students in 2024, 18%, or 100 students are ineligible for busing. *Source: SY 2025 student enrollment data from the Minnesota Department of Education. ENROLLMENT: 600 GRADES SERVED: Pre K-5 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS American Indian / Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White Multiracial 26 (4.3%) 21 (3.5%) 86 (14.2%) 168 (27.8%) 253 (41.9%) 50%75%25% SOCIOECONOMIC STATISTICS Free and Reduced Price Lunch English Learner Experiencing Homelessness Receiving Special Education 276 (45.7%) 133 (22.0%) 2 (0.3%) 80 (13.2%) 50 (8.3%) E 70TH ST ELLIOT AVE12TH AVE SE 71ST ST LEGEND Bike/Ped Barrier School Entrance Bicycle Parking Vehicle Circulation Bus Circulation Vehicle Parking Bus Parking Other Walk/Bike Route (sidewalk, shoulder, etc.) North Page 18 of 124 18 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN SHERIDAN HILLS ELEMENTARY | 19 W 64TH ST THOMAS AVE SW 65TH ST LEGEND Bike/Ped Barrier School Entrance Bicycle Parking Vehicle Circulation Bus Circulation Shared Use Path Vehicle Parking Bus Parking Other Walk/Bike Route (sidewalk, shoulder, etc.) North SITE CIRCULATION: Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Students and parents/ caregivers who walk or bike to Sheridan Hills have a limited number of streets with sidewalks in the area. W 64th St and W 65th St have sidewalks connecting with homes to the east and west of the school. Few north/ south streets have sidewalks in the neighborhood around school. There are busy, high volume roadways a few blocks away from the school that present challenging crossings for Sheridan Hills families. Penn Ave on the east, W 66th St on the south, and Xerxes Ave to the west are all barriers. Some families use the bike boulevard on Sheridan Ave to reach neighborhoods south of W 66th St. School Buses: School buses drop off and pick up students on the north side of the school, along W 64th St. Special education vehicles use the same drop-off/pick-up loop as parents and caregivers on the southwest side of school. Vehicles: Parents and caregivers drop off and pick up students from the parking lot loop southeast of the school building. Drivers enter off of W 65th St and exit onto Thomas Ave. Drivers regularly queue to the east on W 65th St, waiting to turn right into the parking lot. Despite the No Parking signs, some parents/caregivers park along Thomas Ave waiting to pick up their students. Sheridan Hills Elementary SCHOOL CONTEXT:* Sheridan Hills Elementary STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS: •The Sheridan Hills Elementary student population is predominantly White, with smaller subsets of students who are Black or Hispanic/Latino. Few students are Asian, Multiracial, or American Indian / Alaska Native. •The school’s population of free and reduced-price lunch-eligible students (196 students, or 48.3%) is larger relative to the state of Minnesota (40.3%). •The highest concentration of priority equity areas is located to the west and northeast of Sheridan Hills Elementary (map, page 11). •Currently, most Sheridan Hills students arrive to school by bus or family vehicle. About 2% of students said they walked or biked to/from school, according to student travel tallies from Fall 2024. •Students must live 1+ mile away to fall in the busing zone. Of the 428 students in 2024, 8%, or 34 students were ineligible for busing. *Source: SY 2025 student enrollment data from the Minnesota Department of Education. ENROLLMENT: 410 GRADES SERVED: Pre K-5 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS American Indian / Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White Multiracial 13 (3.2%) 21 (5.2%) 79 (19.5%) 98 (24.1%) 168 (41.4%) 50%75%25% SOCIOECONOMIC STATISTICS Free and Reduced Price Lunch English Learner Experiencing Homelessness Receiving Special Education 196 (48.3%) 93 (22.9%) 9 (2.2%) 86 (21.2%) 27 (6.7%) Page 19 of 124 20 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN RICHFIELD MIDDLE | 21 W 75TH STOLIVER AVE SLEGEND Bike/Ped Barrier School Entrance Bicycle Parking Vehicle Circulation Bus Circulation Shared Use Path Vehicle Parking Bus Parking Other Walk/Bike Route (sidewalk, shoulder, etc.) North SITE CIRCULATION: Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Many students walk and bike to Richfield Middle School. There is a shared use path along W 75th St that students use to reach the school. Students coming south through Donaldson Park connect to the trail to reach school; including students coming from the east side of I-35W who cross the highway on the W 73rd St pedestrian bridge. Other students heading north and south disperse through the neighborhood, or head to signalized crossings along Penn Ave to help get across that busy roadway. School Buses: School buses drop off and pick up students in the school parking lot, along the main sidewalk in front of the school entrance and along the driveway towards the parking lot exit. Special education vehicles park along the east side of Oliver Ave. Vehicles: Parents and caregivers drop off and pick up students from the parking lot loop south of the building. Drivers enter the school grounds from W 75th St and exit out a second driveway further west on W 75th St, with the buses. A few parents and caregivers use the Donaldson Park parking lot as a drop-and-walk or satellite pick-up location for their students. Others park along the school (north) side of W 75th St to wait for their students, despite the No Parking signs. Richfield Middle SCHOOL CONTEXT:* Richfield Middle STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS: •The Richfield Middle student population is predominantly Hispanic/Latino, with smaller subsets of students who are White or Black. Few students are Asian, Multiracial, or American Indian / Alaska Native. •The school’s population of free and reduced-price lunch-eligible students (466 students, or 57.7%) is larger relative to the state of Minnesota (40.3%). •The highest concentration of priority equity areas is located to the west and southeast of Richfield Middle (map, page 11). •Currently, most Richfield Middle students arrive to school by bus or family vehicle. About 16% of students said they walked or biked to/from school, according to student travel tallies from Fall 2024. •Students must live 2+ miles away to fall in the busing zone. Of the 800 students in 2024, 25%, or 199 students were ineligible for busing. *Source: SY 2025 student enrollment data from the Minnesota Department of Education. ENROLLMENT: 810 GRADES SERVED: 6-8 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS American Indian / Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White Multiracial 28 (3.5%) 26 (3.2%) 116 (14.4%) 355 (43.9%) 232 (28.7%) 50%75%25% SOCIOECONOMIC STATISTICS Free and Reduced Price Lunch English Learner Experiencing Homelessness Receiving Special Education 466 (57.7%) 175 (21.7%) 23 (2.8%) 147 (18.2%) 50 (6.2%) Page 20 of 124 22 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN RICHFIELD HIGH | 23 W 70TH STHARRIET AVE W 71ST STW 72ND STLEGEND Bike/Ped Barrier School Entrance Bicycle Parking Vehicle Circulation Bus Circulation Vehicle Parking Bus Parking Other Walk/Bike Route (sidewalk, shoulder, etc.) North SITE CIRCULATION: Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Students walk and bike to and from Richfield High from neighborhoods on all sides. For those coming from the east, many take the sidewalk or bike lane along W 70th St. In the afternoons, students bike on the sidewalk because there are regularly vehicles waiting in the eastbound bike lane. Students from the south use Harriet Ave to reach the school entrances, interacting with traffic heading to and from the school parking lot. For students heading southeast, there is not another railroad crossing until W 73rd St; though some students use an informal path to cross the tracks at W 72nd St. Some students head west to reach Lyndale Ave for transit stops, or the sidewalk and bike lane connections to the north and south. Others park along W 70th St near Lyndale Field and walk a few blocks to reach their cars. Many students also walk north along Harriet Ave, crossing W 70th St at the edge of school grounds before dispersing to the north. School Buses: School buses drop off and pick up students along Harriet Ave on the west side of school. Special education vehicles use the pick-up and drop-off loop on the east die of the school, entering and exiting on W 70th St. Vehicles: Parents and caregivers drop off and pick up students from the main parking lot on the south side of school, entering and exiting at the same driveway on Harriet Ave. Richfield High SCHOOL CONTEXT:* Richfield High STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS: •The Richfield High student population is predominantly Hispanic/Latino, with smaller subsets of students who are Black or White. Few students are Asian, Multiracial, or American Indian / Alaska Native. •The school’s population of free and reduced-price lunch-eligible students (641 students, or 54.2%) is larger relative to the state of Minnesota (40.3%). •The highest concentration of priority equity areas is located to the south and northeast of Richfield Senior High (map, page 11). •Currently, most Richfield High students arrive to school by bus or family vehicle. About 14% of students said they walked or biked to/from school, according to the SRTS Parent Survey in 2024. •Students must live 2+ miles away to fall in the busing zone. Of the 1,200 students in 2024, 59%, or 733 students were ineligible for busing. *Source: SY 2025 student enrollment data from the Minnesota Department of Education. ENROLLMENT: 1,180 GRADES SERVED: 9-12 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS American Indian / Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White Multiracial 47 (4.0%) 46 (3.9%) 174 (14.7%) 545 (46.1%) 295 (24.9%) 50%75%25% SOCIOECONOMIC STATISTICS Free and Reduced Price Lunch English Learner Experiencing Homelessness Receiving Special Education 641 (54.2%) 230 (19.4%) 11 (0.9%) 152 (12.8%) 75 (6.3%) Page 21 of 124 24 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN RICHFIELD COLLEGE ExPERIENCE PROGRAM | 25 4TH AVE SE 72ND ST PORTLAND AVE LEGEND School Entrance Bicycle Parking Vehicle Circulation Bus Circulation Shared Use Path Vehicle Parking Bus Parking Other Walk/Bike Route (sidewalk, shoulder, etc.) North SITE CIRCULATION: Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Due to the district-wide nature of RCEP, the students who walk or (more-so) bike to school come from a wide ranging area. They are able to park their bikes and enter at the main entrance on the west side of the school. There is a sidewalk on 4th Ave from E 71st St to E 73rd St, with few sidewalks in the surrounding neighborhood. There are a number of students who walk from the surrounding neighborhood to get to a Richfield Public Schools bus stop on the southwest corner of the school grounds. School Buses: School buses drop off and pick up students in the driveway at the front (west) of the school. Vehicles: With the low volume of students at RCEP, parents and caregivers drop off and pick up students from the school driveway, or along 4th Ave. Students who drive can park in the lot north of the school, shared with Hope Presbyterian Church. Richfield RCEP SCHOOL CONTEXT:* Richfield College Experience Program STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS: •The Richfield College Experience Program student population is predominantly Hispanic/Latino, with smaller subsets of students who are Black, White, or American Indian / Alaska Native. Few students are Multiracial or Asian. •The school’s population of free and reduced-price lunch-eligible students (50 students, or 59.5%) is larger relative to the state of Minnesota (40.3%). •The highest concentration of priority equity areas is located to the west and northeast of the Richfield College Experience Program (map, page 11). •Currently, most RCEP students arrive to school by bus or family vehicle. About 11% of students said they walked or biked to/from school, according to student travel tallies from Fall 2024. •Students must live 2+ miles away to fall in the busing zone. Of the 80 students in 2024, 75%, or 60 students were ineligible for busing. *Source: SY 2025 student enrollment data from the Minnesota Department of Education. ENROLLMENT: 80 GRADES SERVED: 9-12 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS American Indian / Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White Multiracial 8 (9.5%) 1 (1.2%) 16 (19.0%) 49 (58.3%) 8 (9.5%) 50%75%25% SOCIOECONOMIC STATISTICS Free and Reduced Price Lunch English Learner Experiencing Homelessness Receiving Special Education 50 (59.5%) 28 (33.3%) 1 (1.2%) 14 (16.7%) 2 (2.4%) Page 22 of 124 26 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN DEVELOPING THE PLAN | 27 Developing the Plan The Richfield SRTS plan was developed based on issues and opportunities identified through stakeholder and community engagement, data evaluation, prior planning, and a site visit including a walk audit and observation of student arrival or dismissal. Richfield’s core SRTS team met regularly throughout the planning process to give feedback at key milestones. The larger SRTS team and stakeholders including Hennepin County, MnDOT, and additional City of Richfield and Richfield Public Schools staff participated in the Rapid Planning Workshop, site visits and Action Planning Workshop. The following sections in this SRTS plan include findings from stakeholder engagement, data analysis, and observations during the site visit. More details, including maps and an in-depth engagement summary, are included in the Appendices. Recommendations are organized into two sections: 1) Infrastructure and 2) Programs. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Community engagement included a survey for caregivers, an interactive engagement website, an in-person engagement event, and the Rapid Planning Workshop. Key takeaways from engagement include: •Many Richfield students live too far away from their school, and have limited options for participating in Safe Routes to School. •Busy streets and intersections were a major barrier for students to walk or bike to/from school. Some of the streets mentioned frequently during engagement included 70th Street, Penn Avenue, Nicollet Avenue and 35W. Caregivers were asked what would help their student walk or bike more often. They identified the following, in order of most to least commonly chosen: •Safer intersections/crossings •A group of students to walk or bike with •An adult to walk or bike with •A shorter distance to walk or bike •Less traffic along the route •Slower car speeds along the route •Better/more sidewalks or pathways •Better snow/ice removal in winter PRIOR PLANNING EFFORTS Richfield has a long history of SRTS and planning for better walking and biking citywide. This SRTS Plan follows a well-received 2014 SRTS Plan. Of 26 recommendations in the 2014 plan, 19 have been achieved and four are in-progress. With the addition of an active SRTS Coordinator, Richfield has celebrated Walk & Roll to School Days, supported Walk! Bike! Fun! education for students starting in 4th grade, and taught bike skills to thousands of Richfield students - among other great SRTS initiatives. In Fall 2023, the Active Transportation Action Plan for the City of Richfield was completed. The plan connected network priorities from the Bicycle Plan (2012), Pedestrian Plan (2018), and engagement efforts to support development of a safe citywide active transportation network. Priority actions and tools are listed in the plan, as well as a priority network map of bike and pedestrian routes, as shown below. In November 2024, a SRTS Design Assistance Study supported by MnDOT was completed for Richfield Public Schools. The study aimed to support the implementation of projects recommended in previous SRTS plans. Technical analysis, conceptual designs, and cost estimates of high priority projects for Sheridan Hills Elementary School, Richfield Middle School, and Richfield High School were included in the study, which are critical in acquiring grant funding and programming to actualize these projects. The Active Transportation Action Plan (2023) and SRTS Design Assistance Study (2024) informed the recommendations made in this SRTS plan. Where recommendations overlap with these prior planning efforts, that is noted alongside the recommendations. Map of the Priority Network of Bike and Pedestrian Routes, included in Richfield’s Active Transportation Action Plan (2023). Page 23 of 124 INTRODUCTION TO INFRASTRUCTURE | 29 INFRASTRUCTURE02. Introduction to Infrastructure Physical changes to the streetscape are essential to making walking, biking, and rolling to school safer and more comfortable. An in-person walk audit and discussions with the Safe Routes to School Team, school and district staff, caregivers, students, community members, and city and county staff informed recommendations to address key barriers to walking and biking around Richfield schools. Recommendations are prioritized on the basis of community and stakeholder input, traffic and roadway conditions, cost, number of students impacted, and benefit to priority populations. This planning process was designed to address historical and contemporary inequities in who benefits from and who is burdened by transportation systems, and equity considerations accordingly played a central role in the prioritization of infrastructure recommendations. Especially in the winter months, improved maintenance and lighting can contribute to improving equitable access to walking and biking routes, even where a sidewalk or path is present. Page 24 of 124 30 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN INTRODUCTION TO INFRASTRUCTURE | 31 WINTER MAINTENANCE For students and community members with disabilities, winter maintenance is key to being able to access sidewalks and trails during snowy months. This is also true for students and families who walk and roll as their primary means of transportation, either because they cannot afford or choose not to own a vehicle, or because other transportation options aren’t accessible to them. Cities can adopt policies that prioritize winter maintenance of existing infrastructure and make it easier for the most vulnerable users of our transportation system – including students – to get around in winter. These policies help to increase transparency and improve reliability for the active transportation network. For example, they can: •Adopt policies that prioritize snow clearing and removal on active transportation facilities. •Prioritize clearing of routes that provide access to transit. •Develop and share information publicly regarding sidewalk and shared use pathway snow clearing and removal practices. •Hold a winter maintenance forum or conduct a survey around specific winter engagement concerns. •Work with schools to establish volunteer groups of residents to clear sidewalks on priority routes to school. LIGHTING AND VISIBILITY Similarly, lighting for people walking and biking is important for both actual and perceived sense of safety and security. In winter climates like Minnesota, where darker days mean school arrival and dismissal can occur in the dark, lighting is especially important for mitigating safety concerns and encouraging active transportation throughout the year. While lighting can sometimes be seen as a costly investment, it is an important step for ensuring equitable access to walking and biking routes. Lighting should be seen as a necessary component of bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements, not seen as a potential add-on or “nice to have.” Communities can consider: •Creating a lighting plan for priority pedestrian routes to install trail or sidewalk lighting over time •Partnerships with or requirements for private development to provide lighting •Incorporating high-visibility safety vests into crossing guard and walking school bus events •Give-aways that help kids access winter gear such as clothing or bike lights Lighting requirements vary by context - consult the Minneapolis Street Guide, the Minneapolis Street Lighting Policy, and/or the MnDOT Road Lighting Manual for guidance. RECOMMENDATIONS OVERVIEW This plan does not represent a comprehensive list of every project that could improve conditions for walking and bicycling in Richfield. Instead, it calls attention to existing key conflict points identified during the planning process and potential improvements. Recommendations range from simple striping changes to more significant dimensional changes to streets, intersections, and school infrastructure. The following areas were identified as difficult for families and students to navigate safely with their students: •Congested areas around school driveways: On Harriet Ave at Richfield High, drivers are impatient from waiting in long queues to turn out of the parking lot, and often make fast turning movements when they finally have a break in traffic. At Sheridan Hills Elementary, drivers queuing to get into the parking lot for pick-up back up into the crosswalk where many families connect to a sidewalk and bike boulevard. •Unprotected bike lanes turn into loading zones. At Richfield High, drivers wait in the bike lane along W 70th St for their students, forcing student bikers onto the sidewalk where there are many people walking. At RDLS and STEM, drivers queue in the bike lane along W 70th, making it tough to navigate by bike. •Busy roadway crossings: At Richfield Middle and Sheridan Hills Elementary, parents, caregivers and community members shared concerns around crossing Penn Ave to reach the school grounds. Traffic volumes and speeds make this corridor uncomfortable for students and caregivers alike. •Lack of sidewalks or bike facilities. Especially close to school grounds, students and families are forced to walk in the street or in people’s lawns to stay clear of vehicles. Key sidewalk additions at Richfield Middle, Centennial Elementary, and RCEP would help people walking and biking feel more comfortable accessing school grounds. The City of Richfield, Richfield Public Schools, Hennepin County, and MnDOT were important partners in developing this plan. Recommendations identified in this plan are not necessarily endorsed by these agencies, but are planning-level concepts that will require additional engineering design. Cost estimates are not included here, but once project design is farther along, MnDOT’s resource Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety is a helpful resource, and can be accessed here: https://edocs-public.dot.state.mn.us/edocs_public/ DMResultSet/download?docId=20072588 Page 25 of 124 INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - CENTENNIAL ELEMENTARY | 33 Infrastructure Recommendations - Centennial Elementary E 75TH ST14TH A V E S E 74TH ST E 72ND ST E 73RD ST BLOOMINGTON AVE SCEDAR AVE SDIAGONAL BLVD 18TH AVE S17TH AVE S16TH AVE S15TH AVE S13TH AVE S12TH AVE SE 75TH ST E 74TH ST E 72ND ST 35W D A B C E North Spot Location Opportunity Richﬁeld Public School Route Opportunity Corridor Opportunity LEGEND Existing Trail Planned Corridor Project FEET0250 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Parents raised concerns about fast-moving traffic and congestion on Bloomington Ave, which can feel hazardous for the parents and students walking along and across the street. This corridor has an existing mix of sharrows and marked shoulder bike lanes, with only sharrows south of Diagonal Blvd. Bloomington Ave is also a key connection for communities south of Centennial, especially equity priority communities along E 77th St. PRIORITY High Agency staff expressed strong support for this recommendation. With many students traveling along and crossing this corridor to reach the school, traffic calming measures would improve safe walking and biking for many families. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? This is a busy intersection during pick-up and drop-off. Drivers turning right onto northbound Bloomington Ave regularly roll through the crosswalk, and extended parent pick-up lines on E 73rd St also create challenging visibility for people crossing the street. There is no east-west sidewalk for pedestrians to access the transit stop on the northwest corner of the intersection, and people walking can easily get lost in all the vehicle activity. PRIORITY Medium Bloomington Ave is a busy corridor that is already used by people walking, biking, and taking transit. This recommendation supports broader traffic calming recommended on this corridor. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield RECOMMENDATION Implement traffic calming measures, especially between E 73rd St and E 74th St, to slow traffic near Centennial Elementary. RECOMMENDATION Add an east-west crossing treatment across Bloomington Ave on the north side of 73rd St to connect the school with an existing Metro Transit bus stop and neighborhoods to the west. A BLOOMINGTON AVE, FROM DIAGONAL BLVD TO E 77TH ST B E 73RD ST & BLOOMINGTON AVE Page 26 of 124 34 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - CENTENNIAL ELEMENTARY | 35 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Parents have expressed concern about the drivers not stopping at stop signs and speeding during and after school hours on this street. This street functions as a school drop-off area with notable student foot traffic, and can feel uncomfortable for students walking around drivers moving quickly. 16th Ave Also provides a connection to Augsburg Montessori School to the north, at Diagonal Blvd. This segment is identified as a Priority Neighborhood Route in the Richfield Active Transportation Plan. PRIORITY Medium As a busy street during pick-up and drop-off, this corridor would benefit from safety recommendations and could become more comfortable for families and students walking and biking. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? This segment is identified as a Priority Neighborhood Route in the Richfield Active Transportation Plan. A pilot demonstration project tested out a potential design in 2024 using temporary materials (paint, bollards) with positive feedback from the community. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield RECOMMENDATION Implement traffic calming measures to make this neighborhood route more comfortable. IMPROVEMENT There is upcoming construction on 73rd St from Bloomington Ave to Cedar Ave, which includes raised crossings across 73rd at Bloomington, 16th, and Cedar; bumpouts along the trail crossings at side streets; and narrowing the road to 28’. C 16TH AVE, BETWEEN DIAGONAL BLVD & E 73RD ST D E 73RD ST, BETWEEN BLOOMINGTON AVE & CEDAR AVE WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? There are no sidewalks along this route, causing students and families to walk in the street. A sidewalk would make it easier and more comfortable for families traveling along this route to reach the school. This segment is identified as a Priority Pedestrian Route in the Richfield Active Transportation Plan and the Pedestrian Master Plan. PRIORITY Low This recommendation was not mentioned by stakeholders as much as other recommendations around Centennial Elementary. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield RECOMMENDATION Add sidewalk on east or west side of 18th Ave. E ROUTE ALONG E 73RD ST & 18TH AVE Page 27 of 124 INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - RICHFIELD STEM ELEMENTARY, RICHFIELD DUAL LANGUAGE SCHOOL | 37 Infrastructure Recommendations - Richfield STEM Elementary, Richfield Dual Language School E 69TH ST E 70TH STE 70TH ST E 71ST STE 71ST ST E 72ND STE 72ND ST E 73RD STE 73RD ST ELLIOT AVEELLIOT AVECHICAGO AVECHICAGO AVECOLUMBUS AVEPARK AVEPARK AVEOAKLAND AVE SOAKLAND AVE S12TH AVE S12TH AVE S13TH AVE S13TH AVE S14TH AVE S14TH AVE S15TH AVE S15TH AVE SBLOOMINGTON AVE SBLOOMINGTON AVE S10TH AVE S10TH AVE S11TH AVE S11TH AVE SH F I J K G H1 H2 North Spot Location Opportunity Planned Corridor Project Richﬁeld Public School Route Opportunity Corridor Opportunity LEGEND FEET0250 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? High traffic volumes and fast-moving vehicles on E 70th St make it uncomfortable for people walking, but there is currently no east-west alternative route with sidewalks. A sidewalk on E 71st St would present a calmer alternative option. PRIORITY Low This route on E 71st St would help students and families approaching from west, as well as members of the broader community. Other recommendations around the school where there are no current alternatives may be more impactful in the short term. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Cars parked on Elliot Ave near these two intersections of E 71st St block the crossing and sightlines, making it uncomfortable for pedestrians to cross and difficult for drivers to spot people walking as they approach the intersection. PRIORITY Medium This recommendation would make these crossings more comfortable and accessible for students and pedestrians. The cost of implementation is relatively low. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield RECOMMENDATION Add a sidewalk on E 71st St from Portland Ave (west of map bounds) to Elliot Ave to create a walking alternative to E 70th St. RECOMMENDATION Implement daylighting (adding paint and bollards to prevent parking too close to the corner) at both intersections of E 71st St and Elliot Ave to improve crossing visibility. F E 71ST ST, BETWEEN PORTLAND AVE & CHICAGO AVE G E 71ST ST & ELLIOT AVE Page 28 of 124 38 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - RICHFIELD STEM ELEMENTARY, RICHFIELD DUAL LANGUAGE SCHOOL | 39 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? There are many busy intersections along E 70th St, and community stakeholders voiced requests for more crossing opportunities, a more comfortable biking facility, and improved visibility along this corridor. A temporary demonstration project (shown here) in 2023 tested elements of the design with paint and bollards, and built community support for the project. Recommendations H1 and H2 are included in this plan to go beyond the upcoming project. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Parents and crossing guards shared that drivers on Elliot Ave will grow impatient while waiting for a crossing gap and drive through the crosswalk without stopping, or make fast turns while kids are trying to get to and from school. If an all-way stop is warranted, it would improve clarity for all roadway users. The upcoming project on E 70th St will improve visibility at this location through curb extensions on the east and west legs of the intersection. PRIORITY High This recommendation would help this location feel safer for students and families approaching the school, and only requires staff time. In addition to the upcoming construction, this is a significant opportunity to improve safe walking and biking facilities. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield IMPROVEMENT An upcoming project on E 70th St includes adding an off-street bike lane on the south side of 70th St between Elliot Ave and 12th Ave, as well as crossing improvements at the intersections of Elliot Ave, 10th Ave, 11th Ave, and 12th Ave. RECOMMENDATION Conduct a stop warrant analysis to see if an all-way stop would be supported here, which would create more crossing gaps and reduce dangerous movements from driver frustration. H CORRIDOR ALONG E 70TH ST, BETWEEN ELLIOT AVE & 12TH AVE H1 E 70TH ST & ELLIOT AVE WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? This busy intersection was raised as a concern while engaging with school families. Parents driving to school sometimes block the intersection, and fast-moving drivers on E 70th St do not always stop for walkers/ bikers, making this an uncomfortable crossing for students and families who are walking or biking. PRIORITY Low Infrastructure changes at this location are expected to greatly improve crossing conditions. This recommendation would be above and beyond the planned project. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield, Richfield Public Schools WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Student drop-off/pick-up on the north side of the building creates driver congestion on E 71st St. An alternative drop-off and pick-up location would help mitigate some of this congestion and feel safer for students who would not have to walk on streets with high traffic volume. These blocks of E 71st St are identified as a Priority Pedestrian Route in the Richfield Active Transportation Plan. Note that additional coordination with the school district will be needed regarding site security if a new access point is added. PRIORITY High Adding an alternative location for drop-off and pick-up would help disperse congestion and driver frustration during peak traffic, reducing safety concerns on E 71st St. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield, Richfield Public Schools IMPROVEMENT / RECOMMENDATION Monitor crossing conditions after the 70th St improvements. If challenges remain, pursue additional safety and comfort improvements, such as additional crossing guard support. RECOMMENDATION Potential location for a drop-and-walk behind the school to reduce congestion on E 70th St, utilizing recently added sidewalk and curb ramps on 71st St. Add landing facilities for a loading zone, and a path from E 71st St to the existing sidewalk near the playground. H2 E 70TH ST & 12TH AVE I E 71ST ST, BETWEEN ELLIOT AVE & 12TH AVE Page 29 of 124 40 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - RICHFIELD STEM ELEMENTARY, RICHFIELD DUAL LANGUAGE SCHOOL | 41 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Many families live in this neighborhood north of the schools, and walk through this intersection. Students and caregivers who live on east side of 12th Ave have no sidewalk or crossing support to connect through the neighborhood to the marked crossings at the school/E 71st St. PRIORITY Low Agency staff supported this project, but it did not get as much support from community engagement as other recommendations. Though this location is low priority, it is a likely route to the Richfield STEM and Dual Language Schools and to Christian Park. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? This location is a challenging crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists due to the high vehicle volume, speeding drivers, and issues with visibility from parked cars obstructing sightlines. Note that as 12th Ave is an existing bike route, bumpouts should consider placement that leaves space for people biking on the shoulder. PRIORITY High This low-cost recommendation would address multiple safety concerns and improve access directly to the school grounds. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield RECOMMENDATION Implement traffic calming measures or crossing enhancements at this intersection, such as (quick build) curb extensions. RECOMMENDATION Add (quick build) bumpouts to calm traffic, increase crossing visibility, and shorten crossing distance across 12th Ave. J E 69TH ST & 12TH AVE K E 71ST ST & 12TH AVE Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 30 of 124 INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - SHERIDAN HILLS ELEMENTARY | 43 Infrastructure Recommendations - Sheridan Hills Elementary L O Q N R S M P W 64TH ST W 65TH ST W 66TH ST W 67TH STTHOMAS AVE SVINCENT AVE SWASHBURN AVE SUPTON AVE SRUSSELL AVE SNEWTON AVE SPENN AVE SOLIVER AVE SSHERIDAN AVE SNorth Spot Location Opportunity Richﬁeld Public School Route Opportunity Corridor Opportunity LEGEND Existing Trail FEET0250 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Parents were concerned about drivers traveling over the speed limit and not appropriately stopping at the stop signs along this corridor. There are currently no crossing guards along this stretch and, for many families, the existing roadway does not feel safe to cross during peak traffic. PRIORITY Medium This corridor is used by school families as well as members of the broader community. Traffic calming measures would positively impact safety for all road users. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? The lack of walking facilities makes it challenging for students to access Sheridan Hills Elementary on the north side of W 64th St. This route was a recommendation in the 2024 MnDOT supported SRTS Design Assistance Work. The City anticipates submitting for SRTS Infrastructure Funding to support the construction of this route. PRIORITY High This recommendation has well developed community and agency support. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield RECOMMENDATION Implement traffic calming measures on this corridor to reduce speeds leading to/from the school. RECOMMENDATION Install a sidewalk connecting the existing sidewalk east of Russell Ave west to Thomas Ave along the north side of W 64th St. L W 64TH ST, BETWEEN XERXES AVE & PENN AVE M W 64TH ST, BETWEEN THOMAS AVE & RUSSELL AVE Page 31 of 124 44 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - SHERIDAN HILLS ELEMENTARY | 45 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Since many drivers use W 64th St and Penn Ave, this intersection is a challenging crossing, with drivers traveling at high speeds and not consistently obeying traffic control. Parents reported not feeling safe letting students walk on their own here without an adult present. As the intersection of two busy roadways, this location would benefit from increased separation between people walking/biking and vehicle traffic. PRIORITY Low The upcoming reconstruction is a significant opportunity to improve walking and biking safety. There is a designated design process for the Penn Avenue reconstruction, separate from this effort. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? Hennepin County, City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Drivers park close to the stop sign at this intersection, creating parent safety concerns about visibility, especially when children are crossing. A raised crosswalk would slow turning drivers, discourage drivers from blocking the crossing, and elevate people walking or biking in the crosswalk for improved visibility. This recommendation was also included in the 2024 MnDOT supported SRTS Design Assistance Work. PRIORITY High School stakeholders flagged this location as high priority for safety improvements. Enhancing visibility at this intersection could improve crossing conditions for many people walking and biking. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield RECOMMENDATION Designate this location as a priority crossing location for the school community in the upcoming Penn Avenue (CSAH 32) reconstruction. RECOMMENDATION Install a raised crosswalk on Thomas Ave and curb extensions on W 65th St. N W 64TH ST & PENN AVE O W 65TH ST & THOMAS AVE WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? There is no sidewalk on the east side of the school, so students walk in the grass between the fence and the street. South of 65th St, there is also a short sidewalk gap that extends to 65 1/2 St, which, if addressed, could connect the school to nearby apartments. This route is a recommendation from the 2024 MnDOT supported SRTS Design Assistance Work. The City anticipates submitting for SRTS Infrastructure Funding to support this project. PRIORITY High School stakeholders supported this recommendation to connect existing sidewalks and address the sidewalk gap to the apartment building. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Drivers queuing for school pickup regularly back up into the intersection and block crosswalks, impeding sightlines and making these crossings uncomfortable for students walking and biking. Improving the visibility of this crossing would make it easier for students and caregivers to walk and bike from the school to the sidewalk and bike route on Sheridan Ave to the south. PRIORITY High School stakeholders called attention to this location to be high priority. Visibility enhancements and advanced warning to drivers would help this crossing feel safer and more comfortable for students walking and biking. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield RECOMMENDATION Install a sidewalk along the west side of Russell Ave. RECOMMENDATION Implement daylighting (adding paint and bollards to prevent parking too close to the corner) at this crossing location. Add advanced warning signage for westbound traffic on W 65th St to improve crossing visibility. P RUSSELL AVE, BETWEEN W 64TH ST & W 65 1/2 ST Q W 65TH ST & SHERIDAN AVE Page 32 of 124 46 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - SHERIDAN HILLS ELEMENTARY | 47 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Though this intersection is signalized and painted, it is still challenging for students, as it requires them to cross five lanes of traffic on their own. PRIORITY Low The upcoming reconstruction is a significant opportunity to improve walking and biking safety. There is a designated design process for the Penn Avenue reconstruction, separate from this effort. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? Hennepin County WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? School community members raised concerns around speeding cars on Penn Ave, especially since students coming from the east side have to cross the roadway to access the school. Traffic calming measures would help to make crossings feel safer and more comfortable for those walking and biking. This corridor is also widely used by the broader Richfield community, and was identified as a Priority Arterial Route in the Richfield Active Transportation Plan. PRIORITY Medium As a busy street used by school families and the broader community, this corridor would benefit significantly from safety improvements. There is a designated design process for the Penn Avenue reconstruction, separate from this effort. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? Hennepin County, City of Richfield RECOMMENDATION Designate this intersection as a priority crossing location for the school community in the upcoming Penn Avenue reconstruction (CSAH 32). RECOMMENDATION Prioritize traffic calming to reduce speeds in the upcoming Penn Avenue reconstruction. R W 66TH AVE & PENN AVE S CORRIDOR ALONG PENN AVE Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 33 of 124 INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - RICHFIELD MIDDLE | 49 Infrastructure Recommendations - Richfield Middle Y AA AB AC Z W AD T AE U S X V W 75TH STKNOX AVE SJAMES AVE SLOGAN AVE SW 73RD ST MORGAN AVE SNEWTON AVE SPENN AVE SLOGAN AVE SMORGAN AVE SNEWTON AVE SOLIVER AVE SPENN AVE SW 76TH ST 35W North Spot Location Opportunity Existing Trail Route Opportunity Corridor Opportunity LEGEND Richﬁeld Public School FEET0250 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? School community members raised concerns around speeding cars on Penn Ave, especially since students coming from the east side have to cross the roadway to access the school. Traffic calming measures would help to make crossings feel safer and more comfortable for those walking and biking. This corridor is also widely used by the broader Richfield community, and was identified as a Priority Arterial Route in the Richfield Active Transportation Plan. PRIORITY Medium As a busy street used by school families and the broader community, this corridor would benefit significantly from safety improvements. There is a designated design process for the Penn Avenue reconstruction, separate from this effort. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? Hennepin County, City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Drivers move quickly down Humboldt Ave, making the crossing at the pedestrian bridge over I-35W uncomfortable, especially for students. This recommendation would slow traffic, reduce crossing distances, and improve crossing visibility, making it more comfortable for students walking to school. This freeway crossing was marked as Needs Improvement in the Richfield Active Transportation Plan because of accessibility challenges, but it still serves as an important connection in its current state. PRIORITY Low Since it is a long-term opportunity, other recommendations may be more helpful for the school to prioritize. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? MnDOT, City of Richfield RECOMMENDATION Prioritize traffic calming to reduce speeds in the upcoming Penn Avenue reconstruction. RECOMMENDATION Improve the crossing at the pedestrian bridge with markings and (quick build) bumpouts. S CORRIDOR ALONG PENN AVE T W 73RD ST & HWY 35W PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE Page 34 of 124 50 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - RICHFIELD MIDDLE | 51 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? There is a sidewalk gap on W 74th St from the northwest corner of Richfield Middle to Penn Ave, a street that many students living to the west use to travel to and from school. This recommendation was also included in the 2024 MnDOT supported SRTS Design Assistance Work. PRIORITY Medium Bridging this sidewalk gap would help students approach the school from the west and make the route safer for those walking and biking. There are coordination needs and costs associated with new sidewalk. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? There is currently no marked crosswalk across Oliver Ave from 74th St, which makes the crossing challenging for students approaching the school from the west side. PRIORITY High This location is a key crossing for students approaching the school from the west and can support other recommendations around the school. The short-term recommendation can be implemented with low-cost materials. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield RECOMMENDATION Install a sidewalk along the south side of W 74th St. RECOMMENDATION Add a marked school crosswalk across Oliver Ave to connect with the school grounds; in the short-term including paint, in the long-term including accessible curb ramps at the new sidewalk on Oliver Ave (Recommendation X). U W 74TH ST, BETWEEN PENN AVE & OLIVER AVE V W 74TH ST & OLIVER AVE WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? This route through Donaldson Park could provide an easy walking or biking route for students living in neighborhoods north of the school. However, there are currently no trails connecting to the school directly and the school has a fence preventing trail access, requiring students to come south to W 75th to reach the school entrance. PRIORITY Low This recommendation is a lower priority as there are existing walking facilities along this route. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? Richfield Public Schools WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? There is no sidewalk on the west side of Oliver Ave, despite the presence of high-density housing. Students living in these units directly west of the school have to walk through parking lots to get to school, as there is no dedicated walking infrastructure and the street can be very congested during arrival and dismissal times. PRIORITY Medium This recommendation would directly serve equity priority communities and support other safety improvements included in this plan. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield RECOMMENDATION Continue to pursue opportunities to directly connect paths in Donaldson Park to the school grounds and entrance. RECOMMENDATION In the medium to long-term, add a sidewalk on the west side of Oliver Ave, prioritizing the gap from W 74th St to W 75th St. Conduct a study to assess the feasibility of converting this section of Oliver Ave into a one-way roadway, or a school street. W ROUTE ALONG LOGAN AVE THROUGH DONALDSON PARK X OLIVER AVE, BETWEEN W 73RD ST & W 76TH ST Page 35 of 124 52 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - RICHFIELD MIDDLE | 53 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Many students cross mid-block at this location to get to the apartments across the street from the school. There is no pedestrian infrastructure on the west side currently, but there is a sidewalk leading from the west school exit and sidewalk on the east side of Oliver Ave. PRIORITY High School stakeholders designated this recommendation as a high priority location due to the high volume of students who informally cross here already. This location was also noted as an equity opportunity during the SRTS team walk audits. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Students walk through the parking lot to get to waiting cars on W 75th St and neighborhood streets, which can feel hectic and stressful for people walking and driving during arrival and dismissal. Walking facilities that students can take around the parking lot would help to separate pedestrians and drivers, which can result in more predictable (safer) travel behavior. PRIORITY Low This recommendation would help organize and make pedestrian behavior more predictable during pick-up and drop-off intervals, but was not a high priority for school stakeholders. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? Richfield Public Schools RECOMMENDATION Formalize a mid-block crosswalk at the school sidewalk to provide more visibility around what is already an informal crossing location; In the long-term, add curb ramps to connect with the potential future west-side sidewalk (Recommendation X). RECOMMENDATION Explore options to improve the existing walking routes out of the school, such as improving directional signage or incorporating student art. Y MIDBLOCK ON OLIVER AVE, AT SCHOOL ENTRANCE SIDEWALK Z RICHFIELD MIDDLE SCHOOL PARKING LOT WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Drivers regularly encroach on the crosswalk/trail crossing, causing visibility concerns around the waiting vehicles. A raised crosswalk would improve visibility of the crossing and encourage better queuing behavior from drivers. This recommendation was also included in the 2024 MnDOT supported SRTS Design Assistance Work PRIORITY High This improvement has the potential to improve crossing conditions for a large number of people, as this intersection is used heavily by students, caregivers and community members. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield, Three Rivers Park District WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Parent pick-up lines queue over the trail, impeding pedestrian crossings and visibility for both drivers and pedestrians. Having a more clear separation between cars and pedestrians would improve sightlines and make travel behavior more predictable and safe. PRIORITY Medium School stakeholders expressed interest in demonstration projects and artistic collaborations for crosswalks here, especially as a busy location where people walking, biking and driving overlap. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield, Richfield Public Schools, Three Rivers Park District RECOMMENDATION In the short term, add quick build daylighting (adding paint and bollards to prevent parking too close to the corner) around the existing marked crossing. In the medium term, add a raised crossing in place of the existing marked crossing. RECOMMENDATION Improve visibility of the trail crossing in the school driveways through artistic crosswalks, bollards, in-road signage, or other treatments; Explore communication and awareness campaigns aimed at parent/caregiver behavior and education. AA W 75TH ST & OLIVER AVE AB W 75TH ST & RICHFIELD MIDDLE PARKING LOT ENTRANCE Page 36 of 124 54 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - RICHFIELD MIDDLE | 55 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Parents and caregivers park in the no-parking zones on W 75th St (north side east of Newton Ave) while waiting to pick up their students. Parked vehicles here obstruct visibility for people walking and biking trying to cross W 75th St, making it challenging to cross safely. PRIORITY Low Improvements could be implemented at a relatively low cost. This recommendation was not mentioned as much as other locations for improvement around Richfield Middle. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield, Richfield Public Schools WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? The Richfield Middle entrance/parking lot on W 75th St can become congested during arrival and dismissal, causing parents to park in no-parking zones which impedes visibility and exacerbates unpredictable crossing behaviors from walking and biking students. A designated drop-and-walk location can help reduce this congestion and make these areas safer during pick-up and drop-off times. PRIORITY Medium This low-cost recommendation would help improve safety for all road users. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? Richfield Public Schools RECOMMENDATION Explore a combination of signage and programming to reduce unwanted parking along W 75th St. RECOMMENDATION Incorporate a drop and walk program to reduce congestion around the school entrance, including parking on W 75th St. AC W 75TH ST & NEWTON AVE AD DONALDSON PARK PARKING LOT, OFF W 75TH ST WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Stakeholders noted that this location is a challenging intersection. Drivers are moving quickly coming off the interstate and not used to looking for people walking or biking. There was additional signage added in winter 2025 to enforce “no turn on red” restrictions, but many drivers do not obey this policy. PRIORITY Low School stakeholders and parents called attention to this location as a barrier for people walking and biking. This recommendation would be a high coordination improvement. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? MnDOT RECOMMENDATION Implement treatments to improve visibility of people walking and biking, slow vehicles, and encourage yielding compliance. Explore options including signal adjustments to prioritize walking/biking movements, stop bars, stronger signage, or narrowing the turning radii. AE W 76TH ST & I-35W EXIT RAMP(S) Page 37 of 124 INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - RICHFIELD HIGH | 57 Infrastructure Recommendations - Richfield High PLEASANT AVEHARRIET AVEW 70TH ST W 72ND ST W 71ST ST GARFIELD AVE SGRAND AVE SPLEASANT AVEPILLSBURY AVEWENTWORTH AVE SBLAISDELL AVE SNICOLLET AVE1ST AVE SW 71ST ST W 72ND ST W 73RD STPILLSBURY AVEWENTWORTH AVE SBLAISDELL AVE SHARRIET AVEGRAND AVE SLYNDALE AVE SAF AI AG AL AM AJ AH AK North Spot Location Opportunity Richﬁeld Public School Route Opportunity Corridor Opportunity LEGEND Existing Trail FEET0250 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Students and parents/caregivers park at this location for pick-up, yet students crossing at W 70th St and Harriet Ave walk in the street to reach their vehicles or the park, which can feel uncomfortable with heavy traffic on W 70th St. This recommendation was also included in the 2024 MnDOT supported SRTS Design Assistance Work PRIORITY Low School stakeholders did not highlight this corridor as high priority during this planning process, compared to other recommendations. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Drivers regularly park in the eastbound bike lane to pick up students, forcing students on bikes to ride on the sidewalk. This creates conflict between people walking on the sidewalk and those biking, as well as between students biking the wrong way in the westbound bike lane. Adding separation through bollards in the existing buffer space would ensure that people biking can access an unobstructed bike lane. This separated bikeway recommendation was also included in the 2024 MnDOT supported SRTS Design Assistance Work PRIORITY High This recommendation had stakeholder support, and would help separate different modes of travel, making it safer for all road users to use. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield RECOMMENDATION Add a sidewalk on the north side of 70th St between Harriet Ave and Lyndale Ave to connect the school and park/parking. RECOMMENDATION In the short term, add bollards to existing bike lanes along W 70th St. In the long term, install sidewalk-level, one- way separated bikeways along W 70th St. AF W 70TH ST, BETWEEN LYNDALE AVE & HARRIET AVE AG W 70TH ST, BETWEEN HARRIET AVE & PLEASANT AVE Page 38 of 124 58 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - RICHFIELD HIGH | 59 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Caregivers park along Harriet Ave in the no-parking zone during pick-up, and students cross mid-block (through bus loading) to reach them. This unpredictable crossing behavior creates a risky situation for drivers, pedestrians, and the many bicyclists who use Harriet Ave. This recommendation was also included in the 2024 MnDOT supported SRTS Design Assistance Work. PRIORITY High The SRTS team designated this corridor as a high-priority recommendation, as many pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers would benefit from safety improvements this close to the school entrance. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Drivers turn out of the parking lot without stopping after waiting in long queues, which creates uncomfortable crossings for students walking. More visible crossing infrastructure would improve yielding behavior and remind drivers to look for people crossing. PRIORITY High School stakeholders raised many concerns about this location due to the high volume people who pass through here, and agreed that the location should be a high priority for improvements. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield, Richfield Public Schools RECOMMENDATION Install a raised crosswalk on Harriet Ave at W 71st St and chicanes on Harriet Ave. RECOMMENDATION Explore pedestrian visibility improvements and traffic calming at the driveway exit, such as adding bollards between the inbound and outbound lanes, adding a raised crosswalk across the driveway, or installing artistic crosswalks. AH HARRIET AVE, BETWEEN W 70TH ST & W 72ND ST AI ENTRANCE/EXIT TO RICHFIELD HIGH PARKING LOT, ON HARRIET AVE WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? The railroad and a lack of sidewalk create an interrupted network to school, deterring some students from walking. Adding sidewalks along the railroad and W 72nd St would provide more accessible, direct access for students and community members walking from the east and south, making use of an existing railroad crossing. This recommendation was also included in the 2024 MnDOT supported SRTS Design Assistance Work. PRIORITY Medium The SRTS team expressed much interest in making the connection across the railroad accessible, as many students could use this corridor to approach the school from the east and south side. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? This intersection is difficult to cross for multiple reasons. Fast-moving cars, a diagonal crossing to connect sidewalk segments that switch sides, and drivers not yielding to pedestrians/bikes/other drivers make crossing at this location feel stressful. Shortening the crossing distances, slowing vehicle turning speeds, and improving pedestrian visibility would help this crossing feel safer. PRIORITY High With the listed safety issues, this intersection could benefit significantly from safety improvements. A large number of school community members would feel positive impacts of investment here. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield RECOMMENDATION Install sidewalk along the north side of W 72nd St (including an at-grade railroad crossing in the long-term), and sidewalk along the east side of the railroad from W 72nd St to the school. RECOMMENDATION Explore short and long-term opportunities to narrow crossing distances, improve visibility for pedestrians, and improve accessibility of the existing crossing. Potential improvements range from quick build bollard and painted curb extensions, to raised crossings. AJ W 72ND ST, GRAND AVE TO BLAISDELL AVE, AND W 72ND TO SCHOOL AK W 72ND ST & HARRIET AVE Page 39 of 124 60 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - RICHFIELD HIGH | 61 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? This is a popular intersection as it leads to the library, community center, high school, and Augsburg Park, but there are currently no measures to alert drivers to the crosswalk. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? Hennepin County, City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Many students use W 73rd St to walk or bike to school as it currently has the closest railroad crossing to the high school when coming from the southeast. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? Hennepin County, City of Richfield IMPROVEMENT Hennepin County is currently in final design for the Nicollet Avenue reconstruction (66th St to 77th St) in 2026; this crossing has been identified for a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) to improve pedestrian visibility. IMPROVEMENT Hennepin County is currently in final design for the Nicollet Avenue reconstruction (66th St to 77th St) in 2026; this intersection will be a compact roundabout with marked crosswalks and signage. AL W 72ND ST & NICOLLET AVE AM W 73RD ST & NICOLLET AVE Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 40 of 124 INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - RICHFIELD COLLEGE ExPERIENCE PROGRAM | 63 Infrastructure Recommendations - Richfield College Experience Program AN AO 4TH AVE SE 73RD ST E 72ND ST E 71ST S PORTLAND AVEOAKLAND AVE SPARK AVE SCOLUMBUS AVE SCLINTON AVE3RD AVE S2ND AVE S5TH AVE SNorth Spot Location Opportunity Existing Trail Corridor Opportunity LEGEND Richﬁeld Public School FEET0250 WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? There is a sidewalk gap between E 70th St and E 71st St on the east side, which can be a barrier to walking for students approaching RCEP from the north. Bridging this sidewalk gap would make it safer for students approaching from the north to reach the school. This suggested corridor is also identified as a Priority Pedestrian Route in the Richfield Active Transportation Plan and the Pedestrian Master Plan. PRIORITY Low With the low number of students walking or biking to RCEP, the potential benefit is smaller than other recommendations in this plan. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Though this school bus stop is not an RCEP-specific facility, it is used by 10+ students currently, with minimal existing infrastructure for them to access it. PRIORITY Low With the low number of students walking or biking, the potential benefit is smaller than other recommendations in this plan. WHO WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN? City of Richfield, Richfield Public Schools RECOMMENDATION Add a sidewalk on the east side of 4th Ave between 70th St and 71st St. RECOMMENDATION Explore better waiting infrastructure for students using this school bus stop. AN CORRIDOR ALONG 4TH AVE, NORTH OF E 71ST ST AO BUS STOP AT 4TH AVE & SCHOOL DRIVEWAY EXIT Page 41 of 124 INTRODUCTION TO PROGRAMS | 65 Introduction to Programs Programs are opportunities to increase awareness, understanding, and excitement around walking, biking, and rolling to school. Building on the solid history of SRTS work in Richfield, the planning team identified three goals to guide future program efforts: 1. Ensure the sustainability of SRTS efforts 2. Build culture and community around walking and biking to school 3. Maintain strong bike education The following section provides a number of program ideas that may be chosen and tailored to each school in the district, based on an individual school’s need. The goals above should provide guidance as school, city, and community partners identify appropriate programs for implementation, with strategic direction from the district SRTS Coordinator. PROGRAMS03. Programs are focused on educating students, families, and the broader community about walking and biking. Programs also help to build a culture that supports and normalizes walking and biking to school and other destinations. Because programs are low cost and can often be implemented quickly by an individual school or the school district, they represent an important Safe Routes to School strategy that complements longer- term strategies, including infrastructure improvements and policy changes. Page 42 of 124 66 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS | 67 EXISTING PROGRAMS Richfield has strong foundation of SRTS programs, both district-wide and school-specific. By building on these existing programs with new or expanded efforts, Richfield can extend the reach of SRTS to more students in more ways. Active or previously implemented programs include: •A school district-wide bike fleet •Walk! Bike! Fun! trainings for classroom educators and volunteers, maintenance for students and educators •Encouragement days, including Walk and Bike to School days at the elementary schools, and Winter Walk to School Days •Richfield Safety Camp and traffic garden pop-ups over the summer •Social workers distributing lights, gloves, locks, and helmets for students with identified barriers PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS Conversations with school and district staff, caregivers, students, community members, and City and County staff led to the following program recommendations. Programs were identified to meet the needs, capacities, and interests of the community and were prioritized based on existing programs, input from local stakeholders, the extent to which the program would serve priority equity populations, and the readiness of the school to launch the program. All of these programs support at least one of Richfield’s Program goals, as shown here. 1. Ensure the sustainability of SRTS efforts: •Caregiver workshops •Policies to dissuade personal car trips •SRTS Coordinator position •Traffic garden/bike park Program Recommendations 2. Build culture and community around walking and biking to school: •Crossing guard program •Caregiver workshops •Drop and walk •Encouragement rides •Promote health message •School streets •Suggested route maps •Traffic garden/bike park •Walking school bus or bike train 3. Maintain strong bike education: •Continue existing bike education efforts •Bike in physical education class •Free Bikes 4 Kidz partnership •On-site bike maintenance EQUITABLE IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS Each of the recommended programs can be implemented to benefit priority populations. In some cases, programs are inherently beneficial, but other times they require intentional thought to make sure they are implemented equitably and reach students who could benefit the most from them. When working to start a new or update an old program, school staff and partners should ask themselves: •Who could benefit the most from this program? •Are there any barriers to participating in this program, including cultural, social, or financial? •Are there any school resources that can help reduce barriers to participation? •Are there community partners who could help us spread the word about this program, or help make it more effective? After an event, it is also important to think about what went well and what could be improved in the future. Helpful questions to consider include: •Is this a one-off program, or is there a way to provide ongoing support for it? •Were any student or family groups absent? Is there something that could help them participate in the future? •What did students think of the event? Families? Staff? Taking a few minutes before and after an event to check in on these questions can make a big difference in building a culture of walking and biking that is accessible to all students and families. Page 43 of 124 68 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS | 69 CROSSING GUARD PROGRAM Crossing guards are trained adults, paid or volunteer, who are legally empowered to stop traffic to assist students with crossing the street. Student crossing guards (also called student patrols) can also be used at corners after they have received safety training from a certified youth crossing guard trainer. When, where, and how will this be implemented? At intersections of concern, explore opportunities to expand use of adult crossing guards. The position could be augmented by an existing part-time school staff position, public safety staff, or supported with new, creative funding solutions. Why is this relevant and recommended? Families are concerned about crossing safety near schools. Crossing guards can help address the safety concern while long-term infrastructure improvements are designed and implemented. How will this address transportation inequities? Crossing guards would improve access between schools and busier roads, providing more peace-of-mind for parents with inflexible work schedules who rely on their students to get themselves to/from school. How will this be evaluated? Annual caregiver survey. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School staff, City of Richfield. What is the timeline for implementation? Short term (1 year). CAREGIVER WORKSHOPS Providing caregiver workshops can supply parents and comminity members with the tools, information and resources they need to feel confident sending their students to school by bike or foot. When, where, and how will this be implemented? Identify community partners, such as City departments or cultural organizations, to host workshops with the school’s SRTS Coordinator. Summer workshops would prepare families for back-to-school walking and biking, and take advantage of SRTS Coordinator capacity. Content can be tailored to each community’s need, and pull from recent trauma-informed SRTS work. Why is this relevant and recommended? Many parents were enthusiastic about Safe Routes to School, but didn’t know where to start with their student. How will this address transportation inequities? Workshops, especially in partnership with cultural organizations and those focused on English Language Learners and families new to Richfield, can provide culturally relevant support for walking and biking safely. How will this be evaluated? Student and caregiver participation counts. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School staff, Bike MN, community partners. What is the timeline for implementation? Short term (1 year). BIKE IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION CLASS Some students do not know how to ride a bike yet, or may not be confident in maneuvering on their neighborhood streets. Having bike instruction in physical education class provides convenient empowerment for those who do not know how to bike yet. When, where, and how will this be implemented? School staff can partner with Bike MN to implement bike education that meets evolving MN curriculum standards. Why is this relevant and recommended? Some students may not know how to access bike education resources in their community. Implementing bike education in physical education class teaches them traffic rules and regulations, the potential hazards of traveling, and the skills needed to bike safely through their community, instead of relying on students and caregivers to seek bike education independently. How will this address transportation inequities? In-school curriculum provides all students an opportunity to engage with biking safety, regardless of the resources available to them outside of school. How will this be evaluated? Student participation counts. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School staff, Bike MN. What is the timeline for implementation? Medium term (2-3 years). DROP AND WALK During a drop-and-walk event (also called park and walk) bus drivers and caregivers drop students at a designated off-campus location and students walk to school from there. Remote drop-off events can help reduce congestion on campus and provide students who live further from school with an opportunity to walk. When, where, and how will this be implemented? School communications can encourage families driving to school to drop students at a central location. For example, parks and green spaces near schools may be utilized for a drop-and-walk. Why is this relevant and recommended? Walking on the way to school provides students an opportunity to start their day with activity and spend time in green space. Using more dispersed drop-off areas would also reduce the number of cars adding to congestion and safety concerns closer to school. How will this address transportation inequities? This program will promote walking and allow all students to participate in SRTS, even if they ride the bus. How will this be evaluated? Annual caregiver survey. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? Students, School staff, crossing guards, parent volunteers. What is the timeline for implementation? Short term (1 year). Page 44 of 124 70 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS | 71 ON-SITE BIKE MAINTENANCE Not having the proper tools, supplies, or knowledge to repair a bicycle can be a significant barrier for students. Partnering with community organizations to provide maintenance tools and help fix bicycles in poor condition is a way to grow student access to active transportation. When, where, and how will this be implemented? PTO or school/district staff could partner with community organizations such as Bike MN or local bike shops to provide subsidized maintenance tools and workshops. Why is this relevant and recommended? Bringing existing bicycles up to a rideable condition makes riding to school feasible when it otherwise wasn’t. These partnerships can also grow enthusiasm for biking to school among students and families. How will this address transportation inequities? Access to bicycle maintenance tools can be a financial or cultural barrier for many families. Students with limited resources would benefit from outside support to repair and upkeep a reliable bicycle. How will this be evaluated? Number of bicycles provided or repaired. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School/district staff, parents/PTO, community partners. What is the timeline for implementation? Short term (1 year). ENCOURAGEMENT DAYS National Walk and Bike to School Days engage millions of students and families every October and May. Minnesota also celebrates Winter Walk to School Day in February. Additional education and encouragement programming can increase awareness and expand participation. Events can also take place more frequently (e.g., Walking Wednesdays) if there is interest and capacity. When, where, and how will this be implemented? In October, February, and May to start, adults or secondary school students can lead walking or biking groups along pre-identified routes. MnDOT provides materials and contests to promote the events. Why is this relevant and recommended? These events build enthusiasm for walking and biking, and help families try out new transportation options/routines. How will this address transportation inequities? Coordinated events can make walking and biking accessible to students disproportionately impacted by unsafe crossings. How will this be evaluated? Participation, student survey/caregiver survey Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School staff, students, parents. What is the timeline for implementation? Short term (1 year) FREE BIKES 4 KIDZ Not owning or having access to a bicycle can deter a child from biking regularly to school or even biking at all. Free Bikes 4 Kidz MN is a non-profit organization that organizes volunteers to refurbish donated bicycles and gives them away to kids who need them, so that every child can have the privilege of riding a bike. When, where, and how will this be implemented? School staff can get involved with Free Bikes 4 Kidz MN and request bikes on behalf of the students. FB4K staff will then coordinate next steps about selecting and picking up bikes for school staff to distribute. Why is this relevant and recommended? Providing access to bicycles can help students overcome one of the main barriers to biking regularly to school, which is bike ownership. How will this address transportation inequities? Access to a bicycle can be a financial or cultural barrier for many families. Students with limited resources would benefit from outside support to access a reliable bicycle. How will this be evaluated? Number of bicycles provided or repaired. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? Free Bikes 4 Kidz MN, local bike shops, school staff, Richfield Police Department. What is the timeline for implementation? Short term (1 year). POLICIES TO DISSUADE PERSONAL CAR TRIPS Integrating policies to dissuade personal car trips can reduce the volume of cars that drive around schools during pick-up and drop-off times, which currently pose a risk to student safety, especially those walking and biking. Parking fees, fewer parking spaces, and less convenience and preferential treatment for drivers can convince some families to reconsider driving to school. When, where, and how will this be implemented? School staff can work with the Richfield High Green Team to decide on policies to implement, and communicate them to parents via school communication channels. Why is this relevant and recommended? Many parents rely on car trips to transport their children to school, but the volume of cars overflows into walk/bike routes and poses a risk to student safety. How will this address transportation inequities? This will support safety for children who walk and bike to school because a parent cannot drive them. How will this be evaluated? Annual caregiver survey on transportation preferences. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School staff, Richfield High Green Team. What is the timeline for implementation? Medium term (2-3 years) Page 45 of 124 72 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS | 73 PROMOTE HEALTH MESSAGE A coordinated community education campaign to promote the wellness benefits of biking and walking can help educate students and parents about active transportation’s health benefits. Planning schedule of campaign activities to happen throughout the school year can build awareness and enthusiasm for walking and biking. When, where, and how will this be implemented? A health campaign can begin any time that there are staff resources to organize events and materials. Communications can be built into existing school and community channels used to reach parents. Why is this relevant and recommended? Education on the health message of biking seems to have dropped among Latino families, based on the results of the SRTS Richfield engagement survey. Promoting the health incentive can build enthusiasm for families who may not otherwise try biking or walking. How will this address transportation inequities? This program could be implemented to address barriers of concern for specifically Latino families as a priority populations. How will this be evaluated? Annual caregiver survey on transportation preferences. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School staff, Bike MN, culturally specific community partners. What is the timeline for implementation? Medium term (2-3 years). SRTS COORDINATOR POSITION A SRTS Coordinator, generally employed by the school district, serves as a point person between the many school, agency, and community partners involved in SRTS. Richfield has had a SRTS Coordinator for years, helping to support successful implementation of SRTS programs, including the district’s traveling bike fleet. When, where, and how will this be implemented? Continue to fund a SRTS Coordinator position, potentially with funding support from MnDOT. Why is this relevant and recommended? Having a SRTS Coordinator to serve as point person between the many elements of SRTS planning and programming is vital to having a long-term, successful SRTS program. How will this address transportation inequities? SRTS coordinators are able to build long-term relationships with community partners, developing understanding to help support communities with the highest transportation burdens. How will this be evaluated? Retention of a SRTS Coordinator position. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School staff. What is the timeline for implementation? Medium term (2-3 years) SCHOOL STREETS School Streets are temporary car-free zones adjacent to or leading up to a school that are strategically closed to vehicle traffic and opened to students walking, biking, and rolling. School Streets help manage traffic and improve safety during school arrival and dismissal by eliminating vehicle congestion in front of schools and creating an environment where students can safely walk, bike, roll, play and learn before, during, and after school. When, where, and how will this be implemented? The MnDOT school streets guide has helpful information for planning a school street. The best candidate locations for school streets are at schools with a grid street pattern, with alternative ways to drive around the area. Why is this relevant and recommended? School streets eliminate through traffic along this portion of the school and create a new space for students to engage in physical activity before and after school. How will this address transportation inequities? A School Street provides additional space for recreation for all students. This provides recreation time for students who do not have an opportunity to walk or bike to school. How will this be evaluated? Student participation counts. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? Students, school staff, and parents/community members. What is the timeline for implementation? Medium term (2-3 years). SUGGESTED ROUTE MAPS Route maps show signs, signals, crosswalks, sidewalks, paths, crossing guard locations, and hazardous locations around a school. They identify the best way to walk or bike to school. A well-defined route should provide the greatest physical separation between students and traffic, expose students to the lowest traffic speeds, and use the fewest and safest crossings. When, where, and how will this be implemented? Richfield has existing route maps for the schools in this plan (excluding RCEP), updated in 2023. The map can be easily updated in the future and could include winter maintenance responsibilities. School and city staff can continue to improve the distribution of these maps to students and families. Why is this relevant and recommended? Particularly when there are major barriers, route maps can help to guide students along relatively safe routes and to navigate difficult crossings safely. Adding winter maintenance info helps community members contact the correct partner when there are issues or questions. How will this address transportation inequities? This program can provide families with a shared baseline understanding of walking conditions, even if they do not feel confident in that knowledge on their own. How will this be evaluated? Annual caregiver survey on transportation preferences. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School district and City staff, MnDOT/SHIP. What is the timeline for implementation? Short term (1 year). Page 46 of 124 74 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS | 75 TRAFFIC GARDEN / BIKE PARK A traffic garden is a permanent installation of a miniature street pattern that provides a riding circuit demonstrating a variety of roadway scenarios. Bike parks usually consist of one or more of the following: bicycle playgrounds, pump tracks, jump lines, skills courses, or trails. When, where, and how will this be implemented? An underutilized corner of pavement in a parking lot or edge of the playground could be transformed into a traffic garden with paint. Funding may be available from a MnDOT grant, and installation could involve volunteers. Students could be involved in the design. Why is this relevant and recommended? A designated space on school grounds would provide opportunities for students to incorporate walking and biking into the school day, either during recess, during PE classes, or as a break at other times. How will this address transportation inequities? Incorporating walking and biking into the school day, especially if a bike fleet is available, can provide opportunities for students who live farther from school. How will this be evaluated? Number of classes, trainings or events that use the space. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? School/district staff, MnDOT/SHIP, volunteers What is the timeline for implementation? Medium term (2-3 years). WALKING SCHOOL BUS AND BIKE TRAIN A Walking School Bus or Bike Train is a group of children walking or bicycling to school with one or more adults. Parents, caregivers, or even older students can take turns leading the group, which follows the same route every time and picks up children from their homes or bus stops at designated times. When, where, and how will this be implemented? Parents or caregivers of students who already walk or bike to school can organize along their current route. School staff can share materials with families to help jump-start the initiative. Families along a route can use Whatsapp chat groups to share status updates on their student’s way to school. Why is this relevant and recommended? These groups build enthusiasm for walking and biking, and help parents and caregivers feel more confident in their student’s safety getting to school. How will this address transportation inequities? These groups help parents or caregivers who have inflexible work schedules, such as shift work, feel confident that their student can get to school safely. How will this be evaluated? Student participation counts. Who needs to be involved to make this happen? Students, parents/caregivers, and school staff. What is the timeline for implementation? Medium term (2 years). Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 47 of 124 76 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN ACTION STEPS | 77 Action Steps This plan provides two critical ingredients for creating a more equitable transportation system around Richfield schools: prioritized sets of infrastructure and program recommendations. To make these recommendations a reality, all members of the Richfield community can play a role. The following text provides ideas for where to start. WORKING FOR CHANGE 04. PRIORITY SRTS INITIATIVES •Traffic calming and crossing improvements on Harriet Ave •Safety improvements at key crossings on Oliver Ave •Traffic calming measures on Penn Ave •Quick build crossing and visibility improvements near school entrances •Key program opportunities that build on existing Richfield Public Schools and City efforts to make walking and biking more comfortable and accessible for students Page 48 of 124 78 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN ACTION STEPS | 79 DEMONSTRATION PROJECT EXAMPLES Demonstration projects can take many forms, with a few examples shown here. In previous SRTS efforts, communities have installed a shared use path on the street where there are no sidewalks (top left image, below), curb extensions at wide and uncomfortable intersections (top right and bottom), and a number of other creative solutions. Demonstration projects are typically installed in the spring or fall to leave enough time to observe their impacts before winter arrives. In some cases, a community may be specifically interested in a component of winter maintenance and may design the project to stay in place through the winter. IMPLEMENTING INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS Before investing in a long-term infrastructure change, cities and partners may implement a demonstration project to test out an idea. These temporary projects are quick, have a relatively low installation cost, and build support for a long-term permanent change. Demonstration projects can also help engineers and designers make sure that design details are worked out before any new concrete is installed, such as making sure school buses have enough room to turn. Demonstration projects can also be paired with programming or educational events to encourage additional behavior change. For example, new curb extensions may be paired with a crossing guard to bring additional attention to tricky crossing locations. Or a school may organize a Walk or Bike to School Day after installing a demonstration project to encourage students and families to try out the new infrastructure. This raised crosswalk connects to a school entrance and slows traffic on the adjacent road. A demonstration project can include multiple components. The project shown here includes curb extensions and an on- street walking lane where there is currently a sidewalk gap. Page 49 of 124 80 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN ACTION STEPS | 81 TAKING COMMUNITY ACTION A more equitable transportation system that prioritizes safe, comfortable, and fun opportunities to walk, bike, and roll benefits everyone. While this plan is focused on addressing connections to schools, many improvements will benefit people with no relationship to the schools because we all share the same streets, sidewalks, and trails. Likewise, many needed changes, such as reducing speed limits and normalizing walking and biking, extend far beyond the school system. Your number one role as a community member is to advocate for changes that make walking, biking, and rolling safer, more comfortable, and more fun. Speak to elected officials, show up to community meetings, talk about walking and biking at school events and with school administrators, and organize and vote for candidates who support walking, biking, and public transit. I AM A STUDENT, CAREGIVER, OR COMMUNITY MEMBER Students, families, neighborhood associations, advocacy groups, and local businesses can have incredible influence when advocating for change in their school and broader community. This is true both as individuals, as well as when community members come together into groups, such as a Parent Teacher Organization or disability advocacy groups. For example, students, caregivers, and community members can support and lead SRTS initiatives including: •Advocating for policy change and funding at City Hall •Developing campaigns to generate enthusiasm and improve social conditions for SRTS •Volunteering time to lead a Walking School Bus or organize a bike drive •Fundraising for SRTS programs and small infrastructure projects I AM A SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEE School district staff bring an important perspective and voice to advocating for a more equitable transportation system. By describing the challenges and opportunities their students face around walking and biking, and by petitioning local elected officials for improvements, school district employees can support policy and infrastructure improvements that benefit their students and the broader community. Staff are also ideally positioned to implement the recommendations in this plan, whether it be a classroom-level curriculum or school district–wide policy around walking and biking. I WORK FOR THE CITY OR COUNTY As members of the governments that own, regulate, and maintain the roads, city and county staff can be instrumental in reorienting transportation policies and infrastructure around walking and biking to schools and other destinations. City and county staff can leverage their expertise to identify, advocate for, and implement changes that contribute toward a more equitable transportation system. Key policies that staff can support include: •Reducing lane widths and vehicular speed limits •Reducing minimum parking requirements •Revising land use regulations to promote denser and more integrated land uses that promote walkable and bikeable trips •Prioritizing municipal maintenance and snow clearing of all pedestrian and bike facilities •Requiring consideration of Complete Streets infrastructure as part of all road resurfacing and reconstruction projects City staff can also use this report to support Safe Routes to School funding applications to programs such as MnDOT SRTS grants, federal infrastructure grants, and the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP). Page 50 of 124 82 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN APPENDIx A: RICHFIELD ATTENDANCE ZONE | 83 APPENDICES05. Appendix A: Richfield Attendance Zone Richfield Public School District (0280-01) District Boundaries and Program Locations For a listing of public school programs within this school district, go to page 3. See page 2 for an additional map of specific attendance areas. This map is intended to display a single public school district and the pertinent public school locations. School locations are labeled if they are classified as elementary, middle, or high schools. The school district boundary appearing on the map does not necessarily represent the legal boundary of the district. It is a generalization of the boundary maintained by the Department of Education, based on land parcel information from Minnesota counties. Please contact your county auditor or assessor to obtain an accurate legal description of the boundary. Liability Statement The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) does not warranty the results you may obtain by using this map. It is provided without express or implied warranties, including warranties of merchantability and fitness. In no event will MDE be liable for any consequential, incidental, or special damages, including any lost profits or lost savings, even if an MDE representative has been advised of the possibility of such damages or any other claim by any third party. Created using QGIS Geographic Information System by the Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. Basemap Credits: © Mapbox, © OpenStreetMap. For assistance with this map, contact: Mike Dolbow : mike.dolbow@state.mn.us Jake Stark : jake.stark@state.mn.us MN Department of Education 400 NE Stinson Blvd. Minneapolis, MN, 55413 Last updated: 2024-12-04 Map produced by MN Department of Education. Last updated 2024. Richfield Public School District (0280-01) District Boundaries and Program Locations For a listing of public school programs within this school district, go to page 3. See page 2 for an additional map of specific attendance areas. This map is intended to display a single public school district and the pertinent public school locations. School locations are labeled if they are classified as elementary, middle, or high schools. The school district boundary appearing on the map does not necessarily represent the legal boundary of the district. It is a generalization of the boundary maintained by the Department of Education, based on land parcel information from Minnesota counties. Please contact your county auditor or assessor to obtain an accurate legal description of the boundary. Liability Statement The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) does not warranty the results you may obtain by using this map. It is provided without express or implied warranties, including warranties of merchantability and fitness. In no event will MDE be liable for any consequential, incidental, or special damages, including any lost profits or lost savings, even if an MDE representative has been advised of the possibility of such damages or any other claim by any third party. Created using QGIS Geographic Information System by the Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. Basemap Credits: © Mapbox, © OpenStreetMap. For assistance with this map, contact: Mike Dolbow : mike.dolbow@state.mn.us Jake Stark : jake.stark@state.mn.us MN Department of Education 400 NE Stinson Blvd. Minneapolis, MN, 55413 Last updated: 2024-12-04 Richfield Public School District (0280-01) District Boundaries and Program Locations For a listing of public school programs within this school district, go to page 3. See page 2 for an additional map of specific attendance areas. This map is intended to display a single public school district and the pertinent public school locations. School locations are labeled if they are classified as elementary, middle, or high schools. The school district boundary appearing on the map does not necessarily represent the legal boundary of the district. It is a generalization of the boundary maintained by the Department of Education, based on land parcel information from Minnesota counties. Please contact your county auditor or assessor to obtain an accurate legal description of the boundary. Liability Statement The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) does not warranty the results you may obtain by using this map. It is provided without express or implied warranties, including warranties of merchantability and fitness. In no event will MDE be liable for any consequential, incidental, or special damages, including any lost profits or lost savings, even if an MDE representative has been advised of the possibility of such damages or any other claim by any third party. Created using QGIS Geographic Information System by the Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. Basemap Credits: © Mapbox, © OpenStreetMap. For assistance with this map, contact: Mike Dolbow : mike.dolbow@state.mn.us Jake Stark : jake.stark@state.mn.us MN Department of Education 400 NE Stinson Blvd. Minneapolis, MN, 55413 Last updated: 2024-12-04 Page 51 of 124 84 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN APPENDIx C1: CRASHES BY ROAD USER VULNERABILITY (2014-2023) | 85 Appendix B: Road Ownership RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 0 0.1 0.2MILES ! ! ! £121£62£12 £698£494 £35W 31 NICOLLET AVE SW 78TH ST W 70TH STVINCENT AVE SW 77TH ST W 69TH ST W 65 T H ST ALDRICH AVE SBRYANT AVE SPILLSBURY AVE SBLAISDELL AVE SWENTWORTH AVE SSHERIDAN AVE SXERXES AVE SLOGAN AVE SKNOX AVE SNEWTON AVE STHOMAS AVE SW 74TH STMORGAN AVE SHUMBOLDT AVE SUPTON AVE SW 73RD ST W 67TH ST STEVENS AVE SHARRIET AVE SW 76TH ST W 72ND ST OLIVER AVE S1ST AVE SW 68TH ST IRVING AVE SPENN AVE SLYNDALE AVE SW66THST 35WRichfieldHigh RichfieldMiddle SheridanHills Elementary More Bike/Ped Crashes Fewer Bike/Ped Crashes More Vehicle Crashes Fewer Vehicle Crashes SHERIDAN HILLS RICHFIELD MIDDLERICHFIELD HIGH Appendix C1: Crashes by Road User Vulnerability (2014-2023) RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 0 0.1 0.2MILES ! ! ! £121£62£12 £698£494 £35W 31 NICOLLET AVE SW 78TH ST W 70TH STVINCENT AVE SW 77TH ST W 69TH ST W 65 T H ST ALDRICH AVE SBRYANT AVE SPILLSBURY AVE SBLAISDELL AVE SWENTWORTH AVE SSHERIDAN AVE SXERXES AVE SLOGAN AVE SKNOX AVE SNEWTON AVE STHOMAS AVE SW 74TH STMORGAN AVE SHUMBOLDT AVE SUPTON AVE SW 73RD ST W 67TH ST STEVENS AVE SHARRIET AVE SW 76TH ST W 72ND ST OLIVER AVE S1ST AVE SW 68TH ST IRVING AVE SPENN AVE SLYNDALE AVE SW66THST 35WRichfieldHigh RichfieldMiddle SheridanHills Elementary More Bike/Ped Crashes Fewer Bike/Ped Crashes More Vehicle Crashes Fewer Vehicle Crashes SHERIDAN HILLS RICHFIELD MIDDLERICHFIELD HIGHRICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 0 0.1 0.2 MILES ! ! ! £121£62£12 £698£494 £35W 31 NICOLLET AVE SW 78TH S T W 70TH STVINCENT AVE SW 77TH ST W 69TH ST W 65 T H ST ALDRICH AVE SBRYANT AVE SPILLSBURY AVE SBLAISDELL AVE SWENTWORTH AVE SSHERIDAN AVE SXERXES AVE SLOGAN AVE SKNOX AVE SNEWTON AVE STHOMAS AVE SW 74TH STMORGAN AVE SHUMBOLDT AVE SUPTON AVE SW 73RD ST W 67TH ST STEVENS AVE SHARRIET AVE SW 76TH ST W 72ND ST OLIVER AVE S1ST AVE SW 68TH ST IRVING AVE SPENN AVE SLYNDALE AVE SW66THST 35WRichfield High RichfieldMiddle Sheridan Hills Elementary More Bike/Ped Crashes Fewer Bike/Ped Crashes More Vehicle Crashes Fewer Vehicle Crashes SHERIDAN HILLS RICHFIELD MIDDLERICHFIELD HIGH Refer to Appendix G for a description of the methods used to produce this map.Refer to Appendix G for a description of the methods used to produce this map. Page 52 of 124 86 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN APPENDIx C2: CRASHES BY ROAD USER VULNERABILITY (2014-2023) | 87 RICHFIELDSAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 0 0.1 0.2 MILES ! !! ! ! £35W £62 £194 £77 £195 £770 £282 £494 NICOLLET AVE SPORTLAND AVE SE 70TH ST E 67TH ST W 65TH ST W 76TH ST 5TH AVE SPILLSBURY AVE SBLAISDELL AVE SWENTWORTH AVE S17TH AVE S18TH AVE S10TH AVE S15TH AVE SE 71ST ST 2ND AVE SSTEVENS AVE SHARRIET AVE SE 69TH ST 11TH AVE SE 68TH ST 16TH AVE SE 72ND ST E 73RD ST1ST AVE SE 74TH ST CEDAR AVE SLONGFELLOWAVESBLOOMINGTON AVE S4TH AVE SCLINTON AVE S14TH AVE SPARK AVE SOAKLAND AVE SCHICAGO AVE SCOLUMBUS AVE SELLIOT AVE S12TH AVE SE 77TH ST E 76TH ST E 75TH ST E 66TH ST 3RD AVE S13TH AVE SRichfield College Experience Program Richfield High Richfield STEMElementary Centennial Elementary Richfield Dual Language More Bike/Ped Crashes Fewer Bike/Ped Crashes More Vehicle Crashes Fewer Vehicle Crashes RICHFIELD STEM ELEMENTARYRICHFIELD DUAL LANGUAGERCEP CENTENNIAL ELEMENTARY Appendix C2: Crashes by Road User Vulnerability (2014-2023) RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 0 0.1 0.2MILES ! !! ! ! £35W £62 £194 £77 £195 £770 £282 £494 NICOLLET AVE SPORTLAND AVE SE 70TH ST E 67TH ST W 65TH ST W 76TH ST 5TH AVE SPILLSBURY AVE SBLAISDELL AVE SWENTWORTH AVE S17TH AVE S18TH AVE S10TH AVE S15TH AVE SE 71ST ST 2ND AVE SSTEVENS AVE SHARRIET AVE SE 69TH ST 11TH AVE SE 68TH ST 16TH AVE SE 72ND ST E 73RD ST1ST AVE SE 74TH ST CEDAR AVE SLONGFELLOWAVESBLOOMINGTON AVE S4TH AVE SCLINTON AVE S14TH AVE SPARK AVE SOAKLAND AVE SCHICAGO AVE SCOLUMBUS AVE SELLIOT AVE S12TH AVE SE 77TH ST E 76TH ST E 75TH ST E 66TH ST 3RD AVE S13TH AVE SRichfield College Experience Program Richfield High Richfield STEMElementary CentennialElementary Richfield DualLanguage More Bike/Ped Crashes Fewer Bike/Ped Crashes More Vehicle Crashes Fewer Vehicle Crashes RICHFIELD STEM ELEMENTARYRICHFIELD DUAL LANGUAGE RCEPCENTENNIAL ELEMENTARYRICHFIELDSAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 0 0.1 0.2MILES ! !! ! ! £35W £62 £194 £77 £195 £770 £282 £494 NICOLLET AVE SPORTLAND AVE SE 70TH ST E 67TH ST W 65TH ST W 76TH ST 5TH AVE SPILLSBURY AVE SBLAISDELL AVE SWENTWORTH AVE S17TH AVE S18TH AVE S10TH AVE S15TH AVE SE 71ST ST 2ND AVE SSTEVENS AVE SHARRIET AVE SE 69TH ST 11TH AVE SE 68TH ST 16TH AVE SE 72ND ST E 73RD ST1ST AVE SE 74TH ST CEDAR AVE SLONGFELLOWAVESBLOOMINGTON AVE S4TH AVE SCLINTON AVE S14TH AVE SPARK AVE SOAKLAND AVE SCHICAGO AVE SCOLUMBUS AVE SELLIOT AVE S12TH AVE SE 77TH ST E 76TH ST E 75TH ST E 66TH ST 3RD AVE S13TH AVE SRichfield College Experience Program Richfield High Richfield STEMElementary Centennial Elementary Richfield Dual Language More Bike/Ped Crashes Fewer Bike/Ped Crashes More Vehicle Crashes Fewer Vehicle Crashes RICHFIELD STEM ELEMENTARYRICHFIELD DUAL LANGUAGE RCEP CENTENNIAL ELEMENTARY Page Intentionally Left Blank Refer to Appendix G for a description of the methods used to produce this map. Page 53 of 124 88 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN APPENDIx D: CAREGIVER SURVEY RESULTS | 89 Appendix D: Caregiver Survey Results Page 54 of 124 90 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN APPENDIx D: CAREGIVER SURVEY RESULTS | 91 Page 55 of 124 92 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN APPENDIx E: PROJECT PROCESS AND TIMELINE | 93 Intro Call: SRTS staff and consultants meet with local SRTS team lead(s), review the timeline of the planning process, talk through the responsibilities of the different stakeholders, and identify short-term next steps, such as scheduling the kick-off meeting and finalizing stakeholders for the SRTS team, including local community members and staff from the school(s), city and county governments, and MnDOT. Kick-off Meeting: the SRTS team, including SRTS staff and local and county participants, reviews the planning process and talks about high-level goals. Engagement + Data Collection: SRTS staff and consultants work with the schools, non-profits, and the broader community to build awareness of the planning process, solicit input, and identify opportunities for programs and infrastructure improvements. Rapid Planning Workshop: the SRTS team discusses past efforts around walking and biking in the community, identifies areas of need, and brainstorms possible resources, collaborations, and opportunities to implement new programs and infrastructure improvements. Summary of Issues + Opportunities: building on input from community engagement, data collection, the rapid planning workshop, and the technical meeting, SRTS staff and consultants compile identified program opportunities and locations where infrastructure improvements could support walking and biking to school. Action Planning Meeting: the SRTS team reviews the summary of issues and opportunities and discusses possible actions to take in response to issues/ opportunities. Draft Plan: the SRTS team reviews and provides feedback on a draft of the full plan. Implementation Support: SRTS staff and consultants assist the community with short-term actions, such as designing and installing a concept for a demonstration project to test improvements at a problematic intersection near the school. Final Plan: the completed plan is published online and in print and is formally adopted to guide future SRTS efforts for the school/district. Appendix E: Project Process and Timeline Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 56 of 124 94 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN APPENDIx F: ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY | 95 Appendix F: Engagement Summary INTRODUCTION Safe Routes to School (SRTS) staff provided community engagement support to ensure that the SRTS plan captured the issues and opportunities with walking and biking to and from school in Richfield. SRTS staff assisted local teams in gathering information through an interactive online map, a caregiver survey, an in-person engagement event, a student discussion and a virtual Rapid Planning Workshop. The goals and purpose of this engagement were to: 1. Connect with families where they’re at 2. Create excitement for walking and biking 3. Understand walking and biking challenges 4. Identify opportunities related to infrastructure and programming 5. Build awareness for the Richfield Safe Routes to School Plan These engagement strategies were chosen to make it easy for the Richfield community to talk to staff and participate. Figure 1: A middle schooler shares the route she takes to get to school with SRTS staff using a map of Richfield. KEY TAKEAWAYS • Many Richfield students live outside of the city and have limited options for participating in Safe Routes to School. • Busy streets and intersections were a major barrier for students to walk or bike to/from school. Some of the streets mentioned frequently during engagement included 70th Street, Penn Avenue, Nicollet Avenue and 35W. IN-PERSON ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Intending to meet families at a popular event, SRTS staff attended PennFest on Sept. 15. SRTS staff brought a map of the school area and encouraged participants to share their route, areas of concern and potential ideas for improvement with sticky notes. The map also included a sticker survey for students to share demographic information, how often they walk or bike to or from school and what would make them more likely to do so. Finally, staff gave families an informational handout with a QR code that led them to the interactive engagement site. Handouts were available in English, Spanish, Hmong and Somali. Staff engaged with about 120 people at the outdoor event. Approximately 28 students answered at least one question in the sticker survey, with participation from almost all grades. Most students who took the sticker survey shared that they rarely or never walk or bike to school. Responses to the question “What would make you more likely to walk or bike to/from school?” were mixed, but someone to walk or bike with received the TABLE 1: ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES DATE STRATEGY DESCRIPTION COUNT August 5, 2024 Kick-off meeting and equity discussion SRTS staff and stakeholders met to discuss key demographics and potential partners within the Richfield community. 19 participants September 15, 2024 Pop-up table at Richfield PennFest SRTS staff and local team members engaged with students and families through a sticker survey, interactive map activity, informational handouts and question game. 120 participants August- November 2024 Online interactive map Participants left location-specific comments and mapped out their routes to school. 51 comments DATE STRATEGY DESCRIPTION COUNT November 6-17, 2024 Online caregiver survey Caregivers identified why their student may or may not walk or bike to/from school and what would help make it safer. 494 participants November 19, 2024 Virtual Rapid Planning Workshop SRTS staff and stakeholders met virtually to share existing data, propose infrastructure and program recommendations and discuss potential next steps. 22 participants November 19, 2024 Student discussion Students from Richfield Middle School shared their experiences walking and biking to/from school and their “big ideas” to make it better. 3 participants Page 57 of 124 96 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN APPENDIx F: ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY | 97 most stickers. Safer ways to cross roads, wider sidewalks, more sidewalks and faster ways to get to school when walking or biking all received stickers as well. In conversation, many families shared concerns about intersections with high traffic such as Penn Avenue S, Highway 62 and Nicollet Avenue. Approximately half of the families shared that they live outside of Richfield and don’t know how to support their students walking or biking to school because of the distance they would have to travel. STUDENT DISCUSSION During the virtual Rapid Planning Workshop, SRTS staff heard from three middle schoolers who bike to school. These students shared their experiences biking to school, what is preventing their peers from doing so and what they wish could be improved. Some of the ideas they discussed include: • A lack of bike lanes on busy streets causes students to bike on the sidewalk and the traffic on Penn Avenue. • Distance from school, cold weather and lack of biking equipment were the primary reasons they believed their peers chose not to bike to/from school. • To encourage other students to walk and bike, their big ideas included having a designated walk and bike to school day each week and longer physical education classes devoted to biking education with more time for students to learn how to bike. ONLINE ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Beginning in August, members of the Richfield community had access to an online interactive engagement site. The site offered information on the school district’s SRTS plan and an interactive map for users to leave their comments and feedback on. The site was advertised at in-person events via a handout with a QR code. An online survey was also available from Nov. 6 to 17. The survey was promoted in school newsletters, district-wide Facebook posts, direct calls from outreach workers to caregivers and through the distribution of a QR code during school pick-up. At Centennial Elementary, where participation was the most successful, completing the survey was included on a list of tasks at conferences that parents could complete to enter their student into a drawing to win prizes. SURVEY 494 caregivers completed the survey, with participation from every school in the plan. Centennial Elementary had the most participation with 119 caregivers and Richfield Middle School was a close second with 110. Caregivers of students from every grade were represented. 42.4% of students represented in the survey were white, 33.5% were Hispanic or Latino and 8.5% were Black or African American. 69% of caregivers reported that they speak English at home and 28% reported that they speak Spanish. •Students generally travel the same way to and from school. 40% of students take the school bus, 34% ride in a family vehicle, 13% walk, 7% bike and 3% carpool. •50% of survey respondents live over one mile from the school their students attend. 23% live over two miles. Nearly 50% of caregivers shared that distance between home and school was an issue preventing their child from walking and biking to/from school. •When asked how much their child’s school encourages walking and biking to/from school, roughly 55% answered “Neutral.” •When asked at what grade they would feel comfortable letting their student walk or bike to/from school, the median grade was sixth. 17% answered that they would not feel comfortable letting their student walk or bike to/from school at any age. •Safety of intersections and crossings and weather or climate were the second and third most popular answers caregivers chose when asked what issues prevent their child from walking and biking to/from school (Figure 2). •When asked what would help their child to walk and bike to/from school more, over 40% of caregivers answered safety of intersections and crossings. A group of students to walk or bike with was the second most popular answer. An adult to walk or bike with was the third. Still, over 30% of students answered a shorter distance to walk or bike. •Roughly 45% of caregivers responded “Neutral” when asked how much fun walking and biking to/from school is for their child. EQUITY At the project kick-off meeting, participants noted several populations to keep in mind during the planning and engagement process. At Centennial Elementary, specifically, participants shared that there are some transient families who are not always coming from the same location. More generally, participants noted that many students have after school activities that lead them to travel from school at different times, especially at the middle and high school. At this meeting, participants also suggested potential partners in future engagement including various parent- teacher organizations, the Richfield High School Green Team, the Richfield Transportation Commission and the Richfield Latino Family Association. PROGRAMS Across all engagement efforts, families shared the reasons why they do not walk or bike to/from school and what might encourage them to do it more often. Since families shared a variety of barriers, such as distance and busy streets, here are several solutions that could help address various barriers: PARK AND WALK Nearly half of the families SRTS staff talked with at PennFest live outside of Richfield and feel that the distance to school is too far for their students to walk or bike. Many caregivers also shared that they were unsure about letting their young students travel over busy roads and highways without their supervision. Park & Walk could work by allowing caregivers to drive their students or a carpool of students past busy roads, minimizing the distance that they must travel while still giving them the chance to try walking and biking. CROSSING GUARD / STUDENT VALET Since caregivers and students from schools across the city shared a concern from traveling through drop-off and pick-up traffic, adding Crossing Guards and Student Valets to the area could help eliminate traffic and get students across it safely in the meantime. Specifically, these programs could address many of the pressing concerns at Richfield Dual Language School and Richfield S.T.E.M. School. About 20% of all interactive map comments were placed on the streets bordering these schools, highlighting the heavy traffic and scary crossing conditions students must pass to get to school. Some caregivers specifically requested crossing guards or an increased adult presence to make sure there is extra surveillance near these roads. “There is no crossing guard or blinking light here. Cars speed down this street so it would be great to have something there to alert drivers to people crossing the street.” -Interactive map comment left at 71st Street and 12th Avenue CAREGIVER WORKSHOPS Many caregivers at PennFest shared that they would love for their student to walk or bike to school, but don’t know where to start, explaining that they didn’t know which route to tell their student to take or which road safety rules they may need but might not think to share. Information geared toward caregivers in the form of workshops would give them answers to their questions Page 58 of 124 98 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN APPENDIx F: ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY | 99 and give both them and their students more confidence in their student’s ability to walk and bike to/from school. BIKE TRAIN / WALKING SCHOOL BUS Many caregivers at PennFest also shared that they were unsure about letting their students travel alone to school while several students shared that they would be more likely to travel to school by bike or foot if they had friends to walk with—a Bike Train would address both issues. However, since caregivers to younger students seemed more uneasy about letting their child go alone, a Walking School Bus with a parent might be a better option for the families of elementary school students. One caregiver in specific shared that they followed their student by bike for the first few weeks, giving them both peace of mind and confidence in the process. INFRASTRUCTURE Throughout engagement, the project team heard that busy streets with dangerous intersections serve as barriers for students when walking and biking to/from school. 70TH STREET 70th Street was referenced repeatedly as a primary road that students take or must cross to get to school. Since the road consistently features traffic, high speeds and drivers who pay little attention to the surrounding pedestrians, many families opt to take 71st Street. Another specific complaint was that many students choose to bike on the sidewalks along 70th Street because of the lack of protected bike lanes, causing sidewalk traffic to be scary as well. “Add a protected bike lane on E 70th St [near Richfield High School] like the one on 76th St because a lot of students bike on the sidewalk.” -Caregiver at PennFest who walks to school with their child 70TH STREET AND 12TH AVENUE This intersection near Richfield S.T.E.M. School and Richfield Dual Language School received a lot of attention on the interactive comment map, with caregivers concerned for the students who must walk or bike through it to get to school. According to caregivers, it is not uncommon for drivers to ignore the stop sign or go through the crosswalk when there are students present. Several caregivers suggested increasing supervision at this intersection. “There should be a school staff member at 70th and 12th, with the crossing guards (if they are even out). The parents driving to school are always blocking the intersection and not fully stopping for kids or parents. The drivers don’t seem to care at all for the families that are walking or biking to school.” -Interactive comment left at 70th Street and 12th Avenue HIGHWAY 62 AND PENN AVENUE S Families shared that a lack of visibility causes cars turning left off Highway 62 to sit in crosswalk and block access to pedestrians and bicyclists. They also shared that there is no crosswalk on Penn Avenue running east to west over the highway. Due to these concerns, families that attend Sheridan Hills Elementary nearby requested there be crossing guards here. Page 59 of 124 100 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN APPENDIx G: METHODS AND DATA SOURCES | 101 •More people 65 and older than MN average (American Community Survey 2017 5-year estimates) •More people with disabilities than MN average (American Community Survey 2017 5-year estimates) •More people of color than MN average (American Community Survey 2017 5-year estimates) •More people with low incomes than MN average (American Community Survey 2017 5-year estimates) •More people without vehicle access than MN average (American Community Survey 2017 5-year estimates) •More people who do not speak English than MN average (American Community Survey 2017 5-year estimates) •More people without high school diplomas than MN average (American Community Survey 2017 5-year estimates) Appendix G: Methods and Data Sources CRASHES BY ROAD USER VULNERABILITY Visualized crashes are taken from a crash database that spans from 2014 to 2023. Pedestrian- and bike-involved crashes were those events with “Crash Type Description” values of either “Pedalcycle (bike)” or “Pedestrian”. If any crashes involved a pedestrian, the Pedestrians (Focus Area) will be labeled with a Y. Similar for bicycles, younger drivers, and a number of other focus areas. ROAD OWNERSHIP Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data from 2021 were visualized on the basis of each road segment’s “Ownership” value. These values were consolidated from 26 categories down to four for visualization purposes; these four categories were “County,” “Local,” and “Other.” SCHOOL ENROLLMENT CHARACTERISTICS School year 2024-2025 enrollment data were downloaded from the Minnesota Department of Education Data Center. PRIORITY EQUITY AREAS Data representing priority populations used for this report is from MnDOT’s Active Transportation Equity application. This process used a set of data inputs to assign an equity score to half-mile hexagons across the state of Minnesota, for use in awarding Active Transportation Program grants. Scores range from 0 to 13 out of a possible 15 points (note that no hexagon received 15/15 points). Higher numbers of points indicate areas with greater equity needs that will receive more points in the equity section of grant solicitation. Input data sets used to create the scores include: •Life expectancy lower than MN average (CDC U.S. Small-area Life Expectancy Estimates Project 2010- 2015) •Presence of transit (Metropolitan Council, 2019; MnDOT Office of Transit and Active Transportation) •Presence of pedestrian-generating jobs (On the Map LEHD 2017) •Presence of schools (Minnesota Department of Education SY 2019-2020) •Two or more pedestrian crashes within 5 years (DPS Crash Data, 2014-2018) •Tribal government areas (MnDOT Tribal Government Areas) •Foreign born population greater than MN average (American Community Survey 2017 5-year estimates) •More people 17 and under than MN average (American Community Survey 2017 5-year estimates) (Continued on next page) Page 60 of 124 102 | RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN Page 61 of 124 Safe Routes to School PlanCity Council Work Session Matt Hardegger, PESeptember 23rd, 2025 Transportation EngineerTim BrackettSafe Routes to School Coordinator (RPS)Page 62 of 124 What is Safe Routes to School?• National Initiative– Locally led by MnDOT• Vision–Youth in Minnesota can safely, confidently, and conveniently walk, bike, and roll to school and in daily life.• Multidisciplinary Approach (the “6 Es”)– Evaluation– Education– Encouragement– Equity– Engagement– EngineeringPage 63 of 124 History – Comprehensive Plans• 2009– First Richfield Plan– Included eight K-8 schools • Public & Private• 2014– Grant funded through SHIP*– Included six K-12 schools• Public Only*Minnesota Statewide Health Improvement ProgramPage 64 of 124 History – Supplemental Plans• 2021 – STEM/RDLS Engineering Study• 2024 – RHS/RMS/Sheridan Hills Engineering StudyPage 65 of 124 Leveraging Grants• Plan Documents Contributed to:– 2 Demo Grants– 4 Infrastructure Grants• $1.9 Million in external funding– $1.3 Million MnDOT SRTS Infrastructure Funds– $635,000 in Federal Funds• $700,000 in city funds– $333,000 for construction– $367,000 for design/construction oversightPage 66 of 124 City Project Results• STEM/RDLS– 2023 Demo Project– 2024 71stStreet Sidewalk between Elliot and 12th– 2025 70thStreet Separated Bike Lane• Centennial– 2023 Demo Project– 2025 73rdStreet Trail• Sheridan Hills– 2026 64thStreet/Russell Ave Sidewalks (Sheridan Hills)Page 67 of 124 School District Successes• School District applied for Local Coordinator Grant (that's me)• School District now contributing 1800+ in-kind hours per year to SRTS program– Admin Staff time, Facilities & Transportation, PE Teachers• School District has acquired four bike fleets, to provide bike education K-12– Elementary, Secondary, Balance & Adaptive fleets• Changes in Biking/Walking Patterns– Walking has increased from 4% to 13% since 2019-20SY– Biking has increased from 1% to 7% since 2019-20SY– Overall, walking & biking has increased from 5% to 20% since 2019-20SYPage 68 of 124 Plan Update Process• September 2024 – June 2025• Engagement activities:– Walk audits– Stakeholder Workshops– Caregiver Survey– Online Comment Map• Stakeholders:– City of Richfield, Richfield Public Schools, MnDOT, Hennepin County, MIRA, Bloomington Public Health, Bike Walk Richfield, Bicycle Alliance of MNPage 69 of 124 What We Heard• Challenges Identified in Caregiver Surveys:– Unsafe Intersections/Crossings– High Car Speeds Along Routes– Missing/Uneven Sidewalks/Paths• Other Challenges Identified:– Lighting/Visibility Near Schools– Congestion Around School Driveways– Unprotected Bike Lanes Used as Loading ZonesPage 70 of 124 City Action Items• 44 Opportunities Identified– High School: 8– Middle School: 13– STEM/RDLS: 8– Sheridan Hills: 8– Centennial: 5– College Experience: 2• 5 Already in Progress–70thStreet–64thStreet/Russell Ave–73rdStreet• 7 Programmed by Other Agencies– Penn Ave– Nicollet Ave–73rdStreet Ped BridgePage 71 of 124 City Action Items• Of 32 Remaining Items:– 11 Low Cost• 7 School-led items or partnership items– 17 Medium Cost– 4 High Cost• 2 included in Pedestrian Master Plan or Active Transportation Action PlanPage 72 of 124 City Action Item Implementation• Low Cost Items– Example: Signing and Striping Projects– Work with PW, Traffic Control Committee to implement as appropriate• Medium Cost Items– Example: Sidewalk expansion– Build as funding becomes available• Leverage outside funding opportunities where possible• High Cost Items–Example: 70thStreet Reconstruction by High School– Implement with major reconstruction projects• Coordinate with outside agencies as neededPage 73 of 124 School District Projects/Policies• Short term– Host a caregiver workshop– Encourage Drop & Walk program– Create new Suggested Route/parking lot circulation maps• Medium term (2-3 years)– Work with city to demonstrate/try out a school street– Create a health campaign– Secure long-term funding for SRTS Local Coordinator position– Start Walking School Bus/Bike Bus routesPage 74 of 124 Next Steps• October 2025– School Board Approval– Richfield Council Resolution of Support• 2026 and beyond– Implementation and ObservationPage 75 of 124 City Council Meeting 9/23/2025 Agenda Section: Item Discussion Agenda Item: 2.b. Report Prepared By: Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer Department Director: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director Item for Consideration: Hennepin County Cost Share Discussion. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff will be leading a discussion on cost participation for Hennepin County road construction projects, including historical funding levels provided by the city and future cost-share expectations for county projects over the next five years. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The Nicollet Ave reconstruction project is currently at 90% design completed in advance of 2026 construction, and the Penn Ave reconstruction project is currently in the preliminary engagement phase in advance of 2028 construction. The current estimate for the entire Nicollet Ave project is $25.09 million, with a city cost share of $9.28 million. The city share is split, with $5.32 million estimated for roadway and storm sewer expenses, and $3.96 million estimated for watermain and sanitary sewer construction. Hennepin County includes storm sewer expenses with roadway expenses. The city has submitted an application for up to $10 million in state bonding funds in the 2026 session. This is following similar submittals in both the 2024 and 2025 state legislative sessions. No bonding bill was passed in the 2024 legislative session and local projects were not included in the 2025 bill. RECOMMENDED ACTION Discuss city participation related to Hennepin County projects. EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) Attached are Hennepin County's Cost Participation and Maintenance Policies and their most recent estimates of construction costs, including the local cost share. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES Staff anticipate that a cooperative construction agreement will be forthcoming from Hennepin County that will outline the city's cost share. Page 76 of 124 FINANCIAL IMPACT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ATTACHMENTS 1. Hennepin County Cost Participation Policy 2. PW 22-19-25 CSAH 52-Exhibit A_Draft 3. Hennepin Co Cost Participation Nicollet Avenue Reconstruction Presentation Page 77 of 124 Cost Participation and Maintenance Policies As Adopted on October 20, 2020 Hennepin County Public Works Transportation Departments Page 78 of 124 Table of Contents Table of Contents Introduction _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Purposes ________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Scope ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 General Policies _________________________________________________________________________________ 4 Definitions ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5 Participation Rates ______________________________________________________________________________ 7 Other Participation Items _____________________________________________________________________ 23 Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program (REPP) _________________________________________ 26 Page 79 of 124 Introduction Page 1 Introduction Hennepin County values our partnership with local agencies to develop and maintain a safe, efficient, balanced and environmentally sound transportation system. The attached policies for cost participation will be used by Hennepin County to determine appropriate funding levels for cooperative highway projects with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, municipalities and other agencies. These cost participation policies will generally apply to projects that are in the county’s Transportation Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and where city and county transportation needs and priorities align. Exceptions to these policies may be approved by the County Board based on immediate county needs, overlap with other county projects/programs and other factors. The merits of these exceptions will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Project managers should determine construction cost participation and maintenance responsibilities early in the project development process. It is important to consider and agree upon the immediate capital construction and ongoing maintenance costs. These policies cover both areas of participation. Cost participation policies were originally established by the county in 1978. These policies were revised in 1993, 1999, 2011, and 2012. These policies have also been updated to include and expand on agencies’ maintenance responsibilities for various assets upon construction completion of cooperative highway projects. Page 80 of 124 Purposes Page 2 Purposes To establish policies for determining appropriate division of cost participation to be used by Hennepin County in funding cooperative county highway projects; which include roadway, traffic signal and bridge construction projects with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, municipalities and other agencies. To establish policies for ownership and maintenance of various assets upon construction completion of cooperative county highway projects with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, municipalities and other agencies. Page 81 of 124 Scope Page 3 Scope The establishment of cost and maintenance policies is consistent with Minnesota Statutes, sections 162.17, 373.01, 471.59, and amendments. Page 82 of 124 General Policies Page 4 General Policies A. The basic premise is that the county pays for costs particular to county needs and municipalities pay for costs particular to municipal or local needs. B. The county may limit its participation to items eligible for reimbursement with County State Aid Highway (CSAH) funds, notwithstanding the specific policies contained in this document. However, the county will not request CSAH funds for project costs assigned to the municipality as a result of the approved cooperative construction agreement, in order not to preclude the municipality from using its Municipal State Aid funds for those project costs. C. A greater degree of county participation is afforded municipalities having a population of less than 5,000 because of the function of the county roadways in these areas. It is generally true that these roadways are of greater benefit to county-wide users and of less benefit to local users. In addition, this would be a form of compensation for the absence of direct State Aid allocations to these municipalities; notwithstanding the present county program of Aid to Municipalities under 5,000 population. D. It is recognized that there may be occasional differences between these policies and written participation policies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. In those cases, participation will be negotiated by the County Engineer and approved by the County Board. E. When federal aid highway funds are utilized on a county highway project, these policies will be applied to the federal participating items and will be shared proportionally with the municipality. In the event federal or state grant funds are made available to a project on a lump sum basis, the county will determine the items for which those funds will be utilized. F. Locally initiated transportation priorities include projects where the need, scope, or means to accomplish the project is driven by the local municipality. The county cost share identified in these policies will not be applied for these requests. Rather, cost shares will be negotiated by the County Engineer and approved by the County Board on a case-by-case basis. G. These policies are intended to guide establishment of terms associated with cost and maintenance responsibilities within construction cooperative agreements. If a municipality does not perform maintenance activities in accordance with an executed construction cooperative agreement, the county may elect to perform or remedy the work and will invoice the municipality for associated costs. Page 83 of 124 Definitions Page 5 Definitions 5,000 and over: A municipality of 5,000 or more in population. Under 5,000: A municipality under 5,000 in population. Bikeway: A bicycle route, bicycle path/trail, shared-use path/trail, or bicycle lane.  Bicycle Route: A roadway or shoulder signed to encourage bicycle use.  Bicycle Path/Trail: A facility designed for exclusive or preferential use by persons using bicycles and constructed or developed separate from the roadway or shoulder.  Shared-Use Path/Trail: A facility designed for use by non-motorized modes of transportation, including bicycles and pedestrians, and constructed or developed separate from the roadway or shoulder.  On-Street Bicycle Lane: That portion of a roadway or shoulder designed for exclusive or preferential use by persons using bicycles. Bicycle lanes are distinguishable from that portion of the roadway or shoulder used for motor vehicle traffic by striping, marking, or other similar device.  Separated Bicycle Lane: A type of bicycle lane for exclusive or preferential use by persons using bicycles; distinguishable from the portion of roadway or shoulder used for motor vehicle traffic by barrier, vertical element, or other device providing physical separation. May also be referred to as enhanced bicycle lanes, and includes protected bicycle lanes and cycle tracks. Bridge: As defined in Minnesota Rules 8810.8000, subpart 2. County: Hennepin County. County Engineer: The County Engineer of Hennepin County or a designated representative. In-Kind Replacement: Replacement of an asset with another that meets the design specification of the original installation or to the current standard of practice, whichever is greater. Municipality: Any municipality within Hennepin County. Non-Routine Maintenance: A major reconditioning or replacement of a given asset. % Contributing Area: Ratio of stormwater contributing area to a given stormwater device. (i.e., county right-of-way contributing area÷total contributing area). Priority Factor: A quantitative value assigned by county staff based on the current traffic volumes and recent crashes experienced at locations being considered for the installation of traffic signal systems; as part of Hennepin County’s Non-Signalized Intersection Guidelines. Page 84 of 124 Definitions Page 6 Right-of-Way (R/W): The area on, below and above a public roadway, highway, street, trail, boulevard or walk where the county holds fee title or dedicated easement for the purpose of use. Examples include highway easement, utility easement, trail easement, drainage easement and wall easement. Routine Maintenance: Small-scale maintenance activities, associated with regular (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.) upkeep against normal wear and tear, and including all activities necessary to perpetuate a given asset in a safe, usable, and aesthetically acceptable condition. Storm Sewer: A drainage system usually consisting of one or more pipes connecting two or more drop inlets or catch basins. The purpose is to convey surface runoff water from the inlets to an acceptable outlet. Includes catch basins, manholes, pipes, culverts, outlet structures, outlet protection, water quality and rate control structures, and ponds/basins. Street and Pedestrian Lighting: All components normally installed for the purpose of street, and where present, sidewalk/trail illumination. Standard Specifications: Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction, latest edition and/or supplement thereto. State Aid Manual: Manual published by the Minnesota Department of Transportation outlining State Aid policies and procedures. Traffic Signal (Permanent): A traffic control signal system normally consisting of metal signal poles with mast arms and underground electrical systems with conduit, cable, and handhole installations. Traffic Signal (Temporary): A traffic control signal system normally consisting of wood poles with signal indications suspended on span wires and overhead electrical systems, or used mast arms and poles repurposed from other locations. Trunk Line: Main conveyor of a storm sewer system. Utilities: Water, heating, electric, storm sewer, gas, sanitary, telephone, cable TV, steam, street lighting, fiber optics, etc. Page 85 of 124 Participation Rates Page 7 Participation Rates Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Right-of-Way (R/W) General Under 5,000 100% N/A 5,000 and over 50% R/W necessary due to parking lanes requested by a municipality All municipalities 0% R/W necessary for wetland mitigation Under 5,000 Per R/W (General) Even if locations of these facilities are not contiguous to the project. 5,000 and over R/W necessary for stormwater ponds, storage tanks; and other best management practices (BMPs) Under 5,000 100% 5,000 and over County % contributing area Page 86 of 124 Participation Rates Page 8 Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Removals, Clearing and Grubbing General All municipalities 100% N/A For items the county does not otherwise participate in the construction or replacement of 0% (e.g., removals associated with water main or sanitary sewer upgrade work) For traffic signal systems, if not included in traffic signal system lump sum % of county legs at intersection Excavation and Embankment General All municipalities 100% N/A For parking lanes requested by a municipality 0% (Roadway) Paving, Surfacing and Base General All municipalities 100% Routine maintenance of all roadway pavements within the R/W (excluding municipal streets and private entrances) is the responsibility of the county unless covered by a routine maintenance agreement with another municipality or county agency. Maintenance of pavements intersecting municipal streets and private entrances begins at the back of the county roadway curb line. For parking lanes requested by a municipality 0% Page 87 of 124 Participation Rates Page 9 Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Bridges Bridges on the county highway system (new and replacement/ rehabilitation) Under 5,000 100% The extent of the cost share is based on the proportionate surface area of the roadway portion vs. non-roadway portions of the bridge deck relative to the overall surface area of the bridge deck. The cost share will be allocated to those portions of the superstructure and substructure included in the project. Routine maintenance will be the responsibility of the county. The county will invoice the municipality for costs associated with maintenance of aesthetic treatments, sidewalks, paths/trails, and bicycle facilities located on bridges. Non-routine maintenance costs shall be split at the same percentage as the original installation (unless a municipality's population either rises above or falls below 5,000 between the initial construction and subsequent maintenance activities). 5,000 and over 100% - portion supporting roadway 50% - portion supporting non-roadway (sidewalks, paths/trails, and bicycle facilities) Non-standard aesthetic elements (not including concrete formliner treatments) All municipalities 0% (county will pay for its portion of a standard element; municipality pays for all costs to upgrade) Examples of aesthetics limited under this policy include most decorative lighting and special (non-standard) ornamental railing designs. See MnDOT Aesthetic Participation Factors and MnDOT Federal Aid rules for additional information. Page 88 of 124 Participation Rates Page 10 Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Retaining Walls Retaining walls in lieu of R/W Under 5,000 100% Walls critical to a county facility defined as structures integral to the safe and efficient operation of a county road, as determined by the County Engineer. Routine and non-routine maintenance of retaining walls 4 feet tall or greater; or, retaining walls that are critical to a county facility will be the responsibility of the county. The county will invoice the municipality for costs associated with such maintenance at the same cost share as the original installation (unless a municipality's population either rises above or falls below 5,000 between the initial construction and subsequent maintenance activities). Routine and non-routine maintenance of retaining walls under 4 feet tall (and not critical to a county facility) will be the responsibility of the municipality. 5,000 and over 50% Non-standard aesthetic elements (not including concrete formliner treatments) All municipalities 0% (county will pay for its portion of a standard element; municipality pays for all costs to upgrade) Examples of aesthetics limited under this policy include most decorative lighting and special (non-standard) ornamental railing designs. See MnDOT Aesthetic Participation Factors and MnDOT Federal Aid rules for additional information. Page 89 of 124 Participation Rates Page 11 Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Noise Walls/Barriers, Mitigation Fences General Under 5,000 100% of State Aid eligibility The county will share as indicated with a municipality in the cost of noise wall/barrier construction and for fences constructed in lieu of noise walls/barriers. The cost of aesthetic features not eligible for State Aid funding shall be the responsibility of the municipality. Routine maintenance of noise walls, barriers, and mitigation fence shall be the responsibility of the municipality and includes minor repairs, debris removal, weed control, graffiti removal, etc. Non-routine maintenance costs shall be split at the same percentage as the original installation (unless a municipality's population either rises above or falls below 5,000 between initial construction and subsequent reconditioning/ replacement). For fences constructed in lieu of noise walls, the municipality is responsible for performing the non-routine maintenance work, unless a separate agreement is made with the property owners. 5,000 and over 50% of State Aid eligibility Page 90 of 124 Participation Rates Page 12 Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Storm Sewer, Ponds, and Treatment Structures State Aid eligible Under 5,000 100% The county's cost participation is based on the storm sewer State Aid eligibility formula as defined in the State Aid Manual. Includes excavation and embankment materials and specialty soils associated with ponds/basins. Storm sewer cost participation for frontage roads shall be determined by the County Engineer. Routine maintenance of culverts, catch basins and leads, manholes, trunk lines and all other components that serve only the county R/W shall be a county responsibility and includes repairs to structures, castings, and adjacent curb section repairs along with removal of sediments, vegetation, and ice. Routine maintenance of catch basins, manholes and trunk lines serving areas beyond the county R/W shall be the responsibility of the municipality and includes repairs to structures, castings, and adjacent curb section repairs along with removal of sediments, vegetation, and ice. Routine maintenance of ponds, outlet structures, water quality structures, and rate control structures shall be the responsibility of the municipality and includes removal of litter, clearing ice, mowing, vegetation management, minor erosion repairs, and replacement of filter media and sediment removal. Non-routine maintenance costs of best management practices (BMPs), including dredging ponds and replacement of stormwater treatment structures shall be apportioned between the county and municipality based on % contributing area. 5,000 and over 50% Non-State Aid eligible All municipalities 0% Page 91 of 124 Participation Rates Page 13 Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Municipal Utilities In-kind relocation or lateral extension solely because of county construction procedures All municipalities 100% Routine and non-routine maintenance of municipal utilities are the responsibility of the municipality. Initial installation performed without a permit or not in compliance with a county permit 0% Adjustments to existing utility structures to accommodate elevation changes at the surface Relocation, reconstruction, improvement, or replacement of unserviceable existing facilities (serviceability determined by County Engineer) Relocations, extensions, or adjustments required solely due to parking lanes requested by a municipality Page 92 of 124 Participation Rates Page 14 Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Private Utilities Relocation/ reconstruction for utilities located outside county R/W and/or public purpose easement Under 5,000 100% Cost split between county and municipality. Routine and non-routine maintenance of private utilities are the responsibility of the private utility owner. 5,000 and over 50% Relocation/ reconstruction for utilities located within county R/W and/or public purpose easement All municipalities 0% Driveways Concurrent with county construction project All municipalities 50% - for concrete driveway apron Routine maintenance of driveways including aprons/openings are the responsibility of the property owner they serve and begins at the back of the county roadway curb line. Routine maintenance is further identified as keeping the approach clear of debris, patching, and replacement. 100% - for all other portions Medians General All municipalities 100% Includes standard concrete or turf establishment and curb and gutter for medians. Routine maintenance is the responsibility of the county, excluding mowing and special features requested by a municipality (e.g. colored concrete, brick pavers, mulch, plantings, railing, benches, etc.). See also: Landscaping/Streetscaping. Page 93 of 124 Participation Rates Page 15 Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Sidewalks, Paths/Trails, Bicycle Facilities New sidewalk All municipalities 50% of State Aid eligibility Includes standard sidewalk and trail pavements/surface treatments. See Landscaping/Streetscaping for non-standard pavements/surface treatments. Also includes pedestrian ramps, detectable warning surfaces, and v-curb associated with ramps. Routine maintenance of sidewalks, off-street shared-use paths/trails and associated pedestrian ramps shall be the responsibility of the municipality and includes repairing faulted or broken panels or surfaces, vegetation control, and snow and ice removal. Non-routine maintenance costs shall be the responsibility of the municipality. In-kind replacement sidewalk 100% of State Aid eligibility New off-street shared-use paths/trails 50% In-kind replacement off-street shared-use paths/trails 100% On-street bicycle lanes 100% Routine maintenance of on-street bicycle lanes shall be the responsibility of the county. New separated bicycle lanes 50% Routine maintenance of separated bicycle lanes shall be the responsibility of the municipality. In-kind replacement separated bicycle lanes 100% Page 94 of 124 Participation Rates Page 16 Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Curb and Gutter Concurrent with county construction project All municipalities 50% Does not include curb and gutter for medians (see medians). Routine maintenance of curb and gutter within the R/W (excluding municipal streets and private entrances) shall be the responsibility of the county and includes repairing faulted or broken sections, vegetation control, and snow and ice removal. Routine maintenance of curb and gutter intersecting municipal streets and private entrances belongs to the appropriate owner and begins at the back of the county roadway curb line. Maintenance responsibilities include repairing faulted or broken sections, vegetation control and snow and ice removal. Page 95 of 124 Participation Rates Page 17 Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Landscaping/Streetscaping Roadway beautification All municipalities 33% of State Aid eligibility Includes trees, plants, planting materials, and appurtenances that support their viability; aesthetic bollards, banner poles, and other vertical elements; and non-standard pavements/surface treatments, railings, artwork and other streetscape materials that help establish a theme consistent with area architecture. Routine maintenance of landscape/streetscape features (including those added to pedestrian bumpouts/curb extensions and medians) shall be the responsibility of the municipality. Examples include trash removal, trimming, mowing, watering, irrigation maintenance and replanting/replacing. Irrigation 0% Enhancements that promote multi-modalism 50% of State Aid eligibility Includes bicycle racks, transit shelters, benches, and hard surface paving around transit stops and shelters. Erosion Control and Turf Establishment General All municipalities 100% N/A Page 96 of 124 Participation Rates Page 18 Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Lighting New street lighting All municipalities 50% of State Aid eligibility The county will participate in street lighting as long as the lighting adequately lights the county highway. Includes pedestrian level lighting along sidewalks/trails if street lighting does not adequately light them or if pedestrian level lighting can adequately light both the street and sidewalks/trails. Routine maintenance shall be the responsibility of the municipality. Relocated or reconstructed street lighting Same basis as per municipal utility relocation / reconstruction Traffic Barrier, Channelization Devices Permanent roadway barrier and guardrail All municipalities 100% Routine maintenance is the responsibility of the ensuing owner as set forth in the construction cooperative agreement. Channelization/ separation devices 0% Includes bollards, tube delineators, and similar devices used to provide separation between travel lanes or modes of travel. Also includes in-road pedestrian crossing signs/paddles. Routine maintenance of such items along county roadways will be the responsibility of the municipality, with the following exception: Such items installed by the county for use as temporary curbing will be maintained by the county. Traffic Control Individual traffic control items not included in lump sum (pro-rata) traffic control All municipalities 100% N/A Page 97 of 124 Participation Rates Page 19 Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Signing Signing necessary to convey the rules of the roadway All municipalities 100% Routine maintenance will be the responsibility of the sign owner. Specialty or supplemental signing requested by a municipality or other entity 0% Striping On-street striping and pavement messages All municipalities 100% Includes striping and pavement messages between the curbs; except for those associated with separated bicycle lanes. Routine maintenance will be the responsibility of the county, with the exception of municipality-requested installations not in conformance with county standard striping. Such non-standard installations will be the responsibility of the municipality. Off-street striping and pavement messages Includes striping and pavement messages outside of the curbs; including those associated with separated bicycle lanes and off-street trails or shared-use paths. Routine maintenance will be the responsibility of the municipality. Crosswalks, conflict area markings, and wayfinding markings associated with bicycle and pedestrian facilities Routine maintenance will be the responsibility of the municipality. Page 98 of 124 Participation Rates Page 20 Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Traffic Signal Systems Traffic signal installation must satisfy Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) warrants; and, must meet or exceed a priority factor of 30, as defined in Hennepin County’s Non-Signalized Intersection Guidelines. As a policy, the county will not normally install, or allow to be installed, traffic signals at intersections with a priority factor of less than 30. Electrical power shall be furnished by the municipality. Source of power, including transformer, shall be provided by the municipality. The construction contractor shall bill the municipality for making the power connection. Costs for county-furnished traffic signal equipment shall be apportioned the same as the traffic signal system. When street lighting is integral to the traffic signal pole, the installation cost will be included with the traffic signal system. Operating cost and re-lamping of the integral lighting shall be the responsibility of the municipality. Page 99 of 124 Participation Rates Page 21 Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Traffic signal systems (all) Under 5,000 100% Municipalities under 5,000 normally will not be required to participate in the costs for traffic signal systems. Routine maintenance of the traffic signal cabinet, controller, detection, Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) systems, re-lamping of signal head indications, and replacement of battery backup batteries for permanent traffic signal systems will be the responsibility of the ensuing owner as set forth in the construction cooperative agreement and includes routine painting. Painting of signal systems that are painted out of conformance with county standards will be the responsibility of the municipality. Permanent traffic signal systems 5,000 and Over % of county legs at intersection Includes both new and reconstructed or revised traffic signal systems. Temporary traffic signal systems Only for traffic control purposes during a county-led or county participation project. If not, participation shall be 0%. Routine maintenance will be the responsibility of the temporary signal system installer. Signal communications/ interconnect 100% Routine maintenance will be the responsibility of the county. Page 100 of 124 Participation Rates Page 22 Item Municipality Population Cost Participation (county cost share) Notes Maintenance Enhanced crossing beacons (at locations that do not satisfy county safety and operations criteria) 5,000 and Over 0% Includes rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB), high-intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) beacons, and other crossing beacons. Routine maintenance shall be as follows: County recommended / county installed:  County owns the infrastructure and is responsible for knockdown replacement/repair costs. Municipality recommended / municipality installed (at locations that satisfy county safety and operations criteria, and are supported by the county):  County owns the infrastructure and is responsible for knockdown replacement/repair costs. Municipality recommended / municipality installed (at locations that do not satisfy county safety and operations criteria):  Municipality owns the infrastructure and is responsible for knockdown replacement/repair costs.  County provides minor maintenance to maintain function (excludes knockdowns).  County will perform knockdown/repair on a reimbursable basis. Enhanced crossing beacons (at locations that satisfy county safety and operations criteria) 50% Page 101 of 124 Other Participation Items Page 23 Other Participation Items Roundabouts The county will participate in the cost and maintenance of roundabouts consistent with the individual elements that make up the roundabout (i.e., pavement, curb and gutter, walk, etc.) as outlined in these policies. When one or more approaches to a roundabout are owned and operated by a municipality, cost participation and maintenance responsibilities will be as depicted below: Page 102 of 124 Other Participation Items Page 24 Undergrounding of Overhead Utilities in Vehicle Recovery Zone As a means of enhancing the safety of the roadside, the county will share equally with the municipality in the State Aid eligible cost of undergrounding of overhead utilities in vehicle recovery zones as established in the State Aid Rules to a maximum amount consistent with the rates identified in the Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program (REPP) section of these policies. Engineering The county's participation in engineering includes design costs – costs incurred prior to the award of the contract and contract administration costs – costs incurred subsequent to the award of contract. There are two instances of how engineering cost participation is applied, as follows: 1. Design and/or contract administration performed by the county and based on the municipality's share of contract construction. 2. Design and/or contract administration performed by the municipality and based on the county's share of contract construction. In either case, the county’s participation in engineering shall be as negotiated by the County Engineer and approved by the County Board. Lump Sum, Pro-Rata Items Proposal forms carry lump sum bidding requirements for the items of Mobilization (2021) and Traffic Control (2563). Field Office and Field Laboratory (2031) are not, strictly speaking, lump sum pay items; however, their general characteristics are such as to require that they be handled the same as Mobilization. A municipality shall be charged a pro-rata share of the above items. Proration shall be based on a percentage factor applied to the cost amounts chargeable to the county and the municipality for other construction items. Mobilization, Field Office and Field Laboratory, and Traffic Control are construction items and shall be subject to the negotiated percentage charge for engineering. Pro-rata rates shall remain unchanged throughout the life of a project; from the engineer’s estimate contained in the construction cooperative agreement through construction. Invoice Amount Computation After bids have been received and a contract awarded, and also upon completion of construction, the unit prices shall be substituted for the estimated unit prices/quantities and the percentage ratio established originally shall be recomputed. Page 103 of 124 Other Participation Items Page 25 Utilization of Tax Increment Financing This policy has been included to address the use of Tax Increment Financing on county projects by municipalities. Tax Increment Financing limits expansion of the tax base for new development and, thereby, limits the availability of additional county Property Tax funding which might be used on the county highway system. The county's participation in a project where Tax Increment Financing is utilized by a municipality will be as follows: At the time a municipality is requested to approve the preliminary plans for a project, the municipality must identify, by resolution, whether it intends to use Tax Increment Financing for any portion of the project cost. If the municipality elects to use Tax Increment Financing from any Economic Development District for any portion of the project cost, municipal participation will be 50% of the total engineering and construction cost and 100% of the right-of-way cost for any portion of the project within that municipality. Page 104 of 124 Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program (REPP) Page 26 Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program (REPP) The Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program has been incorporated into these policies and governs only those projects which are along county road corridors within municipalities located entirely within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area on December 8, 1998 and have been funded from the “Highway Enhancement” element of the 1999 Capital Budget which was established by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on December 8, 1998 (Resolution 98-12-701R1). County highway corridors in municipalities located wholly within the 1999 Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) were developed during an era when community interest and focus was on the accommodation of the automobile. As a result, those corridors tended to lack aesthetic roadside features and produced somewhat stark conditions with little visual appeal or consideration for mixed use, i.e. intermodal. The goal of the Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program is to enhance the roadside environment of such county highway corridors and bolster community support, in terms of both acceptance and financial assistance, for projects intended for such enhancement. In addition, the program is intended to increase traveler awareness that such corridors are under the jurisdiction of the county, but are also intended to support the economic viability and sustainability of the communities and neighborhoods through which they traverse. A. Program Objectives:  remove unsightly roadside features  establish the roadway as a good neighbor  make a positive impression on roadway users  increase motorist awareness that the road is a county highway  improve safety for all types of travelers  promote multi-modal use of the corridor B. Program Prioritization for County Funding: Enhancements That Improve Corridor User Safety It is important to improve corridor user safety for people who drive, bike, walk and use transit as an element of a streetscape enhancement. When municipalities and community organizations develop corridor enhancement programs, the financial incentive offered by the partnership program will focus first on improvements that promote safety. Examples of safety improvements that may also be defined as enhancements to the streetscape include: Page 105 of 124 Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program (REPP) Page 27  undergrounding of utilities when poles lie within vehicle recovery zones  construction of off-road bicycle paths that will remove bicyclists from the roadway  construction of sidewalk where safety of pedestrian traffic, existing or projected, necessitates such action  installation of transit stops to define locations for patrons and provide shelter from the elements  installation of street and/or pedestrian lights Enhancements That Promote MulƟ-Modalism In order to improve modal options available to citizens, the partnership program will provide financial incentive for improvements that offer an alternative to single occupancy vehicles as streetscape enhancements are developed. Examples of multi-modal improvements include:  installation of transit shelters, benches and hard surface paving  construction of bikeways and multiple use trails  construction of sidewalks  installation of bicycle racks Roadway BeauƟﬁcaƟon Although projects that promote corridor user safety and multi-modalism are of higher priority within the context of corridor enhancement, improvement of a corridor’s visual aesthetic remains a strong priority of the partnership program. The partnership program is intended to restore an aesthetic appeal to the roadside and restore the county road corridor as a “good neighbor” within the community. Examples of roadway beautification elements include:  planting materials and appurtenances that support their viability (does not include irrigation)  installation of vertical elements (bollards, banner poles, etc.)  installation of streetscape materials to establish a theme consistent with area architecture (does not include irrigation) Screening/SeparaƟon of Adjacent ProperƟes Occasionally, it is necessary to screen abutting properties from a roadway corridor as a means of enhancing the visual aesthetics of the area. Separation of properties from the corridor may also serve to improve corridor user safety (i.e., fences separating parking lots from pedestrian ways). Increase Awareness of County Highway JurisdicƟon In order to improve public awareness of the existence of a road as a county highway, the partnership program will provide a financial incentive for improvements that recognize the county’s presence. Examples of elements that increase public awareness include:  monuments at municipal entries which recognize the county  roadway/roadside signage which identifies the road as a county route Page 106 of 124 Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program (REPP) Page 28 C. Ownership/Maintenance of Improvements The partnership program anticipates that municipalities will become owners of and will be responsible for the maintenance of enhancements financed by the county. D. Partnership Program Funding Levels County funding under the partnership program is not intended to further write down municipal cost participation if funding for these items is provided elsewhere in these policies or from other county funding sources. Further, the partnership program has limited funds and participation is not guaranteed as funding limits are programmed and approved on an annual basis by the County Board. Municipalities are encouraged to submit requests for participation early on during project development to allow adequate time for fund management. Street Light InstallaƟon………………………………………………..…50% The partnership program will participate with municipalities to provide adequate, uniform street lighting for the safety of motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. Pedestrian Level Light InstallaƟon…………………………………..50% Where street lighting cannot serve the sidewalk or off road trail, the partnership program will participate in the cost. If street lighting can serve the sidewalk or off road trail, the partnership program will not participate in the cost. Undergrounding of Overhead UƟliƟes……………………………..50% or 33% The partnership program will participate with municipalities based upon conditions that exist along the corridor. If the undergrounding is for safety purposes, the partnership program will contribute at a 50% level. If the undergrounding is to enhance the visual aesthetics of the corridor, the partnership program will contribute at a 33% level. Note: The maximum partnership program contribution for undergrounding overhead utilities will be $500,000 per centerline mile (project length) under the 50% level and $330,000 per centerline mile (project length) under the 33% level. ConstrucƟon of Sidewalks for Pedestrian Safety……………….50% The partnership program will participate where pedestrian safety, existing or projected, necessitates construction of sidewalks. Enhancements that Promote MulƟ-Modalism………………….50% The partnership program will participate to promote the use of transit by the public, including transit stops, shelters, benches, hard surface paving, bike racks, bikeways and multiple use trails. Page 107 of 124 Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program (REPP) Page 29 Roadway BeauƟﬁcaƟon……………………………………………………33% The maximum partnership program contribution will be $330,000 per centerline mile. Note: Since surface treatments (color, scoring patterns, etc.) have limited visual impact on the motorist, the partnership program will not contribute toward the cost of the improvements. Screening/SeparaƟon of Adjacent ProperƟes……………………50% The partnership program will participate equally with municipalities to provide security for corridor users. Examples of security improvements include fencing which separates parking lots from adjacent public bicycle and pedestrian ways and lighting at transit stops. If trees and landscaping are used as a method of providing screening or separation; the county will participate in such items at this higher rate. Increase Awareness of County Highway JurisdicƟon………….Up to 50% The partnership program will contribute up to 50% for monuments at municipal boundaries that recognize the county and the road as a county highway. E. MUSA Municipalities Municipalities wholly within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) on December 8, 1998: 1. Bloomington 2. Brooklyn Center 3. Brooklyn Park 4. Crystal 5. Deephaven 6. Edina 7. Excelsior 8. Fort Snelling 9. Golden Valley 10. Greenwood 11. Hopkins 12. Long Lake 13. Medicine Lake 14. Minneapolis 15. Minnetonka 16. Minnetonka Beach 17. Mound 18. New Hope 19. Osseo 20. Richfield 21. Robbinsdale 22. Shorewood 23. Spring Park 24. St. Anthony 25. St. Louis Park 26. Tonka Bay 27. Wayzata 28. Woodland Page 108 of 124 TOTAL Hennepin CountyCity of RichfieldRoadway / StormCity of RichfieldSanitary / WaterConstruction Contract Total(1)19,643,347.90$ 13,404,544.40$ 3,238,063.50$ 3,000,740.00$ Design Engineering(2)748,656.42$ -$ 388,567.62$ 360,088.80$ Construction Administration(2)623,880.35$ -$ 323,806.35$ 300,074.00$ Right-of-Way(3)1,950,000.00$ 975,000.00$ 975,000.00$ -$ Landscaping(4)160,290.00$ 94,489.30$ 65,800.70$ -$ Contingency(5)1,964,334.79$ 1,340,454.44$ 323,806.35$ 300,074.00$ PROJECT TOTAL 25,090,509.46$ 15,814,488.14$ 5,315,044.52$ 3,960,976.80$ NOTES:(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)Based on Hennepin County Cost Participation Policy dated October 20, 2020. Actual amount due based on work performed under the Construction Contract.22% fee applied to City Construction Contract Totals(12% Design Engineering + 10% Construction Administration)County and City split right-of-way costs 50/50.160 boulevard trees based on $388 per tree at 100% county cost. County and City split median planting costs 33-67 based on 40 trees, 202 shrubs, 1322 perennials, and 528 ornamental grasses.10% contingency applied to Construction Contract. Actual amount due based on actual work performed under the Construction Contract.DRAFT - ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTCSAH: 52 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJ. NO.: 2120800 - (SAP 027-652-046, SAP 157-020-034)EXHIBIT "A"- SUMMARYFile Location:c:\bentley\pw_working_hc\dms10419\2025V_CSAH052_2120800_SEQ_Estimate_90per; WORKSHEET:(EE Summary)1 of 1 Last Update: 8/18/2025Page 109 of 124 Hennepin County Cost Participation Nicollet Avenue ReconstructionSeptember 23, 2025Page 110 of 124 Agenda• Hennepin County’s Cost Participation and Maintenance Policies Review• History of Richfield’s costs on regional projects.• Nicollet Avenue Reconstruction Cost Estimates• Nicollet Cooperative Agreement DiscussionPage 111 of 124 HC’s Cost Participation Policies100% County• Road elements (grading, surfacing median curbs)• Utility relocations due to roadway (otherwise 0%)50% County / 50% City• Right-of-way & retaining walls• Stormwater • Sidewalk, bike lanes, bike paths, driveways• Enhanced crossing beacons (that satisfy county criteria)100% City• Enhanced crossing beacons that do not satisfy County criteriaPage 112 of 124 HC’s Cost Participation PoliciesTraffic Signals• % of legs at intersection (50/50)Lighting• 50% of State Aid eligibility (additional on local agency)• Includes pedestrian lighting only if street lighting does not adequately light the sidewalk. Pedestrian lighting can be used to light the roadway.Landscaping• 33% State Aid eligibility (remainder on local agency)• 50% of State Aid eligibility for multi-modal enhancements • City maintains everythingCity Led Projects• Maximum $500,000 County ContributionPage 113 of 124 HC’s Maintenance Policies100% County• Road elements (pavement, median curbs)• Storm sewer system - routine maintenance of elements that only serves the county• Standard concrete medians• On-Street bicycle lanes• Striping between curbs, except if associated with separated bicycle lanes.• Enhanced crossing beacons (that satisfy County criteria)50% County / 50% City• Retaining walls 4 feet tall or greater• Replacement of noise walls and barriersPage 114 of 124 HC’s Maintenance Policies100% City• Retaining walls under 4 feet tall• Routine maintenance of noise walls, barriers & mitigation fences• Replacement of mitigation fences• Routine maintenance of storm system and ponds• Special features in medians (e.g. colored concrete, mulch, plantings, railing, benches)• Sidewalks• Separated bicycle lanes, bike paths, • Landscaping/Streetscaping (trash removal, trimming, mowing, watering, irrigation, replanting/replacing, etc.)• Streetlights & Signals (relamping, power)• Non-routine on-street striping (separated bicycle lanes)• Off-street striping and pavement messages• Crosswalks • Enhanced crossing beacons that do not satisfy County criteriaPage 115 of 124 Cost of MaintenanceCompleted Reconstruction Projects• Portland (2016)•66thStreet (2016-2019)Annual Maintenance Items• Street Sweeping• Sidewalk Snow Removal• Crosswalk Painting• Landscaping MaintenanceGeneral Fund Annual Budget for Existing Maintenance Agreements(Not including staff time)Page 116 of 124 Cost of MaintenanceUpcoming Items• Nicollet Raised Crosswalks & Markings•66thStreet Pavement Markings Replacement 2027 (est. $800k)Page 117 of 124 $27,288,856 in disbursements• 87% to regional investmentsRegional Projects• Crosstown (TH 62)• CSAH 35 (Portland Ave)• CSAH 53 (66thStreet)• Lyndale Bridge over 494•77thStreet UnderpassLocal Projects•76thStreet Widening @ Penn• 7600 Block of Lyndale• Richfield Parkway• Lyndale AvenueRichfield’s Past 20 Years of MSA (2003 – 2023)Page 118 of 124 Regional Project ExamplesCSAH 35 (Portland Ave)Total Project $10 Million**51% Local funds (Richfield)7% County fundsCSAH 53 (66thStreet)Total Project $56+ Million**41% Local funds (Richfield)48% County funds**City utilities not includedPage 119 of 124 Projects•76thStreet east of 12th Avenue• Richfield Parkway North•69thStreet• Lyndale Ave• CSAH 35 (Portland Ave)• CSAH 53 (66thStreet)•65thStreetRichfield’s Bonding History – Debt Service* limited to $10M annuallyPage 120 of 124 Richfield’s RealityCommunities, like Richfield, that must dedicate a disproportionate amount of their available dollars to pay for State or County infrastructure projects are doing so at the expense of much needed re-investment in their own local roads, water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. And those needs are growing fast. Page 121 of 124 Nicollet Avenue ReconstructionInitial Proposal (Draft Letter)• $500K (Match their cost participation)• Request they help with state bonding advocacy• Request they perform or reimburse the city for ongoing maintenance costs that align with their Green and Complete Streets Policy, Oct 2023.Page 122 of 124 City Council Meeting 9/23/2025 Agenda Section: Item Discussion Agenda Item: 2.c. Report Prepared By: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager Department Director: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager Item for Consideration: Discussion on legislative advocacy supporting stronger protections against gun violence. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On August 27, a horrific act of gun violence at Annunciation Catholic School took the lives of young students and shook families, educators, and first responders in Richfield and across the region. The tragedy has resulted in some cities advocating for the state to strengthen gun safety laws at the state level or remove the preemption law that prevents cities from implementing stricter gun laws. Mayor Supple has been asked to participate with other mayors in legislative advocacy on this issue. Since the legislature is not in session, there is not a specific bill to consider at this time. Discussion has focused on prohibiting the sale and possession of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Staff recommend a more general position in order to allow advocacy for multiple solutions to disrupt the cycle of gun violence including funding for mental health, violence prevention programs and strengthening existing licensing programs. Council should provide feedback on advocacy to strengthen gun safety laws and consider the following formal position in preparation of our update of the City's legislative platform for 2026. Richfield supports additional legislation to disrupt the cycle of gun violence, including provisions like stricter gun laws, strengthening existing licensing programs, the ability to ban guns in city-owned spaces, additional funding for mental health and other programs that make our community and staff safer. Recognizing that the problem is complicated, we support solutions that are both common sense and data-driven. Council should provide feedback on advocating to remove the state preemption that prevents cities to pass stronger gun laws at the local level. HISTORICAL CONTEXT See Executive Summary. RECOMMENDED ACTION Discussion on legislative advocacy supporting stronger protections against gun violence. Page 123 of 124 EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES Governor Walz has announced his intention to call a special session to consider stronger protections against gun violence, although the special session has not been scheduled. FINANCIAL IMPACT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ATTACHMENTS None Page 124 of 124