2025-11-25 WS City Council Agenda
Richfield City Council Agenda
November 25, 2025 -- 5:15 PM
Richfield Municipal Center
Council Chambers
6700 Portland Avenue South
1. Call to Order
2. Item Discussion
a. Consider Richfield's Proposed 2026 Legislative Priorities
b. Update on Hennepin County's Nicollet Avenue Cost Share
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 63
City Council Meeting 11/25/2025
Agenda Section: Item Discussion
Agenda Item: 2.a.
Report Prepared By:
Courtney DesCamps, Senior Analyst
Department Director:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
Item for Consideration:
Consider Richfield's Proposed 2026 Legislative Priorities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Annually, the City of Richfield adopts its legislative priorities which highlights the city's
positions on various issues. This list of priorities is a summary document to help steer
the city’s legislative advocacy and outreach in the coming year.
City staff complied the proposed 2026 legislative priorities for City Council
consideration. City staff is available to answer any questions City Council has on the
priorities.
Proposed Top Legislative Priorities:
• SUPPORT 4d(1) aid being made permanent and available to all impacted cities
(alternative, support something similar to 2024 Florida Legislation (HB7073)
permitting a taxing authority to opt-out if certain conditions related to existing
housing affordability or commercial tax base are met.)
• SUPPORT the repeal or modification of the 2024 legislation prohibiting cities
from subjecting state licensed group assisted living facilities to city rental
licensing requirements.
• SUPPORT 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.
• INTRODUCE/SUPPORT reductions in local contributions to County and State
projects and limit any long-term ownership and major maintenance responsibility
placed on local agencies.
• SUPPORT bonding priorities:
o SUPPORT Richfield’s bonding request (H.F. 691/S.F. 380) for
$10,000,000 to supplement the City’s estimated local cost-share for
Hennepin County’s upcoming Nicollet Avenue (CSAH 52) reconstruction
project programmed for construction in 2026-2027.
o INTRODUCE/SUPPORT a bonding request for $2,500,000 for the
Richfield Emergency Water Interconnect project which will hydraulically
connect the drinking water systems of Richfield and Minneapolis. The
Page 2 of 63
project will provide a clean and reliable secondary source of potable water
for the residents and businesses within Richfield in the event of any
measurable changes to the water quality for the current (groundwater)
source water, cyber-attacks, or unplanned plant outages.
Final Adoption
The final list of legislative priorities will be brought to the City Council for adoption at the
December 9, 2025, City Council meeting. By adopting the legislative platform formally,
the City Council shows these priorities are in the best interest of the community and
provides increased visibility for the issues.
Legislative Breakfast
City staff will present the city’s adopted legislative platform to elected representatives at
the annual legislative breakfast scheduled for January 15, 2026, at 7:45 a.m. Richfield's
legislative delegation will have an opportunity to discuss or ask questions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
No formal action needed. For discussion only.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS
The included legislative priorities have the ability to foster equity by enacting policies
that dismantle systemic barriers and, on the inverse, laws can be used to perpetuate
historic inequalities. The city hopes that through the included priorities, the city can
increase opportunities, safeguard marginalized communities, and help begin to address
historical injustices.
POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.)
CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
FINANCIAL IMPACT
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2026 Legislative Priorities (R1)
2. 2026 Legislative Priorities Slides
Page 3 of 63
(DRAFT) CITY OF RICHFIELD
2026 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
Richfield staff is available to provide detailed information on any of the items listed on this handout and to provide testimony.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD…
Support legislation that addresses the widening existing economic, racial, health and education gaps,
and the adverse impacts a warming climate will have on our most vulnerable communities. As a city, we
are providing local tools and support for residents, but there is need for more relief and legislation
beyond city-level jurisdiction. We continue to support collaborative efforts with its representatives on
legislation that expands labor rights, housing affordability and protections, as well as access to
affordable healthcare.
Support local officials who know what tools and programs best support our residents. We
support local decision-making authority and oppose statutory changes that erode local
authority and decision making.
Oppose the imposition of legislative mandates that increase local costs without a corresponding state
appropriation or funding mechanism. Unfunded mandates may increase local property taxes and this
additional cost impedes cities’ ability to fund traditional services.
Contact: Mary Supple, Mayor, 612-866-8829, MSupple@richfieldmn.gov
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager, 612-861-9702, KRodriguez@richfieldmn.gov
TOP LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
• SUPPORT 4d(1) aid being made permanent and available to all impacted cities (alternative, support
something similar to 2024 Florida Legislation (HB7073) permitting a taxing authority to opt-out if
certain conditions related to existing housing affordability or commercial tax base are met.)
• SUPPORT the repeal or modification of 2024 legislation prohibiting cities from subjecting state licensed
group assisted living facilities to city rental licensing requirements.
• SUPPORT 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.
• INTRODUCE/SUPPORT reductions in local contributions to County and State projects and limit any
long-term ownership and major maintenance responsibility placed on local agencies.
• SUPPORT Richfield’s bonding priorities:
o SUPPORT Richfield’s bonding request (H.F. 691/S.F. 380) for $10,000,000 to supplement the
City’s estimated local cost-share for Hennepin County’s upcoming Nicollet Avenue (CSAH 52)
reconstruction project programmed for construction in 2026-2027.
o INTRODUCE/SUPPORT a bonding request for $2,500,000 for the Richfield Emergency Water
Interconnect project which will hydraulically connect the drinking water systems of Richfield and
Page 4 of 63
(DRAFT) CITY OF RICHFIELD
2026 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
Richfield staff is available to provide detailed information on any of the items listed on this handout and to provide testimony.
Minneapolis. The project will provide a clean and reliable secondary source of potable water for
the residents and businesses within Richfield in the event of any measurable changes to the water
quality for the current (groundwater) source water, cyber-attacks, or unplanned plant outages.
Contact: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager, 612-861-9702, KRodriguez@richfieldmn.gov
Courtney DesCamps, Senior Analyst, 612-861-9712, CDesCamps@richfieldmn.gov
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
• SUPPORT continued funding to fully reimburse cities for the cost of providing health insurance
coverage to police officers and firefighters who are disabled or killed in the line of duty.
• SUPPORT reimbursement to cities for the cost of covering employees who are out on military leave.
• SUPPORT legislation that would provide ongoing full state funding for the 2023 duty disability law that
includes paid time off for mental health treatment, emotional trauma training for pre-service and in-
service for police and fire, in addition to initiatives and programs that provide peer support, emotional
trauma training, early intervention, and mental health treatment for law enforcement.
• SUPPORT a legislative solution to modernize funding for public communications, including public
access channel programming and the distribution of public information.
• SUPPORT the creation of a dedicated state grant program to help municipalities strengthen their
cybersecurity program. This program would provide essential funding for cities like Richfield to conduct
security risk assessments, upgrade critical infrastructure, invest in modern security tools, and provide
mandatory cybersecurity awareness training for all employees.
• SUPPORT implementing direct balloting for the full 46 days of early/absentee voting to streamline
procedures, reduce burdens on local municipalities, and improve overall efficiency for both voters and
election staff.
Contact: Sack Thongvanh, Assistant City Manager, 612-861-9708, SThongvanh@richfieldmn.gov
Page 5 of 63
(DRAFT) CITY OF RICHFIELD
2026 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
Richfield staff is available to provide detailed information on any of the items listed on this handout and to provide testimony.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• SUPPORT amending Minn. Stat. 504B.321, Subd. 1a increasing written notice to tenants before an
eviction action is begun for nonpayment of rent or another financial obligation to 30 days.
• SUPPORT allowing a percentage of LAHA funds to be put toward administrative costs, similar to TIF,
Federal Section 8, and local Bring it Home MN programs.
• SUPPORT legislation to allow two-family and accessory dwelling units by-right but retain local
autonomy in the development and approval of official controls.
• SUPPORT legislation prohibiting housing discrimination of Section 8 and other rental assistance
voucher holders.
• SUPPORT transfer of pooled tax increment to Affordable Housing Trust Funds on a permanent basis.
Contact: Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director, 612-861-9766, MPoehlman@richfieldmn.gov
FINANCE
• SUPPORT maintaining and increasing Local Government Aid (LGA).
• SUPPORT current formula and distribution of fiscal disparities. Oppose shifting to specific project-
based funding.
Contact: Mary Bogie, Finance Director, 612-861-9723, MBogie@richfieldmn.gov
FIRE
• SUPPORT the ability of local governments to set standards for emergency medical services that best
meet the needs of their communities.
• SUPPORT efforts to protect and strengthen firefighter pensions to maintain recruitment, retention,
and long-term sustainability.
• SUPPORT local control over building and fire codes, including the preservation of requirements for
automatic fire sprinkler systems and modern safety standards.
• SUPPORT statewide efforts to reduce risks associated with lithium-ion battery fires, including funding
for mitigation, training, and public education initiatives.
• OPPOSE efforts to weaken state building codes, reduce sprinkler requirements, or otherwise erode
local authority in setting public safety standards.
• OPPOSE proposals to legalize and expand consumer fireworks, which increase community risk and
strain public safety resources.
Contact: Jenell Brooks, Fire Chief, 612-243-4502, JenellBrooks@richfieldmn.gov
Page 6 of 63
(DRAFT) CITY OF RICHFIELD
2026 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
Richfield staff is available to provide detailed information on any of the items listed on this handout and to provide testimony.
PUBLIC SAFETY
• SUPPORT reinstating funding for mandated POST Board training. The Philando Castile Training Fund
was reduced by 1.1 million dollars in 2025, and the $3 million in base statewide training funding ends
after the current biennium.
• SUPPORT enhancing the crime of illegal possession of a firearm from a gross misdemeanor to a felony.
Currently, the level of crime does not match the dangerous impact it has on communities.
• SUPPORT establishing enhanced penalties for illegal gun possession or use in Minnesota Statute
Chapter 624, similar to the enhanced penalties for “Drug Free Zones” defined in Minnesota Statute
152.01.
• SUPPORT amending state statute to increase penalties for violent felons in possession of firearms and
for straw purchases and illegal sales of firearms from licensed gun dealers. This legislation includes
mandatory minimum sentences for such violent crimes.
• SUPPORT revisions to the ERPO statute. Remove the requirement for law enforcement to compensate
respondents for surrendered firearms in Minnesota Statute 624.7175(a). Allow temporary seizure of
firearms upon ERPO application, with return of firearms if the ERPO is denied.
• SUPPORT increasing the penalty for impersonating a police officer from a misdemeanor to a felony.
SUPPORT prohibiting display or use of law enforcement equipment on non law enforcement vehicles
by expanding Minnesota Statute 609.4751.
• SUPPORT mandatory minimum sentences for fleeing in a motor vehicle due to increasing incidents and
public safety risks.
• SUPPORT increased funding for Violent Crime Enforcement Teams to sustain operations and address
illegal firearms, narcotics, and gang activity.
• SUPPORT clarification of the Clean Slate Act to resolve conflicts between Minnesota Statutes
609A.015, 13.82, and 13.03 regarding data classification and disclosure.
Contact: Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director, 612-861-9828, JHenthorne@richfieldmn.gov
Page 7 of 63
(DRAFT) CITY OF RICHFIELD
2026 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
Richfield staff is available to provide detailed information on any of the items listed on this handout and to provide testimony.
PUBLIC WORKS
• SUPPORT modifications to the Municipal State Aid (MSA) Design Standards to allow municipalities to
use 10 foot wide lanes without a variance and to allow the use of additional design guidance when
appropriate to meet a community’s specific needs.
• SUPPORT a state-wide, comprehensive, and stable source of funding for water, wastewater and
stormwater infrastructure to address Minnesota’s aging infrastructure and to ensure affordability for
Minnesota communities so they can remain a great place to live and competitive place to do business.
• OPPOSE any legislation or rule change that limits local authority related to use of public rights-of-way
(small cell, for example).
• SUPPORT state laws that provide limited liability to commercial salt applicators that are certified
through an established voluntary salt applicator certification program.
Contact: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director, 612-861-9795, KAsher@richfieldmn.gov
RECREATION AND SUSTAINABILITY
• SUPPORT an amendment to Minn. Stat. § 462.358 to allow park dedication fees on new housing units
and new commercial and industrial development without the requirement that land be subdivided.
• SUPPORT an amendment to the Citizens Personal Protection Act that would allow cities to prohibit
firearms in city-owned buildings, facilities, and parks.
• SUPPORT an increase in state and county funding for local recreational assets including access to new
funding sources at the state and federal levels.
• SUPPORT allocating 100% of State Revenue from the Solid Waste Management Tax (SCORE) to County
Waste Management Efforts.
• SUPPORT passage of Truth in Labeling for Recycling (previously dropped from the compostable
products bill).
• SUPPORT establishment of Building Performance Standards.
• SUPPORT establishment of a Right to Cooling Standard.
• OPPOSE closure of the HERC without meeting necessary waste reduction goals including 85% recycling
diversion rate in Hennepin County and a plan for the waste currently handled by the facility.
• Support consistency in method of sale, labeling, and advertising in support of consumers who utilize
Minnesota's growing public charging network. But Oppose the requirement for a public charging
operator’s license and the new annual $100 inspection fee per port for retail EVSE.
Contact: Karl Huemiller, Recreation Services Director, 612-861-9387, KHuemiller@richfieldmn.gov
Page 8 of 63
(DRAFT) CITY OF RICHFIELD
2026 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
Richfield staff is available to provide detailed information on any of the items listed on this handout and to provide testimony.
FEDERAL
• OPPOSE federal legislation that would redefine hemp and cap total THC at 0.4mg per container, which
would invalidate Minnesota-legal THC beverages and edibles and eliminate a growing revenue source
for Richfield Municipal Liquor (2023: $95,744; 2024: $590,334; 2025 YTD: $589,031). Minnesota has
established a strong regulatory framework, and federal restrictions would abruptly end a compliant,
well-regulated industry.
• OPPOSE any effort to rescind or “claw back” federal grants or aid previously committed to local
governments and other public agencies, including efforts to redirect or cancel existing allocations after
they’ve been approved.
• Rep. Omar/Federal – Advocate for Richfield’s Community Project Funding (CPF) requests in Congress
submitted to the Appropriations Committee by Rep. Omar:
o FY 2026 – Emergency Water Interconnect Project ($5,000,000 est. total cost). If given the
opportunity, the city intends to submit this project to the Appropriations Committee via Rep.
Omar’s CPF solicitation for FY 2026. This project would see the construction of a physical water
system connection to Minneapolis’ network to ensure water supply redundancy in the event of
an emergency or other event that might impair the Richfield Water Treatment Plant. Currently,
no such emergency connection exists.
Page 9 of 63
City of Richfield
2026 Legislative
Priorities
Page 10 of 63
Top Priorities
•SUPPORT 4d(1) aid being made permanent and
available to all impacted cities.
•SUPPORT the repeal or modification of 2024
legislation prohibiting cities from subjecting state licensed group assisted living facilities to city rental
licensing requirements.
•SUPPORT 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.
•INTRODUCE/SUPPORT reductions in local
contributions to County and State projects and limit
any long-term ownership and major maintenance
responsibility placed on local agencies.
Page 11 of 63
Top Priorities
•SUPPORT Richfield’s bonding priorities:
•SUPPORT Richfield’s bonding request (H.F.
691/S.F. 380) for $10,000,000 to
supplement the City’s estimated local cost-
share for Hennepin County’s upcoming
Nicollet Avenue (CSAH 52) reconstruction
project programmed for construction in
2026-2027.
•INTRODUCE/SUPPORT a bonding request for $2,500,000 for the Richfield Emergency Water Interconnect project which will hydraulically connect the drinking water systems of Richfield and Minneapolis.
Page 12 of 63
Administrative Services
•SUPPORT continued funding to fully
reimburse cities for the cost of providing
health insurance coverage to police
officers and firefighters who are disabled
or killed in the line of duty.
•SUPPORT reimbursement to cities for the
cost of covering employees who are out on
military leave.
•SUPPORT legislation that would provide
ongoing full state funding for the 2023 duty
disability law that includes paid time off for
mental health treatment, emotional
trauma training for pre-service and in-
service for police and fire, in addition to
initiatives and programs that provide peer
support, emotional trauma training, early
intervention, and mental health treatment
for law enforcement.
Page 13 of 63
Administrative Services
•SUPPORT a legislative solution to
modernize funding for public
communications, including public
access channel programming and the
distribution of public information.
•SUPPORT the creation of a dedicated
state grant program to help
municipalities strengthen their
cybersecurity program.
•SUPPORT implementing direct balloting
for the full 46 days of early/absentee voting.
Page 14 of 63
Community
Development
•SUPPORT amending Minn. Stat.
504B.321, Subd. 1a increasing
written notice to tenants before an
eviction action is begun for
nonpayment of rent or another
financial obligation to 30 days.
•SUPPORT allowing a percentage of
LAHA funds to be put toward
administrative costs, similar to TIF,
Federal Section 8, and local Bring
it Home MN programs.
Page 15 of 63
Community
Development
•SUPPORT legislation to allow two-family
and accessory dwelling units by-right but
retain local autonomy in the
development and approval of official
controls.
•SUPPORT legislation prohibiting housing
discrimination of Section 8 and other
rental assistance voucher holders.
•SUPPORT transfer of pooled tax
increment to Affordable Housing Trust
Funds on a permanent basis.
Page 16 of 63
Finance
•SUPPORT maintaining and
increasing Local Government Aid
(LGA).
•SUPPORT current formula and
distribution of fiscal disparities.
Oppose shifting to specific
project-based funding.
Page 17 of 63
Fire
•SUPPORT the ability of local
governments to set standards for
emergency medical services that best
meet the needs of their communities.
•SUPPORT efforts to protect and
strengthen firefighter pensions to
maintain recruitment, retention, and
long-term sustainability.
•SUPPORT local control over building and
fire codes, including the preservation of
requirements for automatic fire sprinkler systems and modern safety standards.
Page 18 of 63
Fire
•SUPPORT statewide efforts to reduce
risks associated with lithium-ion battery
fires, including funding for mitigation,
training, and public education initiatives.
•OPPOSE efforts to weaken state building
codes, reduce sprinkler requirements, or
otherwise erode local authority in setting
public safety standards.
•OPPOSE proposals to legalize and
expand consumer fireworks, which
increase community risk and strain public safety resources.
Page 19 of 63
Public Safety
•SUPPORT reinstating funding for mandated
POST Board training. The Philando Castile
Training Fund was reduced by 1.1 million dollars
in 2025, and the $3 million in base statewide
training funding ends after the current
biennium.
•SUPPORT enhancing the crime of illegal
possession of a firearm from a gross
misdemeanor to a felony.
•SUPPORT establishing enhanced penalties for
illegal gun possession or use in Minnesota
Statute Chapter 624, similar to the enhanced
penalties for “Drug Free Zones” defined in
Minnesota Statute 152.01.
Page 20 of 63
Public Safety
•SUPPORT amending state statute to
increase penalties for violent felons in
possession of firearms and for straw
purchases and illegal sales of firearms from
licensed gun dealers.
•SUPPORT revisions to the ERPO statute.
Remove the requirement for law
enforcement to compensate respondents for
surrendered firearms in Minnesota Statute
624.7175(a).
•SUPPORT increasing the penalty for impersonating a police officer from a
misdemeanor to a felony.
Page 21 of 63
Public Safety
•SUPPORT prohibiting display or use of law
enforcement equipment on non law
enforcement vehicles by expanding Minnesota
Statute 609.4751.
•SUPPORT mandatory minimum sentences for
fleeing in a motor vehicle due to increasing
incidents and public safety risks.
•SUPPORT increased funding for Violent Crime
Enforcement Teams to sustain operations and
address illegal firearms, narcotics, and gang
activity.
•SUPPORT clarification of the Clean Slate Act to
resolve conflicts between Minnesota Statutes
609A.015, 13.82, and 13.03 regarding data
classification and disclosure.
Page 22 of 63
Public Works
•SUPPORT modifications to the Municipal State
Aid (MSA) Design Standards to allow
municipalities to use 10 foot wide lanes without
a variance and to allow the use of additional
design guidance when appropriate to meet a
community’s specific needs.
•SUPPORT a state-wide, comprehensive, and
stable source of funding for water, wastewater
and stormwater infrastructure to address
Minnesota’s aging infrastructure and to ensure
affordability for Minnesota communities so they
can remain a great place to live and competitive
place to do business.
Page 23 of 63
Public Works
•OPPOSE any legislation or rule
change that limits local authority
related to use of public rights-of-way
(small cell, for example).
•SUPPORT state laws that provide
limited liability to commercial salt
applicators that are certified through
an established voluntary salt
applicator certification program.
Page 24 of 63
Recreation and
Sustainability
•SUPPORT an amendment to Minn. Stat. §
462.358 to allow park dedication fees on new
housing units and new commercial and
industrial development without the
requirement that land be subdivided.
•SUPPORT an amendment to the Citizens
Personal Protection Act that would allow
cities to prohibit firearms in city-owned
buildings, facilities, and parks.
•SUPPORT an increase in state and county
funding for local recreational assets including access to new funding sources at
the state and federal levels.
Page 25 of 63
Recreation and
Sustainability
•SUPPORT allocating 100% of State
Revenue from the Solid Waste
Management Tax (SCORE) to County
Waste Management Efforts.
•SUPPORT passage of Truth in Labeling
for Recycling (previously dropped from
the compostable products bill).
•SUPPORT establishment of Building
Performance Standards.
•SUPPORT establishment of a Right to
Cooling Standard.
Page 26 of 63
Recreation and
Sustainability
•OPPOSE closure of the HERC without
meeting necessary waste reduction goals
including 85% recycling diversion rate in
Hennepin County and a plan for the waste
currently handled by the facility.
•Support consistency in method of sale,
labeling, and advertising in support of
consumers who utilize Minnesota's growing
public charging network. But Oppose the
requirement for a public charging operator’s
license and the new annual $100 inspection
fee per port for retail EVSE.
Page 27 of 63
Federal
•OPPOSE federal legislation that would redefine hemp
and cap total THC at 0.4mg per container, which would
invalidate Minnesota-legal THC beverages and edibles
and eliminate a growing revenue source for Richfield
Municipal Liquor (2023: $95,744; 2024: $590,334;
2025 YTD: $589,031). Minnesota has established a
strong regulatory framework, and federal restrictions
would abruptly end a compliant, well-regulated
industry.
•OPPOSE any effort to rescind or “claw back” federal grants or aid previously committed to local governments and other public agencies, including efforts to redirect or cancel existing allocations after
they’ve been approved.
Page 28 of 63
Federal
•Rep. Omar/Federal –Advocate for Richfield’s
Community Project Funding (CPF) requests in
Congress submitted to the Appropriations Committee
by Rep. Omar:
•FY 2026 –Emergency Water Interconnect Project
($5,000,000 est. total cost). If given the
opportunity, the city intends to submit this
project to the Appropriations Committee via
Rep. Omar’s CPF solicitation for FY 2026. This
project would see the construction of a physical
water system connection to Minneapolis’
network to ensure water supply redundancy in
the event of an emergency or other event that
might impair the Richfield Water Treatment
Plant. Currently, no such emergency connection
exists.
Page 29 of 63
City Council Meeting 11/25/2025
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:
Update on Hennepin County's Nicollet Avenue Cost Share
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff will be providing an update on current expected costs for the Nicollet Avenue
reconstruction project. Hennepin County has completed their 95% plans and estimate
for Nicollet Avenue, and provided their current estimated cost share with the city.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive an update from staff on the City's cost share for Hennepin County's
reconstruction of Nicollet Avenue.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Design plans for the Nicollet Avenue reconstruction project are currently 95% complete
and construction is planned for 2026. The current estimate for the entire Nicollet Avenue
project is $24.26 million, with a city cost share of $7.98 million. The city share is split,
with $4.68 million estimated for roadway and storm sewer expenses, and $3.30 million
estimated for watermain and sanitary sewer (city utility) construction. Hennepin County
includes storm sewer expenses with roadway expenses.
At the September 23 Work Session, Council directed staff to attempt negotiating the
city's cost share for the Nicollet Avenue construction. At the time, the city's expected
share was $9.28 million. Hennepin County staff rejected negotiation and directed city
staff to the County's 2020 Cost Participation and Maintenance Policies.
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 have received a draft cooperative construction agreement, and the County has
indicated that general financial terms need to be agreed before the County Board can
advance the project to advertise for bids.
Page 30 of 63
FINANCIAL IMPACT
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Hennepin County Cost Policy
2. Nicollet Ave Cost Estimate
Page 31 of 63
Cost Participation and
Maintenance Policies
As Adopted on October 20, 2020
Hennepin County Public Works
Transportation Departments
Page 32 of 63
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 33 of 63
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 34 of 63
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 35 of 63
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 36 of 63
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 37 of 63
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 38 of 63
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 39 of 63
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 40 of 63
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 41 of 63
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 42 of 63
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 43 of 63
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 44 of 63
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 45 of 63
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 46 of 63
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 47 of 63
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 48 of 63
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 49 of 63
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 50 of 63
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 51 of 63
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 52 of 63
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 53 of 63
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 54 of 63
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 55 of 63
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 56 of 63
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 57 of 63
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 58 of 63
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 59 of 63
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 60 of 63
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 61 of 63
Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program (REPP)
Page 29
Roadway BeauƟficaƟon……………………………………………………33%
The maximum partnership program contribution will be $330,000 per centerline mile.
Note: Since surface treatments (color, scoring patterns, etc.) have limited visual impact on the
motorist, the partnership program will not contribute toward the cost of the improvements.
Screening/SeparaƟon of Adjacent ProperƟes……………………50%
The partnership program will participate equally with municipalities to provide security for
corridor users. Examples of security improvements include fencing which separates parking lots
from adjacent public bicycle and pedestrian ways and lighting at transit stops. If trees and
landscaping are used as a method of providing screening or separation; the county will
participate in such items at this higher rate.
Increase Awareness of County Highway JurisdicƟon………….Up to 50%
The partnership program will contribute up to 50% for monuments at municipal boundaries that
recognize the county and the road as a county highway.
E. MUSA Municipalities
Municipalities wholly within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) on December 8, 1998:
1. Bloomington
2. Brooklyn Center
3. Brooklyn Park
4. Crystal
5. Deephaven
6. Edina
7. Excelsior
8. Fort Snelling
9. Golden Valley
10. Greenwood
11. Hopkins
12. Long Lake
13. Medicine Lake
14. Minneapolis
15. Minnetonka
16. Minnetonka Beach
17. Mound
18. New Hope
19. Osseo
20. Richfield
21. Robbinsdale
22. Shorewood
23. Spring Park
24. St. Anthony
25. St. Louis Park
26. Tonka Bay
27. Wayzata
28. Woodland
Page 62 of 63
TOTAL Hennepin CountyCity of RichfieldRoadway / StormCity of RichfieldSanitary / WaterConstruction Contract Total(1)19,340,327.45$ 13,966,309.20$ 2,877,035.25$ 2,496,983.00$ Design Engineering(2)644,882.19$ -$ 345,244.23$ 299,637.96$ Construction Administration(2)537,401.83$ -$ 287,703.53$ 249,698.30$ Right-of-Way(3)1,639,330.00$ 819,665.00$ 819,665.00$ -$ Boulevard Trees(4)62,080.00$ 62,080.00$ -$ -$ Median Landscaping(5)98,210.00$ 32,409.30$ 65,800.70$ -$ Contingency(6)1,934,032.75$ 1,396,630.92$ 287,703.53$ 249,698.30$ PROJECT TOTAL 24,256,264.21$ 16,215,014.42$ 4,683,152.23$ 3,296,017.56$ NOTES:(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)10% contigency applied to Construction Contract Total.160 boulevard trees based on $388 per tree at 100% County cost to be installed by County Forestry staff.Median Landscaping costs split 33% (County) / 67% (City).CSAH 52 (NICOLLET AVENUE) - HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJ. NO.: 2120800 - (SAP 027-652-046, SAP 157-020-034)EXHIBIT "A" - DIVISION OF COST SUMMARYBased on Hennepin County Cost Participation Policy dated October 20, 2020.22% fee applied to City Construction Contract Totals(12% Design Engineering + 10% Construction Administration)Right-of-Way costs split 50% (County) / 50% (City).File Location:c:\bentley\pw_working_hc\dms10419\2025V_CSAH052_2120800_SEQ_Estimate_95per; WORKSHEET:(EE Summary)1 of 1 Last Update: 11/3/2025Page 63 of 63