10-22-2019 Work Session Agenda W O R K S E S S IO N
R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C E N TE R, B AR TH O LO ME W R O O M
O C TO B ER 22, 2019
5:45 P M
C all to order
1.Lyndale Avenue Reconstruction Update and C apital P roject P lanning
2.P resentation of the P ublic Works D epartment P ublic E ngagement P rocess for S treet Reconstruction P rojects.
A djournment
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 612-861-9738.
AGENDA SECTION:Work Session Items
AGENDA ITEM #1.
STAFF MEMO NO. 28
WORK S E S S ION
10/22/2019
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector/C ity E ngineer
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher
10/16/2019
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
10/17/2019
I T E M F O R WO RK S E S S IO N:
Lyndale Avenue Reconstruction Update and Capital Project Planning
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
At the October 22, 2019, Work Session, staff will provide an update on the Lyndale Avenue Reconstruction
project funding outlook, which includes a recommendation to address the budget gap identified in September.
The discussion will also include an updated Five Year Street Reconstruction Plan and Capital I mprovement
Budget and Capital I mprovement Plan (C I B/C I P) that reflects the proposed funding solutions.
History
The City prioritized the reconstruction of Lyndale due to deteriorating underground infrastructure that
impacted the drivability of the outside lanes. At consecutive meetings in April 2019, the City Council approved
approximately $11.5M in project expenditures without clarification that the project was over its $10M in
budgeted expenditures. I n addition to those approvals, in previous years, the City Council had approved
expenditures related to the project. Before the approvals in April 2019, there should have been a work session
to inform the City Council about the budget shortage and funding options to move the project forward.
Procedure Changes
Attached, you will find an outline of financial procedures that will be used to prevent the City from being put in
a similar situation moving forward. The most apparent change is a more comprehensive and regularly updated
sources and uses and the inclusion of the Finance Director in the approval process for major capital project
expenditures.
Lyndale Recommendation
Attached, you will find a history of the Lyndale Reconstruction project sources and uses. Please note that as
the engineer's estimates were developed, those numbers were not reflected in the following C I B/C I P budget
which will be a point of discussion at the work session.
I nitially, the 2019 bond issue anticipated $7.5M for Lyndale and $2.2M for 66th Street but allowed for all of the
funding to be directed to Lyndale if they were not used on 66th Street. Also, the approved Street
Reconstruction Plan anticipated issuing $2M in street reconstruction bonds for Lyndale in 2020; however
approvals to date allow for up to $7.2M in bonding for 2020. Since we can request additional municipal state
aid (MS A) dollars for 66th Street, all of the bond proceeds are available for Lyndale. Based on this
information, staff is recommending the following sources be used to fill the Lyndale funding gap, this
recommendation is reflected in the 'actual' column in the Lyndale History attachment.
Request additional MS A funds for 66th Street.
Shift the $2.2M in 2019 bond proceeds for 66th Street to Lyndale.
I ssue $3M in bonds for the project in 2020 (an increase of $1M).
The use of additional MS A dollars for 66th Street limits flexibility in future capital improvements, however, it
minimizes the need for additional debt to fund the shortfall.
D IRE C T I O N NE E D E D:
Staff are seeking direction on their recommended funding plan in order to update the Street
Reconstruction Plan and the C IB/C IP that is scheduled to be approved at the December 10, 2019
Council Meeting.
B AC K G RO UND INF O RM AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
See Lyndale History (attached).
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
As the Lyndale Reconstruction Project approaches completion it is critical that the City determine an
appropriate funding solution.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
See Executive Summary.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
ALTE R N AT IV E(S):
Alternatively the City Council may choose to increase the size of the 2020 bond issue to limit the use of future
MS A funds toward 66th Street or use Local Government Aid reserves.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None.
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
C IP F inancial P rocedures B ackup Material
Lyndale History B ackup Material
Capital Project Financial Procedures
1. Sources/Uses - the Engineering Division will develop the initial project budget,
including sources and uses.
a. The budget will have an initial 20% contingency.
b. As an engineer’s estimate is developed the sources/uses will be updated
to reflect the more accurate numbers.
c. At a minimum the sources/uses will be reviewed and updated annually as
part of the CIP/CIB process.
d. Up-to-date sources/uses will include previous estimates (for example the
2018 estimates will be provided with the 2019 update).
e. All updates will be provided to the Finance Director and City Manager.
2. City Council Items - When project related approvals are presented to the City
Council for consideration, the following will be included in the financial section of
the staff report.
a. The most current sources/uses.
b. The level of risk associated with both the sources and uses.
c. For multi-year projects the sources and uses will include information on
which budget year the funds will be expended and/or obtained.
d. The staff report approval will include the Finance Director’s review.
3. Bidding and Award of Contract - If project bids come in over the last published
project estimate, the award of contract will be delayed until sufficient sources are
identified and the City Council has been made aware of the changes.
a. The recommendation to award the bid will include the updated
sources/uses.
b. The Finance Director will be included in the staff report approval process.
c. Projects will not go to the City Council for approval of bids, or award or
contract, until the project sources and uses are balanced.
Lyndale Avenue Reconstruction
Richfield Project No.41014
SAP No. 157-363-032
This is a history of the Lyndale Project Financial Situation - prepared 10/15/2019.
Does not reflect
Nov 2017 estimate.
2017 CIP 2018 CIP EE Nov 2017 2019 CIP EE Jan 2019 Bid April 2019 Actual Oct 2019
Estimated Uses:20% Contingency 20% Contingency
30% Design
20% Contingency
95% Design
20% Contigency
100% Design
10% Contingency 2% Contingency
Construction $7,200,000 $7,200,000 $8,300,000 $7,200,000 $9,700,000 $10,672,526 $10,672,526
Change Orders $27,980
Right of Way $106,250 $106,250
Legal/Admin/Engineering $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,660,000 $1,400,000 $1,940,000 $1,727,078 $1,727,078
Staff $165,000 $165,000
Contingency $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,660,000 $1,400,000 $1,940,000 $1,067,253 $213,451
Total Uses $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $11,620,000 $10,000,000 $13,580,000 $13,738,107 $12,912,285
Sources:
Street Reconstruction Bonds $10,000,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $9,500,000 $9,500,000 $9,500,000 $8,531,876
Utility Bonds $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,168,343
Municipal State Aid $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000
Xcel Energy Rate Payers $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Local Government Aid $1,000,000
Transfer from MSA fund $212,066
Total Sources $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,912,285
Difference $0 $0 -$1,620,000 $0 -$3,580,000 -$3,738,107 $0
AGENDA SECTION:Work Session Items
AGENDA ITEM #2.
S TAFF ME MO NO.27
WORK S E S S ION
10/22/2019
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: S cott K ulzer, A dministrative/A ide A nalyst
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector/C ity E ngineer
10/17/2019
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
10/17/2019
I T E M F O R WO RK S E S S IO N:
Presentation of the Public Works Department Public Engagement Process for Street Reconstruction
Projects.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Staff will briefly present the Public W orks Department process for engaging the public in the various phases
of street reconstruction projects. This is the method the City utilizes to gather feedback and identify concerns
held by stakeholders in the development and design of projects. The bulk of public engagement occurs in the
preliminary design phase during a project’s “concept development.” I n the final design and construction phase
of a project, public engagement is tailored to the adjacent property owners to review specific details related to
their property. Throughout the preliminary and final design process and through project construction, staff
maintains an informal openness to all project stakeholders and will correspond with and meet residents in
person to discuss and talk through any concerns or questions arising from a project. All large-scale
transportation projects in Richfield generally follow this process. The written process is attached to this report.
D IRE C T I O N NE E D E D:
This is an informational work session. No direction is needed but feedback and questions are welcome.
B AC K G RO UND INF O RM AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
For many years, Public W orks (P W ) staff has had an informal and unwritten public engagement
process that was followed in an effort to alert the public to and solicit feedback and opinions on design
problems and solutions for upcoming reconstruction projects. I n an effort to standardize this process and
ensure it is carried out consistently, the process was put into an official written P W policy. This policy is
not intended to be static but will evolve as P W staff refines the best ways to engage the public and
stakeholders going into the future.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Public Engagement Policy for Street Reconstruction Projects (Attached)
City of Richfield Guiding Principles (Attached)
Council Goal #1 - I nfrastructure: I nvest in the City's infrastructure to best serve today's and
tomorrow's residents, businesses and visitors
Council Goal #5 - Community Engagement: Utilize a wide variety of communication and
engagement tools to build a stronger relationship with residents, businesses and visitors
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
I t is expected the next formal public engagement initiative will begin in spring 2020 with the renewal
of the paused 65th St. Project.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
None
ALTE R N AT IV E(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Transportation Engineer J ack Broz & Administrative Aide/Analyst Scott Kulzer
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
P ublic E ngagement P rocess E xhibit
Guiding P rinciples E xhibit
Public Works Department
City of Richfield
Date: April 3, 2019
Subject: Public Engagement Policy for Street Projects
Policy Purpose & Overview
This policy is intended to formalize the public engagement process the City of Richfield utilizes to gather
feedback and identify concerns held by stakeholders in the development and design of street
construction projects. The bulk of public engagement occurs in the preliminary design phase during a
project’s “concept development.” In the final design and construction phase of a project, public
engagement is tailored to the adjacent property owners to review specific details related to their
property. Throughout the preliminary and final design process and through project construction, staff
maintains an informal openness to all project stakeholders and will correspond with and meet residents
in person to discuss and talk through any concerns or questions arising from a project. All large-scale
transportation projects in Richfield follow this general linear process (attachment #1).
The Big Picture: Richfield’s Guiding Documents
The City of Richfield relies on a set of guiding documents (attachment #2) to help shape the design of
street reconstruction projects. The City of Richfield’s Complete Streets Policy states in part:
“Early and frequent public engagement/involvement will be important to the success of
this Policy. Those planning and designing street projects must give due consideration to
the community values, from the very start of planning and design work. This will apply to
all roadway projects, including those involving new construction, reconstruction, or
changes in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway (such as the
reduction in the number of travel lanes or removal of on-street parking).”
In addition to the Complete Streets Policy, staff utilizes Guiding Principles, the Bicycle Master
Plan, the Pedestrian Master Plan, and the Parks Master Plan to guide the design process from
start to finish.
Project Evolution & Public Engagement
1. Capital Improvement Plan – Project Identification
2. Public Notification & Project Promotion
3. Phase 1: Preliminary Design (Concept Development)
a. Transportation Commission
b. Open House #1
Virtual Open House
Transportation Commission
c. Open House #2
Virtual Open House
Transportation Commission
City Council Work Session if Needed
d. Open House #3
Virtual Open House
Transportation Commission
City Council Work Session if Needed
e. Meetings with Adjacent Property Owners with Physical Property Impacts
f. Open House #4
Virtual Open House
City Council Work Session to Review
Preferred Alternative Design
Transportation Commission
Recommendation to Council
g. City Council Consideration of
Preliminary Design Approval
4. Phase 2: Final Design Process
a. Meetings with Adjacent Property Owners
b. Final Design Approval
c. Advertisement for Bid
d. Award of Contract
5. Phase 3: Construction
a. Project Construction Kick-Off Meeting
b. Neighborhood Block Meetings
c. Weekly Project Updates
d. Individual Meetings
e. Construction and Project Wrap Up
Capital Improvement Plan – Project Identification
Future projects are identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Budget and Capital Improvement Plan
(CIB/CIP) which is a comprehensive list of major improvements necessary to meet the needs of the
community over a five-year period and beyond. The CIB/CIP sets forth the proposed scheduling and
details of the specific project by year, estimated cost, sources of funding and a justification or
description for each improvement. The CIB/CIP is updated and approved on an annual basis. Street
projects generally find their way into the CIB/CIP due to degrading street and infrastructure quality,
critical utility replacement needs, and the ability of the City to complete a project in conjunction with
county, state, and private reconstruction initiatives.
Public Notification & Project Promotion
For many projects, the public notification and engagement process will begin as far out as two years
before any ground is broken, depending on the size and scope of the project. City staff work diligently
to make sure the public is aware of upcoming projects, public engagement opportunities and public
meetings related to the development of these projects. Residents and business owners are notified of
upcoming projects and the opportunities to participate in their design through a variety of means,
including but not limited to postcard mailers, flyers, newspaper advertisements, social media postings,
website updates, emails and boulevard signage near the project sites.
Phase I: Preliminary Design (Concept Development)
Transportation Commission
The City Council, in recognition of the importance that transportation planning has on the overall
development of the City of Richfield, created a Transportation Commission in April 2005 to advise the
Council on a variety of transportation issues and to encourage citizen involvement in the City’s decision-
making process on transportation. The Council has tasked the commission with reviewing proposed
improvements to street infrastructure, engaging the project stakeholders and ultimately providing
recommendations for Council consideration. At its core, the Commission serves as the conduit for
community and business perspectives to supplement the technical and regulatory characteristics and
needs of a project. The Commission itself is made up of Richfield residents, business owners, youth
appointees and liaisons from City Council and other City commissions. The public at-large also has an
opportunity at Transportation Commission meetings to participate, provide feedback and ask questions
regarding proposed project designs.
The Commission is a unique and powerful body in the City of Richfield, and no transportation project
plans or designs will receive a recommendation for approval by City Council without thorough vetting
and endorsement by the community-focused Commission. Throughout the preliminary design process,
the Transportation Commission plays a critical role in the development of a project from the initial
technical analysis to their recommendation to council. Following each open house (detailed below), the
Commission considers the input received and directs staff and refines the evolving design.
Open Houses
City and project staff utilize a series of “open houses” to infuse community input into the
comprehensive problem statement, engage the public, and shape the preliminary design of a project,
which will ultimately be presented to the City Council for approval at the end of the public engagement
process. Generally speaking, there are three to four open houses in the preliminary design process.
These open houses consist of both the formal hosted event and a “virtual open house” following each
event (detailed later). The same general process is adhered to when preparing for and promoting each
open house (attachment #3).
Open House #1. At the initial open house no future design is presented, instead, residents and business
owners are invited to learn about the purpose and scope of a project and provide input on existing
issues to be addressed during the design process. Through comment cards and discussions with
residents, staff identifies the problems and concerns residents have with the existing conditions (vehicle
speeds are too high, pedestrians feel unsafe, etc.).
Open House #2. At the second open house, the dominant themes that were identified in the feedback
received from the initial open house will be presented to those in attendance as a “comprehensive
problem statement.” At this open house, the public is asked to confirm what project staff believe has
been expressed through the initial open house. Staff will detail a variety of design “tools” that can be
incorporated into the project to attempt to remedy the identified problems. Through the use of display
boards and other visual aids, staff will detail the pros and cons of the various tools that are being
considered to address the problem, and attendees will have the opportunity to provide their opinions
and comments. No proposed layout or design is presented as this is still a discovery open house and
input is being sought by staff regarding what works and what doesn’t work with the existing conditions.
Open House #3. At the third open house, staff will use the feedback received in the first two open
houses to propose to stakeholders a variety of layout concepts along different segments of the project
that incorporate the favored design tools identified at open house #2 by residents through the
participant feedback forms. Residents are asked through a detailed survey of their opinions about the
design options being offered, if the community problem statement is accurate, and if the concerns
raised in previous open houses have been captured. The purpose of this open house is to review what
has been done to date to respond to community feedback, present supporting technical analysis and
provide input on potential design concepts for the corridor and for key intersections. This process will
continue until a balanced design is developed that is acceptable to the public, meets the project goals
identified in the comprehensive problem statement, and satisfies regulatory requirements (ADA, etc.) is
developed.
Open House #4. At the final open house staff will present the proposed final layout and solicit feedback
from stakeholders and the community. The purpose of this open house is to provide the public an
opportunity to review and comment on the preferred alternative for the corridor, prior to final review
and recommendation from the Transportation Commission to the City Council for formal approval. Prior
to the preliminary design appearing before the Council for approval, a special work session is often held
where the City Council will learn about the “preferred alternative design” that the public engagement
process has achieved.
Virtual Open Houses. For those that are unable to attend an open house, staff will create a “virtual”
open house on the City’s website for the full week following each open house (attachment #4). The
same materials and information displays are presented electronically for the public to view, and an
electronic version of the comment card/survey is available for individuals to fill out. Community
members are also given contact information to personally reach out to staff to discuss elements of the
project. Many stakeholders choose to view the open house materials and then reach out directly to staff
via phone or email to make their voices heard as well.
Comment Cards, Participant Feedback & Open House Summaries. Comment cards/surveys are made
available to residents at all open houses that contain specific questions related to the project design
allowing residents to share their thoughts regarding the question or topic at hand. Following the
conclusion of each open house, staff will summarize the findings and results from resident surveys and
present them to the Transportation Commission for comment, discussion, and direction at the next
regular meeting (attachment #5). A corresponding City Council memo is prepared and distributed to
council members and an open house summary is posted to the project website following the conclusion
of each open house for residents and interested parties to review.
Adjacent Property Owners with Physical Property Impacts
Property owners along a project route that would see physical property impacts meet one-on-one with
project staff in the preliminary design process to discuss the various design scenarios and concepts and
the possible implications for their property. This collaboration results in design concepts that satisfy the
project needs and the individual property owner. Property owners directly impacted by a project are
consulted with in this preliminary design phase because their buy-in is needed and can directly affect
what layout is ultimately presented to Council. Property owners that have impacts limited to the right-
of-way along their property boundaries are contacted during the final design process. If there are
substantial impacts to private property in the right-of-way (e.g., a fence or retaining wall), project staff
will notify the property owner in the preliminary design process to discuss the impacts.
Transportation Commission Preliminary Design Recommendation to Council
In concluding the preliminary design and general public engagement process, the Transportation
Commission will formally make a recommendation to City Council for the approval of the preliminary
design layout for a project. Adoption of the preliminary design occurs at a regularly scheduled City
Council meeting and the public has an opportunity to voice objections or support for a project’s design
following a brief presentation by project staff to the body. If the preliminary design is approved by City
Council, staff and the engineering firm leading the project will move right into the final design process.
Phase II: Final Design
The final design process commences immediately following preliminary design approval by City Council.
While much of this phase is highly technical engineering work, design team staff continues to meet with
residents and stakeholders along the project corridor that will see impacts in the City right-of-way along
their property lines.
Meetings with Individual Property Owners
Staff will meet one-on-one with adjacent property owners that will have impacts to the City right-of-way
that adjoins their private property. These discussions generally focus on impacts related to driveway
aprons, grading, sidewalks, paths, plants, hedges, trees, fencing, berms, and retaining walls abutting the
private property. Project staff work diligently to ensure a solution for each property owner is reached
that best serves the project design and the property owner’s wishes.
Private Property in the Right-of-Way. Individuals with personal property in the City right-of-way are
governed by Richfield Municipal Code Section 811.07, which states in part that property owners must
have a permit for private property in the City right-of-way, that the City reserves the right to revoke any
permit at any time and for any reason. If the permit is revoked, the property owner has 60 days to
remove the private encroachment at their own expense. Despite the plain language of the Ordinance,
project staff almost always are able to resolve problems with private encroachments at minimal or no
cost to the property owner or the project itself.
To reiterate, during the preliminary design the City focuses efforts on public outreach and making
contact with those that will have direct property impacts or major impacts to private property located in
the right-of-way as part of the design being proposed. It is in the final design process that project staff
touches base with all adjacent property owners regarding what to expect along the boulevard and any
private encroachments that will need to be moved, modified, or removed entirely.
Final Design Approval, Advertisement for Bid, and Award of Contract
Following conclusion of the final design process and approval of the project’s final design by City
Council, project staff will advertise for sealed bids in compliance with Minnesota’s Uniform Municipal
Contracting Law (Minnesota Statutes, §471.345). In the bid solicitation process there is no public
engagement, but the formal bid opening is a public meeting and the City Council is tasked with awarding
the bid to the winning contractor at a regular City Council meeting.
Phase III: Construction
Kick-Off to Construction Open House
All City residents, and especially those along the project corridor, are invited to a construction kick-off
meeting where they will meet the contractor and project staff. Project overviews are provided as well as
information of what residents can expect with the upcoming construction. Layouts, project plans, and
construction timelines are available for residents to view at this meeting and staff is on hand to speak
with residents and answer any questions or concerns that residents might have.
Neighborhood Block Meetings
During construction, block meetings are held on-site to keep residents informed of project progress and
provide project updates and what residents can expect in front of their home in the upcoming weeks.
These meetings provide residents a safe way to talk with the contractor during construction and
opportunity to ask project staff or the contractor questions about the project and specific impacts
adjacent to their property.
Weekly Project Updates
Throughout the construction season, project staff will send weekly updates and construction recaps to
individuals that have subscribed to our mailing lists. City staff produces a weekly video update that is
also shared via email and through the City of Richfield and Richfield Sweet Streets Facebook pages.
Construction recaps, updates and alerts are posted often to the Richfield Sweet Streets website and to
both the Richfield Sweet Streets Facebook page and the City of Richfield’s Facebook page.
Individual Meetings
Throughout the construction phase of a project individual residents or businesses will occasionally raise
concerns related to project progress or what they’re seeing outside their property or business. Project
staff will meet with these residents on-site or wherever is most appropriate to address concerns and do
all they can to make the construction process go as smooth as possible.
Construction Wrap-Up
The amount of time it takes to carry a project from ground-breaking to 100% completion is highly
variable. Staff does their best to forecast to residents when to expect major activity in their
neighborhood.
If you have any questions or comments about the City’s public engagement process, please contact City
of Richfield Transportation Engineer Jack Broz at (612) 861-9792.
Attachment #1
Attachment #2
EXAMPLE Open House Notification Check-List
Postcard Mailers
Mailed [Date] to [Number] residents
Email Council Members-
Email sent [Date]
Newspaper Ad-
Published [Date]
Special letter to specific group of residents [If needed]
Mailed [Date] to [Number] residents
Facebook Post/Events-
Sweet Streets Page:
OH event created [Date]
TC Recap w/OH event shared [Date]
OH post [Date]
OH post [Date]
OH post [Date]
Virtual OH post on [Date]
Virtual OH post on [Date]
Virtual OH post on [Date]
Richfield Main Page:
OH Event created [Date]
OH event post on [Date]
OH event post on [Date]
OH event post on [Date]
Virtual OH post on [Date]
Virtual OH post on [Date]
Virtual OH post on [Date]
Message Board at City Hall-
Requested [Date] to run from [Date] to [Date]
[Project Name]
Open House
[Date], [Time].
City Hall
Sweet Streets Lawn Signs-
Placed on corridor [Date]
Flyers to Local Businesses [If needed]-
Distributed [Date]
Email Sent to Sweet Streets Subscriber List-
Sent from MailChimp [Date]
Email to Community Groups [if applicable]:
Bike Advocates - [Date]
R-DAP (Richfield Disability Advocacy Partnership) - [Date]
Other applicable groups – [Date]
Calendar on richfieldmn.gov – [Date]
Door Knocking/Calls (Encroachments/Private Property Impacts) -
[If applicable]
Attachment #3
Attachment #4
EXAMPLE VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE
EXAMPLE VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE
EXAMPLE VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE
Attachment #4
EXAMPLE VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE
Attachment #4
Meeting Summary
Public Open House MM/DD/YYYY – 4:00 to 7:00 PM
Richfield Municipal Center
XYZth Street Reconstruction Project
Meeting Purpose
The intent of this open house was to share the purpose of the XYZth Street reconstruction
project, its goals and objectives, and solicit public input. This open house was geared toward
building a common understanding of current conditions and opportunities.
Meeting Notice
Approximately ### invitations were mailed to the property owners in the Richfield area
between [Project Extents].
Posted on the City’s website calendar
Sweet Streets website updated with project information
Open House “Facebook event” was created on the Sweet Streets page and shared on the
City’s main Facebook page
Newspaper ad
Lawn signs posted along XYZth Street
Invitations delivered to local businesses
Displayed on the electronic message board outside of City Hall and the Ice Arena
1 week online virtual open house following formal open house
Richfield Public Attendees
Approximately ### (#) residents attended the Open House.
Materials Presented
The material was displayed in a format that allowed attendees the opportunity to view and
visit with project staff at their leisure. Materials included:
Several boards with information on project overview, goals and objecti ves, related plans
and policies, and community context
Two large aerial maps of the corridor, with the opportunity to discuss and provide
comments
Surveys and comment cards to solicit input from participants
Public Response
Public input was collected through discussions with staff and through surveys and comment
cards. ### (#) comments were received. The following summarized the most frequently
mentioned themes in the public comments collected:
Safe and improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities (12 mention s)
Improvement of the XYZth and railroad tracks crossing (8 mentions)
Redevelopment of the nearby commercial properties (7 mentions)
Sidewalks on both sides of XYZth Street (6 mentions)
No or minimal private property impacts to adjacent properties (4 mentions)
Access concerns during construction especially XYZth and WXY Avenue (3 mentions)
Access to XYZth Street from the north neighborhood/reconnecting the grid (3 mentions)
On-street parking (3 mentions)
Attachment #5 EXAMPLE OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY
OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS:
Activities you engage in along XYZth and current mode of travel:
Shopping
Access Hwy 62
Shop at commercial properties.
Travel to destinations along XYZth Street (x6)
Travel along XYZth Street to get somewhere else (x5)
I am a nearby resident (x5)
I am a nearby property owner (x2)
I am a nearby business owner, employee, or student
Walk to nearby park
Shop at local business (x6)
Bank at local bank (x3)
Please list out your PREFERRED mode of travel for the activities you engage in along the
corridor:
Walking to each site is preferred, but I use the route daily to exit my neighborhood as
well to get to work. I never use [street] to exit the neighborhood but use [other
street] to XYZth multiple times daily for vehicular transport and then when I am home I
use it for walking to nearby shopping.
Access Hwy 62
Shop at nearby commercial businesses
Think about the barriers or concerns you have that keep you from using any of the modes
of transportation for your activities along 65th St. Please describe these barriers or
concerns:
Supporting high-quality Hub redevelopment
Signal timing or location- trying to get across 65th and Nicollet (x2)
Traffic safety/distracted driving/speeds/congestion (x7)
Train crossing concerns
Presence of parking on corridor
Lane width (x2)
Pavement condition (x3)
Pedestrian safety and accessibility (x6)
Bicycle safety and accessibility (x4)
Corridor Appearance (x5)
Impact on adjacent users (x2)
I live quite close to his corridor and would love for it to be very walkable and stroller
friendly. Currently, I only walk with my daughter when it is great weather and less
EXAMPLE OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY
Attachment #5
busy time of day. If the sidewalks were improved and easy to navigate I would walk
this direction often.
I would love to see sidewalks on both sides of the street set back far enough from
traffic.
Sidewalks are a foot higher than the street, when you fall, you could go into the
street. Will you keep the trees? Bikes on walking sidewalks, not enough room.
Sidewalks 1 foot above street
I’m unsure where the conversations stand around potential revitalization of the
commercial properties. If possible, it would be great if this road work could be
discussed alongside that project to ensure a cohesive end result.
The sidewalks are narrow, close to the street traffic and often not plowed. They are
not pedestrian friendly in many areas, particularly from [street] westward to [street].
Often, the stop sign at the [intersection] is not heeded by vehicles and they often
completely miss the intersection.
In the winter, when going south on [street] onto XYZth the roadway is often
dangerously slippery. The slope of the road has caused several close calls of vehicles
being unable to stop and potentially sliding onto the oncoming traffic of XYZth.
I am concerned about access to the neighborhood. There is already very limited access
via [street] and if the exit onto XYZth from [street] is removed the area will become
very difficult to get in/out of.
Lack of sidewalk on south side of XYZth St is a major barrier
Other: the lack of on-street parking should be remedied. Provide on-street parking on
both sides of [street].
Other: Providing on-street parking can be a boon to private redevelopment, as those
future uses can be developed in a denser pattern without the need for (as much)
underground parking, which is prohibitively costly.
If you had to pick a top priority for what should be addressed as part of the project, what
would it be?
Walkability/Safety
Better and increased pedestrian crossings. However, I would also stress the need to
keep the residential neighborhood to the north connected by allowing some access to
XYZth.
I would hope that provision will be made for bicycle traffic/pedestrian access
throughout. My ideal would be a separated bike lane, as space allows, with 2 lanes for
vehicle traffic. I don’t think it would necessitate a turn lane (3 lane design ala
[street]and [avenue]).
Add sidewalk on the south side of XYZth Street.
Add as much on-street parking as possible. On [avenue], any curbside space that is not
used as a bus stop should be converted to on-street parking on both sides of the
street. On XYZth Street, any on-street parking would be very helpful to the [business]
and [school].
EXAMPLE OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY Attachment #5
I would rank pedestrians, transit, and on-street parking (in that order) above bike
lanes for this section of XYZth Street. I am very pro-bike lanes, but we just added high
quality bicycle path to ABCth Street- it does not make sense to add this duplicative
route spaced so closely to ABCth. RSTth Street would make much more sense as a
secondary bicycle route in this area of Richfield. I cannot think of places even
Minneapolis that have two 2-way bicycle lanes/trails on streets that are so close.
Creating a truly urban street that supports growth of our downtown. Check out
[street]in [other city]. Excellent precedent street, one block off [main street].
Beautification- put in money so the [nearby commercial property] does likewise.
Put in another grocery store
POST-IT NOTE COMMENTS ON AERIAL MAP:
Remove stop signs at XYZth and RR Tracks, in favor of flashing lights like ABCth
In winter, sidewalk by [business] is always shaded and therefore icy or lumpy. Could
sand (not salt) be thrown down or…have heating under this block of sidewalk?
Add bike crossover at RSTth and RR tracks, Make RSTth a bikeway over to [park]
Minimizing closure as access is difficult on [other street]]
Move EB stop sign on XYZth west of [avenue] to the west side of the intersection w/ a
yield sign for tracks like you have for the WB traffic.
On-street parking for apartments between [avenue] and [avenue]
No on-street parking for apartments between [avenue] and [avenue]
Add the rapid flash lights to the crosswalk at XYZth and [avenue]
Consider 2-way traffic for access during construction
Flashing lights for ped crossings
(*) comment to agree with flashing lights for ped crossings
Whatever is done, don’t take out homes
Sidewalks on both sides
I concur with sidewalks on both sides
Larger walkways and open spaces on commercial side for better view/welcome to
commercial property
On-street parking please, especially south side
I like the interest of having the curved street
I agree to having the curved street
More obvious pedestrian crossing
Improved access across XYZth would encourage apartment dwellers on the north side of
XYZth to walk to the commercial properties on the south side
Will XYZth have periodic closures?
Limiting closures of XYZth street is important during construction
Curb cut-out wheelchair ramps to [park]
Keep XYZth Street 4 lanes, don’t narrow roadway
Sidewalks on both sides
Will you save the trees?
EXAMPLE OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY Attachment #5
Will homes be lost? What areas will have restricted access? Will this result in additional
limited access corridors
This stop sign gets ignored a lot going west bound by [intersection]
Bikes and use of sidewalks
Street sidewalks are 1 foot above streets
Ped crossings at [intersection]? Kids use to get to busses
No restriction for turning from [avenue] to XYZth
Prior to projects 1) What is the current profit margin for business? 2) What is projected
change in profit margins? 3) To what degree will business rebound?
EXAMPLE OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY Attachment #5
City Council
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
Pat Elliott
Tom Fitzhenry
Edwina Garcia
Sue Sandahl
Transportation Commission
Martin Kirsch, Chair
Terry Ahlstrom
Ghislaine Ball
Tim Carter
Steve Hurvitz
Gary Ness
Kenneth Severson
Patrick Sorenson
David Taylor
Gerry Charnitz, Chair, Community Services Commission
Bob Shotwell, Community Services Commission
Jennifer Bornholdt, Chamber of Commerce
Laura Barrett, Chamber of Commerce
Joe Hoover, Resident
MaryKaye Champa, Arts Commission
Kevin Klos, Arts Commission
Mike Eastling, Public Works Director
Kristin Asher, City Engineer
Karen Barton, Community Development Manager
Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer
John Stark, Community Development Director
Liz Finnegan, Civil Engineer
Jack Broz, HR Green, Inc
City of Richfield Public Works
Mike Eastling, Director
Kristin Asher, Assistant Director & City Engineer
Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer
1901 E. 66th Street
Richfield, MN 55423
612.861.9170
Dan Kitzberger, Planning Commission
Joshua Root, Planning Commission
Chris Olson, Advisory Board of Health
Kathy Rappos, Bike Advisory Group
Flynn Rico-Johnson, Do.town
Katherine Bass, Edina Transportation Commission
Maury Hooper, Hennepin County
Mike Lamb, Barr Engineering
Tim Lamkin, Jr, HR Green, Inc
Dan Edgerton, HR Green, Inc
Workshop Participants Staff
Contact Information:
City of Richfield Revised 3.28.13
Guiding Principles
Transportation
Commission
Transportation Land Use Public Realm Open Space
How people use community amenities and facilities is the
most important criteria regarding the planning, engineering,
implementation and maintenance of any improvement.
Design for People will address universal accessibility as well
as comfort, safety, and convenience for all users.
• Provide comfortable places to sit and walk
• Employ Complete Streets design that emphasizes all users
• Design streets that are a human scale with narrower lane widths,
bump-outs, etc.
• Plant boulevard and shade trees
Multimodal Design of public rights of way will be
consistent with the City’s Complete Streets policy
and will utilize innovative and non-traditional design
standards in a way that is equitable for all modes/
users, inter-modal activities, and is respectful of the
surrounding community.
• Provide pedestrian facilities and amenities within the right of way
• Provide bike lanes at least 5 feet wide
• Include transit facilities, plan for intermodal transfers, and provide
bike lockers & racks
• Add bike rentals and Nice Ride stations
The street and public right-of-way network will be used to
connect various Public Realm amenities so that a range
of inter-modal activities (walking, biking, driving, etc.)
support how neighborhood residents travel to and from
destinations such as schools, parks/open space, shops
and businesses.
• Provide a well-connected network of streets, paths & transit
• Accomodate multimodal connections to local destinations
• Enhance connections to the regional transit and bicycle networks
• Implement signage and way-finding
Community improvements and reinvestment will reinforce
and support all businesses in the Local Economy and
provide a safe and more convenient way to access and
connect for neighbors, residents, pedestrians, cyclists and
motorists.
• Maintain/improve visibility and convenient access to businesses
• Employ parking strategies that provide safe access for all users
and modes of movement
• Provide wider retail sidewalks that support a variety of users and
uses
• Promote building use and type that reinforces street enclosure and
defines the public realm
The design and implementation of community facilities
and improvements will recognize the Community
Character of single family residential scale and pattern
and will also respond to local features such as natural
resources, public art, aesthetics and gateways.
• Respond to residential neighborhood use and scale with
appropriate street size and speeds
• Design wayfinding that represents local character
• Maintain a mature tree canopy
• Incorporate opportunities for public art
Elements will be incorporated into planning and
design efforts to encourage comfortable corridors and
places to walk and bike to, safe and well-landscaped
routes that inter-connect the community, and promote
Healthy and Active Lifestyles.
• Create safe, convenient, and fun non-motorized travel opportunities
• Design a safe, well-defined network of routes to walk and bike to
school
• Provide well-marked, designed, and visible street crossings
• Implement signage and way-finding
City of Richfield Guiding Principles
IV. Design for People
New improvements, growth and development will
utilize Sustainable Solutions that are adaptable, flexible,
built to last and that consider implications of long
term maintenance to ensure the future economic,
environmental and social health of the community.
• Understand the environmental setting and context of the area
• Incorporate green stormwater practices such as rain gardens, tree
trenches and pervious pavers
• Bury utilities where possible
• Accommodate future maintenance and operations with dedicated
funding sources
VI. Sustainable Solutions
I. Multimodal Design
VII. Healthy and Active LifestylesIII. Local Economy
II. Connectivity and Public Realm
V. Community Character and Identity
Community and transportation improvements will
support a well-designed and functional regional system
which complements local land uses, and capitalizes
on Richfield’s Unique Location through enhanced access
to the regional multimodal transportation system to
improve livability and convenience.
• Emphasize design that accommodates local traffic over through
traffic
• Enhance regional transit and trail connections
• Maintain convenient freeway access
VIII. Unique Location
City Council
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
Pat Elliott
Tom Fitzhenry
Edwina Garcia
Sue Sandahl
Transportation Commission
Martin Kirsch, Chair
Terry Ahlstrom
Ghislaine Ball
Tim Carter
Steve Hurvitz
Gary Ness
Kenneth Severson
Patrick Sorenson
David Taylor
Gerry Charnitz, Chair, Community Services Commission
Bob Shotwell, Community Services Commission
Jennifer Bornholdt, Chamber of Commerce
Laura Barrett, Chamber of Commerce
Joe Hoover, Resident
MaryKaye Champa, Arts Commission
Kevin Klos, Arts Commission
Mike Eastling, Public Works Director
Kristin Asher, City Engineer
Karen Barton, Community Development Manager
Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer
John Stark, Community Development Director
Liz Finnegan, Civil Engineer
Jack Broz, HR Green, Inc
City of Richfield Public Works
Mike Eastling, Director
Kristin Asher, Assistant Director & City Engineer
Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer
1901 E. 66th Street
Richfield, MN 55423
612.861.9170
Dan Kitzberger, Planning Commission
Joshua Root, Planning Commission
Chris Olson, Advisory Board of Health
Kathy Rappos, Bike Advisory Group
Flynn Rico-Johnson, Do.town
Katherine Bass, Edina Transportation Commission
Maury Hooper, Hennepin County
Mike Lamb, Barr Engineering
Tim Lamkin, Jr, HR Green, Inc
Dan Edgerton, HR Green, Inc
Workshop Participants Staff
Contact Information:
City of Richfield Revised 3.28.13
Guiding Principles
Transportation
Commission
Transportation Land Use Public Realm Open Space