River Falls staff lays out $20–$30 million ‘big‑swing’ Main Street corridor plan; seeks federal safety and build grants

City staff on June 10 presented a preliminary, system‑level plan for revitalizing River Falls’ Main Street corridor and recommended pursuing federal funding opportunities to support a multi‑phase project estimated in the $20 million to $30 million range.

Emily Shively, assistant director of community development, said the corridor plan builds on previous Comprehensive Plan updates and downtown design work and aims to coordinate utilities, circulation and river connections. “Main Street has always been a significant priority,” Shively said, and the recent inventories of underground utilities and stakeholder interviews provide a foundation for further public engagement.

Todd Nikleski, the city engineer, summarized the infrastructure findings: the sanitary sewer in the downtown area is generally clay tile installed about 80 years ago and may be replaced or relined; some laterals are shared by adjacent businesses, creating maintenance and grease‑trap complications. “Our sanitary sewer is 80 years old. We believe it was installed around 1940,” Nikleski said. He added the downtown water mains likely date from the late 19th century — “we believe the water main was installed somewhere between years 1894 and 1900” — and are undersized for modern fire flows; many curb‑stop valves have failed, preventing water service to individual businesses during repairs.

Staff described a three‑phase approach: Phase 1 focused on Second Street intersection improvements to maintain circulation while Main Street work occurs; Phase 2 would include alley and Riverwalk improvements and undergrounding electric infrastructure; Phase 3 is full reconstruction of Main Street including stormwater, sewer and water main replacement, ADA improvements and signal upgrades. Staff noted Main Street storm sewer sits above the sanitary sewer in places, complicating repairs and creating inflow concerns; much of the sanitary piping is clay tile that could be relined with cured‑in‑place pipe to reduce excavation expense.

Funding strategy and timing: Staff recommended applying for the federal Safe Streets and Roads for All (Safe Streets for All) action‑planning and demonstration grants to identify safety projects and to make the corridor eligible for implementation funding. They also identified the federal BUILD grant (now called the RAISE/BUILD or similar competitive program) as a likely pathway for larger construction grants; BUILD awards are capped and staff said the city’s estimated full scope could exceed single‑grant limits. Shively and Nikleski said staff’s very preliminary construction cost estimates put the full corridor in the “high $20 millions,” with the earliest realistic start appearing around 2030 given funding and engagement timelines.

Public comments and council questions flagged design priorities and risks. One council member asked that dark‑sky lighting standards and pollinator‑friendly fixtures be considered as part of design; staff said they would include such policy choices in design and public engagement phases. Council members representing downtown businesses emphasized the need for a long lead time for business owners to plan for construction impacts.

What was not decided: No formal approvals for specific design choices, assessments to property owners or funding mixes were adopted. Staff explicitly told the council that property assessments, utility funding shares and final scope will be developed through further public engagement and council policy direction.

Next steps: Staff will submit Safe Streets for All demonstration grant materials, pursue funding opportunities for design and implementation, and return with more detailed scopes, cost estimates and community engagement plans as grant opportunities and schedules develop.