01-05-88 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, JANUARYS, 1998
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. 7:00-7:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF NEW MAINTENANCE FACILITY
UPDATE
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 1
II. 7:30-8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF CITY OF RICHFIELD RESIDENTIAL
SURVEY RESULTS CONDUCTED BY DECISION
RESOURCES, INC.
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO.2
III. 8:00-8:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF REPORT FROM CONSULTANT,
GEORGE WATSON, BRAUER AND ASSOCIATES, AND
RECREATION ASSETS RELOCATION PLAN
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 3
c:
IV. 8:30-8:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF MOVING PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL TO
67TH STREET AND NICOLLET AVENUE
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 4
V. 8:45-9:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF INCREASED PARKING AVAILABILITY
AT CITY HALL AND HEREDIA PARK BY CONSTRUCTING
ADDITION TO CURRENT PARKING LOT
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 5
VI. 9:00-9:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF NEW LEGISLATION AFFECTING LOCAL
BOARDS OF REVIEW
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO.6
VII. 9:15-9:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF RICHFIELD HOUSING CHOICES
COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO.7
?J
VIII. 9:30-10:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF AIRPORT RELATED ITEMS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 8
10:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON
REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO
THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Study Session Letter No. 8
Agenda January 5, 1998
Issue Statement:
Status of airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following:
Runway 4-22 Litigation
On November 26 Steve Pflaum received a phone call from Ann Peterson, counsel for
the FAA. The FAA was proposing a stipulated dismissal of the 4-22 litigation. The
proposal was essentially the same that Richfield had offered in early spring. After a
closed session with airport consultant Steve Pflaum on December 22, the City Council
determined that the City would resume its lawsuit over the use of 4-22. The
determination was made due to the implications that the court ruling could have for the
EIS of Runway 17-35. Plus, a majority of the work has already been completed in
relation to the lawsuit. It would be more advantageous for Richfield to proceed with the
lawsuit now rather then at a later date if needed.
• Proposed Runway 17-35
On November 21 Sandy Fidell made a presentation before RASG members, City staff,
and Chauncy Case (Met Council) about the implications of the El Segundo's community
survey. Mr. Case stated that the Met Council needs to comes forth and take action
when it comes to airport issues. He is very interested in how low frequency policy will
be brought to their attention. It was determined that the City needs to meet with the
Met Council committees to discuss the topic of low frequency noise impacts.
Don Brauer, Jim Prosser and Dawn Weitzel will be meeting with the Met Council on
January 12. In essence the City will have 45 minutes to discuss what is happening with
Richfield, and why we need their assistance. City Manager Prosser will give a
presentation that will be strongly community focused. He will talk about efforts
underway to retain viability within our boundaries. Then, Fidell's reports will be
presented along with low frequency impacts Richfield will experience after construction
of 17-35. Brauer will discuss Richfield's comprehensive plan and the new noise
mitigation plan that needs to be developed.
• Comments of MAC's Seven Year Capital Improvement Plan
Richfield made numerous comments on the Assessment of Environmental Effects -
MAC's Seven Year Capital Improvement Plan, 1998-2004, Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport. Comments ranged from the Runway 17/35 construction to the
sound insulation program. The MAC's replies to the City's concerns were vague and
non-committal. [See City of Richfield Attachment] After asking a staff member at the
Environmental Quality Board how communities can "require" the MAC to address and
follow-up on concerns, the answer was "sue 'em." The EQB has also reported that they
found false statements made by the MAC in response to CIP concerns.
The City has prepared comments on the Assessment of Environmental Effects - MAC's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed extension of Runway 4-22 at
• Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. [See City of Richfield Attachment] John
Larson (EQB) called on December 29 to tell the City that this should not be considered
a federal document and is not compliant with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). He said that the EA is not compliant with NEPA
standards addressing cumulative effects. The EQB wants the extension project to be
submitted and studied within the dual track EIS.
In addition, Larson spoke with Michael MacMullen of the EPA. It seems that the EPA
has no record of even receiving the EA. After reading the document, MacMullen
agreed that the 4-22 extension project is not NEPA compliant. [See MacMullen
Attachment]
• New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition
As of December 4:
Element of Phase III, IV & V to be completed.
• Laxman Sundae - Phase III, Business relocation is on hold until Mr. Sundae's
requested documentation is reviewed.
• Business Update - Phase V, two out of seven offers have been accepted and two
acquisition closing have been conducted. Condemnation proceedings have begun
for the three multi-family owners.
• Business Relocation Update - Phase V Tenant Businesses, three business tenants
are in the process of relocating.
• Vacant Lots - three of the nine owners have closed and one will be condemned.
• Parks - offers have been presented to the City of Richfield for the City owned parks
and one residential lot.
• Tenants - out of 63 tenants, 62 initial interviews have been conducted and 47
eligibility meetings have been conducted. Two tenants have vacated.
• Six homeowners are in rounds two and three of condemnation.
• House Auction - the last house auction will be conducted by sealed bids. The
church will be demolished in December and January.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss current airport issues.
Basis of Recommendation:
It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff regarding airport concerns.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer discussion to another date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of January 5, 1998.
Respectful) submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
r-?
Portland Avenue.• Richfieldr Minnesota 55423-2599
.6700
Council
city manager mevor Don Priebe Mkhael Sandahl
Jaunts 0, Presser Martin Kirsch Russ Susan
Susan Rosenberg
November 14, 1997
Mr. Nigd Fbn+ey
Deputy Executive Dim=
Metropoiibm Airports Cotomitsioa
Gow-28* Avenue
Mamespoils,MN 55450.2199
Subject Assessment of XIII- zoa.:1 W-d- MACs Sevres Yea: Cap*d Ifr p `e flap. 3996-
Zp04, W=neapo&4t. Paul Iruernatim+al Airport
The Clay of Richfield apPredates the apportauty to comment upon the Asaesment of 2"VOomaei'l
E&cb of the MAC, Savers Year Capita! Iamproveme et plan. 199S-20K witlm>su the CIP but,d in is
4 many of the included projects have euvironmatul impacts not listed an
other emvir camental documents that have been prw ioasly F-pered. since most of these pmjecb
ongoing, and have beat underway for some time, that is no clear indicatscu of the cumulative level of
envaonm,uMl impacts sustained through the CI process. 12m C+tY a130 wisiw to comment upon the
term 'tempontry/' that a frequauiy used witimam the document especially in reference to the Plwu*d
rehabilitation of Runway 11R/30L (p. 7) during the sev0,y ar Ca, program schedule. No ndavmcs is
in overflight noise 12wIC simt7uly,
given to the lengld of time that is estimated fior'tanporarY' elongates
no su poirting docuineaullimis offered for tde staemtem thatmdiates tbat'- greater noise level, from
b mrxattatad on one or two of the three runways will be parl'"Y offset by reduced leveis
under the approaches of the runway(s) temporarily aab"Ci.savice for ropair/rehabilifatiau "
Richfield's commem apply to those projects that may have an impacto.n. the City and its residents, based
on the mformatfon presented within the C7. Our commetmr are"' e" "'- by Y? ° P t '
1998 Proverb
LC_ RUNWAY= HOLDING/DFSCINGAPRON
The CEP does not indicate wired- delayed aircraft (tltoee stored on the holding apron while
other aircraft are cleared far departure) will be burecag fuel while is $torage. R is assumed that
j delayed aircraft wamost h7tely, emit spate level of noise and amifsfoats while waiting in queue
for clearance to depot: Then a =ono were not addressed as po-I enirizonzi-dal i OI7ef
on page AS of the CEP, only those zuaasted with deidng of aircraft (glycol =1104 Ths dimgrw with the QP in its statement irdinting that "Water gwLW b the only Category to be
impacted by this ptojed?
Additionally, there is no mention of tine Runway I= Holding/Deicing Apron c:mV&=dmt srtr
paraulAtim as they relate to the piaaned LOW foot extension of Runway 4/2Z The C+lY goesti•ca
ro Runway 12L Holding/Daiang Apron wiII be too dose m prv>dmitV to the
whedw the and of Runwaproposed
4/22. The (My assumes that the Runway 11L Holding/ Deicing Apron n to be a
pennartennt structure. and dmefore. the ism of prmomilY to the plumed extension of Runway
4/22 is of conasn to the City.
The Urban Hotnotown
-IAI TeifphOlle as 861-9749
Received Tin 4 ov .19 . An : ZEgtjrPaNi t]pparemity Employer
27. 27. The City has been provided the opportunity to
review all of the referenced environmental documents.
The CIP is a part of the 2020 Development Plan for the
airport. As such, the long term cumulative environments
impacts were evaluated in the Final AED for the MSP
LTCP.. This provides the appropriate cumulative analysis.
28. 28. Pavement construction and phasing schedules are
very much susceptible to change (shortening and/or
lengthening) due to conditions beyond a contractor's
control (i.e., inclement weather, delivery of materials,
etc.). Because of this, it is next to impossible to give
definitive lengths of time to such activities which will
contribute to changes in overflight patterns and the
distribution of flights into and out of the airport's other
runways.
29. 29. The assumption that aircraft idled at the hold apron
will emit noise and air emissions during delay periods is
correct. However, delays at the airport on the whole are
anticipated to be negligible with the implementation of
the north-south runway. Delay savings would be about
21,000 hours per year by 2010 based on the current
ratio of growth in operations. Therefore, addressing only
the impacts of glycol applications was found to be
necessary.
30. 30. Appropriate FAA design guidelines for both
I construction projects will be followed.
UNWAY 17/35 CONSTRUCTION Runway 17/33 tell( begin is 1997 with land
lthough the CIF tndiaue that the construction the FAA has not yet approved the Final
cgaisitiotL the City wishes to underscore the fact ?17that
5, despite the fad that the acgni?n of
ime sal Impact SFitanent (EP for Runway /
s wr
and for the project wosprior to the FAAIs approval of the F15
K-?
concerns and comment, with MWd Pratt (LTCP1 to to
• pd?tioaally, this City has previously expressed its and
construction of Runway 17/35 within the NW 2010 Long Term Corn comments
on the AED dated March 2. 1994 October component 19 - ot 0i REemwaY 07 1/35 constucd- udvitlos. The
ehoald be w=nideed regarding at,l, omp for Runway 17/35
m coaumd that there is still no mitigation pia. approved
1. 31. Comment noted.
2. 32. The acquisition is consistent with FAA Policy.
Richfield's
will nott be constructed before enviirronmetally
clearance is obtained.
Qty eontsmtes
The Qty of Rkhf dd has received approval by the Meaopolitan CO-41 for a eaahpseLop a
plan amendment to address 'Uport land use comPatiltiffity. The MAC bat no, (loud
=Aption plan rapam"', to (tichflald's revtsd camPrd" "s p that the CRT Of 3•
-ctd
dfied, to, addreasahg impacts not previously 'd°' r a m It l- for proposed RumraT 17/35 To
ftWiehd be consulted in the devdopme.t of a tnitlgatioa p
date, no such plan has been prseanad far rev'aw by Ridhfleld-
y
One impact that the City of M&Add has idi'dw with Runway 17/35 is in mV dato low
34.
the CAy fi,equaricy noise. In the At""' a of b*rmat8m that lo fte? torte w M
residents. This study I-v
address low fmRueacy impacts obuebolds Richfield- with- MAC hall not
bae a snPdlcat imact an a L number
ed a plan to resolve this impract.
PlO?d ds to be prspa:ad. in em+Npmon with the CAT- m
A?• a ctuatacdmr impact mitigation play nee misc. dust, odor, and tigrthhg. Tnici s mad
of cm true ion-lared m
mitlg'd -Facts num that could affednaatby lad hues during 1v Wpillon fforb should 35.
will machinery . w sal.Fieoes of equipment are °pe° o s uctio+s? and the --'Wring of
addteu ftm impacts (i e, a hen on ni9W Rtes tread for ganaatlr+5
ban e> ttetioeh
truconn
0:11321 shoulid tsd 1hAghtlagan dgtt be would amitiptiod lso by aMosis s"O'os such ass limitla6
the a,- - of areas being °,powd Saded, reduan6'f Vabil du? onrlsum and
and high levds of construction ?• mb? g the use of vehedu
o>ru=g material Files and tech lords.
Fogy, thr C7 does tat address nay RtmwaT 17135 OD° a`tl°`. that ox oy' in the
future, be n9=1111-7 fat Lireaft departures m the m.e, At the =011 tans MAC bokAksod 36. addrosood,
that. a flights wtU be alidnig Off to this gouth or soud-sto hot 17/33 for
«ix atAd° migrt be ragnncd adapt RveT y aamft
departara to the north. or nr*Wtlt. -- -
HOME INSULATION (INS3 DE 66 DNL1
derail Isom the MAC with regard to spea$e teshdsam within RldaBald
This C4 Heded d fur", of the FAR Put 150 darm dtt ad?
in -9"
that will be a by the m loood a
s?a+Q to yes indiction that exlads this progtasa nessdavcu
bK>rean60DNLand6SDnsb*uldbei ,h Wwithint bsecb=L
modg ido- to hnmse psevioasy wR*osid
Oho 8so
M. CEP dam urdcrthe FAR ParttI50 FV09mm that ?Oolm catsnoag win Where titian re VIU T eoMsnmut ?
sbo
aria sp be uiclgY within the City of alonglw a map Id
UL NEW FORD TOWN AND RICK ACM ACQU15I=rd4 that indime thae'ihe New Ford
CUT
allainants a( the OPP=vm FA TToown and Reid Acres with ?beshoods have long base .-y- m aaboms atsd
tlons at the MYawPodsSh Pail (M j?ti asps in
Airpoce MIN wish airMft City
nom ab also the ars rdaae m this use by or MAC that VI wftls =, Wdh
the c0cluab"ut
M~P towetsat of the part 750 Study.
th,purpom goalaand
as is stated wdhm the
The Clty wasbse to tanvad the MAC tae the soda( std e
address the social and
ndontion and tdosrmg of those two n to
CIP ,aster tlds secd- At this thine, ne adtlgtlon ha. bola prrsemed
ecmomic impacts- _
the CAP iadioeos that the rolotatim of mane dual 1 that wwk the rda?06
AMM ntains
a •pdyn
impact an tbA attest an the = Vadamt% not clangs this il= d the miss on the
ku;prund the noise 6. ,a, for thaft residents; am
WIML surrounding eirris nor did change antis pacts 0"'
the
No addidond a°ix' M tov Q ?
reading in adjacent atw to thsea rvdghbo&oodL
shaafd>x csaodsed as "PO°d1f'-
tr CIP dO'a not irdtnte how thill
s onddsid -Water Qaality tmP?
Ueda the ection
loading b-mas should be osthodeed in terms aE r rv-- fadlitie
and osME of toW sssF water tvtsoEf la aP?$ pwitldn that tW
wfore
ftqwious etpeeted m iaCieafe or decrease &a of within the CIF tat "d--- the iafae
?gmttoehoodst In addition. these is r Wx g cu"Laved
of a=uitfad and mivu ttamoff In thus arcs.
33. Comment noted.
34. The MAC has included analysis of this noise type in
the Dual Track EIS. The results indicate that the impacts are
minimal.
35. Such a plan is part of major construction projects
such as this. Mitigative measures similar to those
itemized here are normal considerations. Comment is
noted.
38. The construction of the runway anticipates some
departures and arrivals to and from the north (less than
1 %) when wind and weather conditions so dictate.
37. 37. Comment noted.
'38• 38, See response to comment 34.
'39. 39. Comment noted.
40. 40. Comment noted.
41. 41. proper protection measures will be taken to
minimize effects increases ater,
fuel, olvents) from these portions of the airfield.
In the 'Puma grid other DOT Section 4(f) Impact:" saetlon, the (MY -1302 to'ornate its concssm
about the loss of the two community parks as noted within the CIP. While there two P•rI's ieay
be •Inri;nificane In relation to the reponal sysaem, the City hope to replace the same type of
faeilltlas in other area of Richfield. and In fact nerds to replace l hem The City makd2bus that
these parlor dg indeed have replaccumavaiuss that need to be recvgrfred by the MAC
The Cry take issue with the stebm- t that '.. No other wntmnnit) dbruPtlon is O according to the FA' as a result of the relocation efforts in New Ford Town sad Richfield of the
(p& A-9). The community of Rk hfdd lea endured years of disruption .s a result
rellmdon of both of these neighborhoods. Futtue contraction of Rtmway 17/33 will mat 1fl dy
result in additional disruption to the community of Rchfield in the form of affected area residents
Ihut sa their bones or move out of the community due to the noise and other frupacts associated
with the nmway.
LL SCHOOL NOISE ABATMON T PROJECTS O NSIOF 60 ONL)
No reGMeuR was made to the schools that are located within Ridifisld that are a part of ddf
program. The MAC boa fords which are bndgebed for these M-I-ts daring the next three to five
yens (2000.2002), but these an no descriptions contained within the C? that adicaoe which
prgeds will be initiated during which funding years. The a schedule flat shows
when the affected RlcnBeld sc oobe In olecb will be initiated sad dw date of erparoed poled
5edsh for each school.
The Clay also requests a response from the MAC as to why these is no funding for these plaift
proceed during PY 1999.
LM. SUN COUNTRY HANGAR H-9- And ? openefma No
As rated previously. the (My has concerns about the Sun CMILY
taform.don w pro ndd regarding gmnnd or engine tee 1 9 noise, partlealady during night tme
tw,m The 199th EAW for the project did not indtde peak hour traffic impacts and found noise
analyses.
'IDe CIP indicates that a "tampotxrr banger will be constructed rink( a dedsim is Made as hr
where the hangar should be parnarieady located. The City request . defirntlen of des resin
-tsu nary" m des section Addifio.Q . the City would like to Imow if the new "' I "ww"L If a rat
that is to be contt u ed in front of the'temporanY' hangar will be a petal
when will it be torn downi
t 21 3.
t 516.
The CIP does not list hanger maintenance wadwulated notes as an envir nma+tel a-
amodated whip the Sun Country Hartgar projst n" City requesa that the MAC address this ?7.
Ime in itsrmpmtse is this correspoodo m.
1999 Prot"M
ILC. TAXIWAY W tCONsmucTION bo areas
wed d ?, Avenue As reida?ts
The CIP does not address the aircraft nom bnps IIaK 6?? and FJtua 66e Streets) evfII
of dwdtuge along Ceder Avenue an the west side (between
no longer benefit train the 'bufhr sane of New Foed Town. the aieaatt moue i upecn to
re mlental dwelRogt will= the are and to be funtbw dateiied by the MAC
IVJL TAXIWAY CID COMPLEIC
.The CIP add- the Taxiway CID Cameloc iswe With nrtaertei,hey die to the CMUNut ai>aa
redistribution agreements that odst among MAC Momaktgton and Richfield. 9.
Thu nature of this project is unresolved and should not be applkabie for inctasion within the CW
tmtih a final outcome a mwp=ed. UnW flat time this props should na hie uxWAed within the
CZP.
The City of Richfield respecday requests that anion on the CP be delayed pending responses t? so.
unan wred questions noted in the Grins mvew of the W. Yom may respond directly
Weitsd at 612-861-M6.
J D. Pmeser
Manage
JM1-du%-
12. Comment noted.
43. Comment noted.
44. Schedule and funding commitments are in process.
45. This information has not been obtained. Currently
sucp-testitrg procedures occur at the run-up pad. The
' mpora location represents a shifting of the impacts
of the current facility further away from City of Richfield
residences. MAC does not believe such an analysis is
necessary at this time; perhaps when a permanent
location is identified.
48. See response to comment 28. It is unknown at this
time the fate of the concrete apron in front of the
"temporary' hangar.
47. Comment noted.
48. Since the EAW for this project noted that the
implementation of this project indicated that the ' ...
number of airport operations, nor the noise associated
with landings and departures, will not change as a result
of the development of Taxiway W'. Furthermore, the
1.8 dBA increase anticipated to be experienced by
residential areas east of Cedar Avenue (between East
634 and East 66' Street) will be even less discemible to
residential areas west of Cedar Avenue (between East
63" and East 66' Streets).
49. The project will continue as agreements continue to
be forged among the interested parties.
So. The responses included herein are assumed to
suffice. We therefore do not believe it is prudent to
delay action on the CIP. Additionally, most of these
projects have and are being evaluated as part of the Dual
Track EIS process.
December 30, 1997
VIA FAX (726-5296) AND MAIL
Mr. Mark Ryan
Airport Planner
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040-28th Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
Subject: Assessment of Environmental Effects-MAC's Environmental Assessment (EA)
for the proposed extension of Runway 4-22 at Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport
Dear Mr. Ryan:
The City of Richfield appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed extension of Runway 4-22.
The City believes that the cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed extension
of Runway 4-22 should be prepared in conjunction with the assessment of
environmental impacts from the proposed construction of Runway 17-35 (North/South
runway) and the planned rehabilitation of the South Parallel, or Runway 12R-30L. By
separating the affects of each individual project, the cumulative impacts to the
environment are displaced and unknown to the City and other surrounding
communities. Because of the lack of compilation of cumulative environmental impacts
associated with the construction and operation of each of the three projects addressed
above, the City of Richfield does not believe that this Environmental Assessment is in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The City also wishes to comment upon the term "temporary" that is frequently used
within this and other MAC documents (i.e., CIP for 2002 and beyond). No reference is
given to the length of time that is estimated for."temporary" use of the proposed
extension of Runway 12R-30L except as stated on page 1-7 of the document, "Upon
completion of the Runway 4-22 extension, the extension of Runway 12R-30L would no
longer be used in order to minimize noise impacts". The City of Richfield requests a
is clarification of the expected construction timeline of Runway 4-22 and an estimated
date of when the proposed extension of Runway 12R-30L would no longer be used.
The Urban Hometown
Telephone (612) 861-9700 • Fax (612) 861-9749
An Equal opportunity Employer
Mr. Mark Ryan
December 30, 1997
Page 2
Although the City of Richfield has no specific objections with the EA's analysis of
overflight noise impacts or those related to the construction of the Runway 4-22 "clear
zonen, the City wishes to reiterate the fact that in this and previous documents, the
Metropolitan Airports Commission continues to indicate that the proposed extension of
Runway 4-22 will reduce overflight noise. The City of Richfield maintains that this is not
the case, but more simply a redistribution of overflight noise to those communities
surrounding MSP.
Finally, it appears that the MAC's EA document is lacking the signature of a responsible
FAA official on the inside cover page of the report. According to the verbiage above the
signature line on this page, the environmental assessment is not considered a Federal
document until evaluated and signed by the responsible FAA official. The City
presumes that this signature will be forthcoming.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to call me at (612)
861-9705 or Dawn Weitzel at (612) 861-9716.
Sincerely,
Jape D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
Copy: Dawn Weitzel, Administrative Aide/Communications Specialist
Steve Pflaum, Airport Counsel (fax)
:32PM FROM LJR. ING_ 61'2 ego Aogi P_ 3
Kv I ;,ILA! I- 1Ji1J iLl LL %)J.1 J1114 Ji`1. JU y1 14•UU NV.VVU 1'-.U1
l
?,,{1L•G A7AT?, i
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
CHICAGO. IL 6osoc3s$o
Mg. Glen s ?r> ut' DEC 3 01997.
Federal A W atit) Administration . REPLY TO TWF AI TENTION OF:
Minnealloits in rrts District Office
6020.28111 Avgr1/p,6 South (Koons ## 102) 8-191
iMirncapc ls, Mii?,nesota 55450
ttF I
Dear Mr. 0 7"
a hIN will co6finun the substance of our telephone conversations conducted yesterday dnd earlier
today cc>»ct:rriiil=!an I:nvironTrlintal Assessment for a project at the Twin Critics Airport involving;
extension Of?1tsnvray 4-22 to 12,000 fcet. I received a copy of the title sheet ufthis FA yestcr-,
day, from a reins st ntativc of Minnesota's Environmental Quality Board In addition, I also
I•wceivcd a 6ey?0 pheet from Mr. Mark Ryan of the Metropolitan Airports Conuntission advising
"lnturestecl' I'Lt's1ills and Agrucies" that "Comments on the IiA are due by Docernbor 3 t, 7 997 "
The ;isle sl cotipr?vided to ine indicates that the environmental assessment will become a Federal
douu,rttctu +ii+hiln valuated and signed by the responsibic Fedcral official. No such signature and
elate is pr;rF,idcid c?1 , 1 the Title sheet in my possession. Our records indicate that no request for' oil?*
Agency's review Pf this EA in accordance with the requirements of the National tsnvironmcutal
Policy Act (N?Pand Section 309 of the Clean Air Act has been received to date. Accordingly,
our Agency l; rtaview and comment on this EA within thirty days of receipt of an official
r:.qucst frcnrr: ut? Agency to provide such review and comment. In order to preserve the
opportunity. fern such Statutorily-mandated review and Comment, our Agency must strenuously
object to pCStcritial c:Icrsure of the NEPA process and the public record thereto for this project
uailess anti air;til such offcial ),A can be provided. In additicm, given our present understanding of
this project and it.?i !relationship to the comprehensive plan being developed for the Twin Cities
Ail"port, tour A i~ngy has significant reservations concerning potential NEPA processing of this
pi-ojoct outsidie?clfl ,he context oI'the ongoing Dual 't'rack Airport Planning g Process PI, for the
't'rill Cities' vittrc?politan Area.
'l'ine ubstani;t; ?f tars letter wax also discussed by phone yesterday between me and Mr. Ryari.
We should pIa4 toy 0;cuss this tnatter in additional detail, al your convenience after the first of the
,yew year. )::can' W'Ircached•by phone at 312/886-7342, by FAX at 312/353-5374, and by E-Mail
at Meal ull :r?.uM16aelCa? EPAMAII.epa.,gov.
i?
SS3F:CCTG?y ytx?ri•sj ? ? .
1,4izfi a s1 W. MaLINIgl)en, Manager
1--o3cral Activiti>ris ifirgrarn
i
RftM ;.W-91 vyaleble•Prtntsd With fte"bit01i oes" inks an TOpSL Revveft Poper (40% Peslmnmumer)
i.
•
r-
rn
rn
(D
-0
E
O
Z
U
c
Co
a -
E
0
U
0
o o
CL
L_
cu
m C ?
o aa) x 3
.=
O o
U C
a3 c
U
'
a N Q N T N N N
3 -c 3 3 3 3 3
(D
? ? Q 3 ¢ Q Q Q Q
rn
ai ? c
co
CO)
?'
m E
O U O L
to
c E U
o
a
Oa)-0 ?.
act c ?.y
,E N L
0
E
o
o
0
0
0
C
O ~ 0O Y w c m ca
O O C '('? O N O W U) N tOA
M a) O D)to
c
. C c_
L c
,
L U
U C
"O U
N O
"O 0
O
to N ?'? O
0 O O
0 N
-0 7
0
0 O
0
o c _
-0 > E .« E
c o 3 c? 3 N o a m c?a
-0
rn o
> c
-
D
m
?
fn c +-• Y U
U O
O Y p A
°
_
Y
Y
Y
v o f
2 U
.° Q
c Q Q Q Q
w c
a) c
N co E
O
_ O N .r
e0
d a) ? a) ca m N
R
N O ?
O
Z
C L
M O
L N I-
co LO
(O
a)
L
O N M d' ti' (fl CO
d
O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
N M tY V / co
rl-
m
N
d
•
ti
to
N
m
N
0
Z
Q
0
U
(D
C -°
_o •. m -
C
•?
N
U
w '5 L
O (D
=+
O O
0
C :3
+
O
= to
y
C 2 N
3
0 N
L
O
O)
?+
E
L)
C
N O N
C O O
a O
c C to
0
` N
U N
O ,
+' c
o W
c
W
N W L 3 o
N W
U r N N N N N
V L O O) N
N N (D E N
3 N
3 N
3 3 3
ca 0 o c
:3 U) CA U) C0
° c.) o Q Q Q Q
Q ca ? 1
- 3 Q G c
n ¢
3 N
0
o
D
m
C
,C
U
to r_ O
M O C N
ti
N .Y O
;p "O
N
N tq
N a
O
c
Cc a
O)
N
_O O O N r0, _
O N N
O
O =?
O = c
O C- O ? O ? 0 ? O
E '
3
Co ?° N
5 C
' C
'
O a
o cm0
(D
O O
°
o
c -a cu c c cc
`o
c
t
n
t
n
O 'O O cu to r O O O) N
° +- ° O mac -? E E
,0 O
o? co
co
c?
N Co
- to c O
i O
°
w • a .5
3
t
n
ai w. N
c
C v
° tli
rn E
c o
15 3 ai
c
s
-
9)
-
_
-
c
N
00
m O
O _ _
Cf 3 Q .c m 3 Q n
.'O.. C Q C Q Q Q
O
ti
O ?
t
3
C 0 _0
W N r r r
U `-
cc (D a?
co
c j A? ?
LV) cL NA? O N ? O
r-
L ?/
1
co ,^
W
L
W
co A
1_ A
1_
M f? f? O O V-
?- N N N
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
co O O
P
r N M
r ?
r cc')
r
N
to
rn
m
a
•
w
m
w
U
w
0
J
•m
J
U
H
z
g
a
2
O
U
9
t: - N
°
c 3
(n - E
L
cu
m 0)
Q m w
M c
2
x'.c o?
ca
O N w e
cam. y c =
-.- O N
R)
'r, CCL
.
0
'0
N L
0
U)
• " N Q. ON N ? - a a '? (n L
•
U) ?
w ? Z •- G u) CC
G -0 (D
:2 0 :3 E ? C_
a ¢ 3 v Q v ?
N v w? 0
0
c . ,
U) U)
0 0 o
C c c0 N
t - C
O E N O 3 V
M
O
U) O O O C
.
m > O O
4- .C C
C
O
OC. C C 2) O O N O O t N
C
.
O? r
ns O :3
2
-
OY
O
O O
O :-
?
E a
)
:3
cm .
co 3 m
'-
v_,
c
7 i o
a
C
C. o
d' N o
N v
N
? ° o
C he
>c
O>
O
-0 Cr A=
m - O L V N O N
4- B >+ . 4-
U)
0) o a? v ,Z' LN
S
m N
Q o (o °-
x co
°) Cr 3 m
o cc c :3 ..- :3 u
i
O (
?- o 75
cc
U U c U E
0 M
? '- m =
ca 3 o
-o 4- -a
c c
c L m L 2 _ U
i 4 ) '4- >- t .?+ O .N
' .O 3
L N O
N
m -0 i2
m 3 -a
m N N N t m Q C L
O t O 0) m N O t N C ca c X N- L
U 3 c .5 m H 2 a a w 3 z 3 0
O
c cA
2 c > > c
-? Y Q Q
o
N U) N
m N N N c
N '0 '!0 r co
Cf) L L
N U) N N ? co (a O 00
z L L co co L ti co
? N
r LO co co 00 d) r- T-
O
a
6
(3
N
N
N
o N N a
) N
D D ? ? ? D ? D O
?- N M LO co ti 00
0)
ca
a
•
rn
rn
W
m
2
W
U
W
a
• J
J
a
U
H
Z
g
a
2
O
U
1r?
u
O
0 O Q
7
O cc CL -0 -0 cu
C ca N
0.2
ca ca
12 E
?.
O O L
0
0 U
O
N 5
O
o f04
C) 0
:m
LO
O
V
?
c N-
7 N C M
ca = O M
N
- U
¢ ca
-0 O c "
co O O N O
'O c 0
to
.c = O
O
cc
0
N
d Y Y E
O
Y
L E O
N U
i- ca - ca
? ca to
O
? O - 0
O w
ca CL (D
s-
O •
(D
cc
N O N _ M
N
a a)
N ,y ?
4)
E
f a)
N Q
3.
c-0 X m c x V U
(D
C
O (II
0
O N U O
¢ ca N t O W3: Q. - n N rn is ca Q
L
>
0) CL
CL
Cl. :3 m
M 0
d
N .2 ca
a) s
3 v
-
o L
m
o
3 o
c
c
ca v
i
m U)
o c
a>
a
°
?
o m c
L E Z: o
3 9+ U N N 4-
U)? N N to t O (D C
0 ? o:
° N y .= m Q
•
- c
•? L •O L
C Q
N
:3
O C
0 7 (a
U M
O L
-O O C
:3 CL E co)
ca co
?
a (0)
o C m
t
O
L _
O ca o
L
N
-0
m 0
w
o
? m t
c cam' Co N V V O
'° .> N 0 r- ( D .: o
? 0 m t
3
C'1 •c
o 5 z 3 U ?0
a? c ca ca
c
v
c
ca
.a
c
ca
d O
a
¢ ¢ c
aD
LO ti
o
W
O LO
co I` N
ti ti T-
V)
rl- N
U (U V
N N N
O O
r
r
N
N
ca
a
•
ti
0)
w
m
2
w
U
w
0
Q
U
H
Z
g
O
U
0
U)
m
3 -
a
C
ca (a a+
(D .2 0 -0
.
-0 cc E
.C to •? ? to o
la N Q Y
O E c o O ?-.
Z
r .?
-
CL -
N
o N
O v,
o Co
L N N
C
Ui N
o
-
6 CO) o m
w
-o o
° U c
a
3 US Q
U
C
CF) O ? OL
-a >
CL G.
C
_N 2 o j O
L- - ca
CO) N a
:2 N O C
4) = E - -a
CD
?? r- 4- 4)
N
o a?
ca
7
_
-
U N
N
L O a) C
y ._
C
C
oo .C
(D
C
-a ..
O
N
a
i N
a C C
V O L
C
0 C 0
C t
C
- ) 0
?
2 U
Z
U 0
° C
3
c
c
ca ca
M Co
ti co
N
N
U U
N O
N
Tl- M
T"
M
N
fa
October, 1997,
MASAC
Abbreviated
Technical Advisor's Report
•
Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport
MONTHLY MEETING - Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
•
Clutirnaot: .
Robert P. Johnson
Vice Qtainmm
Thomas Hoeg
Technical Advisor-
Roy Fuhrmano
Acting Secretary:
Melissa Srovmtsld
Airborne Erptrss
Brian Bates
Air Transport Association:
Paul MCGraw
ALPA:
Charles W. Curry Jr.
City of BGuunington:
Peuma Lee
Vern Wilcox
Chy of Burnsville:
Ed Porter
Cin• of Eagan:
Tao Egan
City of lmer Gnne Heights:
Dale Hammon
City of Madrna Heights:
JBl Smith
City of Minneaptdis.
James L Serrin
John Richter
Joe Lee
Judith Dodge
CityofRirlyield-
KrMal Stokes
Dawn Weitzel
city of st. Ltwis Pkak:
Robert Adrews
Cityofst. Pod:
a Scott Bamin
Thomas H. Hoeg
Carol Ann McGuire
Delta Air Lines Inc::
Rich Kidwell
Federal Express:
Dan DeBord
Federal Martian Admituisttvtirn:
Brace Wagoner
Ronald Giaob
MA C Staff.
Dick Kelm
MBAA:
Robert P. Johnson
Mesaba Northwest Airlink:
Daniel Sheehan
Mettnpditan Airports C(mrmissita:
Commissioner Alton Gaper
MN AirNaioml Guard•
Major Roy J. shetka
Northwest Airlines:
Mark Salmen
Jennifer Sayre
St Paul C7utmber of Commence:
Craig Wruck
Sun Ctwnir•Airliner:
Dale Kariys
United Airlines Inc.:
Big Yantis
United Pane/ Semice.
Mice Geyer
U.S. Air Fevre Reseme:
Captain David J. Gerken
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Declaration of Purposes
1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience,
and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, state,
and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical
handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international
programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the
metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all
aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and
effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area;
2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact
from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement,
control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and
3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the
public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Statement of Purpose
This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities
adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a
public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation of
the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and
evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of
the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective
procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and
of aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected
communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the
problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions
initiated and taken to alleviate the problem.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Representation
The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations,
associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and
responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users,
have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User
Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and
Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number.
The Airport 24-hour Noise Hotline is 726-9411.
Complaints to the hotline do not result in changes
in Airport activity, but provide a public sounding
board and airport information outlet. The hotline
is staffed during business hours, Monday - Friday.
This report is prepared and printed in house by
Chad Leqve, ANOMS Specialist
Questions or comments may be directed to:
MAC - Aviation Noise Programs
Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Tel: (612) 725-6331, Fax: (612) 725-6310
ANP Home Page: http://www.macavsat.org
Metropolitan Airports Commission Aviation Noise Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Operations and Complaint Summary
October 1997
Operations Summary - All Aircraft
Runway Arrival % Use Departure % Use
04 N/A N/A N/A N/A
22 N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 N/A N/A N/A N/A
30 N/A N/A N/A N/A
MSP October Fleet Mix Percentage
Scheduled Scheduled ANOMS ANOMS
Stage
1996 1997 Count 1996 Count 1997
Stage 2 46.8% 41.0% 48.2% N/A
Stage 3 53.2% 59.0% 51.8% N/A
Airport OctoberComplaint Summary
is
•
Airport
" 19% 1997
P
MS 1349 742
Airlake 0 1
Anoka 0 7
Crystal 0 0
Flying Cloud 3 1
Lake Elmo 0 2
St. Paul 0 1
Misc. 1 0
TOTAL 1353 754
October Average Daily Operations Summary - FAA Airport Traffic Record
19% 1997
Air Carrier 843 855
Commuter 342 340
G.A. 172 172
Military 5 13
TOTAL 1362 .1380
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 1
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary
October 1997
Complaint Summary by City
City
F Arrival Departure Total Percentage
le Valley 0 1 1
Bloomington 2 7 9 1.3%
Burnsville 1 22 23 3.3%
Columbia Heights 0 2 2 0.3%
Eagan 13 37 50 7.0%
Eden' Prairie 4 0 4 0.6%
Edina 1 17 18 2.6%
Inver Grove Heights 7 59 66 9.4%
Mendota Heights 8 90 98 13.9%
Minneapolis 152 127 279 39.6%
Minnetonka 2 2 4 0.6%
Richfield 1 13 14 2.0%
South St. Paul 0 3 3 0.4%
St. Louis Park 15 5 20 2.8%
St. Paul 94 7 101 14.3%
Sunfish Lake 0 13 13 1.8%
Total 300 405 705 1000/0
Time of Day Nature of Complaint
Time Total Nature of Complaint Total
00:00 - 05:59 49 Excessive Noise 632
06:00 - 06:59 50 Early/Late 54
07:00 - 11:59 159 Low Flying 12
12:00 - 15:59 81 Structural Disturbance 2
16:00 - 19:59 148 Helicopter 1
20:00 - 21:59 143 Ground Noise 33
22:00 - 22:59 86 Engine Run-up 4
23:00 - 23:59 26 Frequency 4
Total 742 Total 742
r
•
Page 2
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
? 0
? 0
0
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Available Time for Runway Use
Tower Log Reports - October 1997
All Hours
3
8%
66 %
V
n F-\-- z 22
04
0%
6%
74%
04
0%
10%
26 %
240%
Nighttime Hours
1%
6%
cZr ,L 22
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
V 17%
15%
%
Page 3
r
c?
a
0
U
0
a
Q ? ? 0 0
M N cl
SiLKiv'Idw0a AO 2 aawfiN
Y?o
e?
r
a
tea, ?'n
i
i?
u?
i?
?a
J
W
r
O 7?
0
c
01
ON
ro
Cd
?O
ON
ON
T'I
0
O?
V
01
Ti
N
E
(o
O
a
N
N
Z?
C
O
a
T
L
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Study Session Letter No. 7
Agenda January 5, 1998
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a communication plan for Richfield housing choices.
Background:
The Mayor and Council Members have requested that staff prepare a communications
plan regarding Richfield housing choices. The purpose of the plan is to provide a
mechanism to better communicate with the public why the City is initiating
redevelopment activities within the community.
Recommended Motion:
Review the Richfield housing choices communication plan and provide suggestions for
changes in the plan.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The recently completed community survey reveals the need for the City to forecast
issues to the public.
2. The communication plan will provide a better framework for understanding why
• development activities are taking place.
3. The communication plan provides a clearer role for the City Council, staff and
community volunteers.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council may decide not to proceed with the communication plan.
2. The Council may decide to review a communication plan at a later time.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented for discussion at the Study Session of January 5.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame f.Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
is
12-31-97
Richfield Housing Choices
Communications Plan
DRAFT
1. Introduction
The bulk of Richfield's housing stock was constructed just after World War II for the
returning GIs and their families. Richfield has done a great deal of work through its
remodeling and new construction programs to modernize and enlarge its homes to meet the
needs of 1990s families. However the unmet need in the community remains providing
more types of housing choices.
An additional housing issue for the community is the need to ensure that there is no net loss
in housing as a result of losses from airport and highway projects. Providing more multi-
unit housing in the community, such as townhomes and condominiums, will expand the
city's housing choices. It will provide an alternative for Richfield's senior population --
many who are the original "pioneers" who settled the community after the war. That will
free up single family homes for new families, bringing children into Richfield schools. And
it will allow Richfield to increase its total number of housing units and increase its
population.
i As Richfield embarks on this new venture, there are some community concerns and
perceptions that will need to be addressed:
• Unlike Richfield's other housing programs which redevelop single homes, housing
choice expansion will require selectively redeveloping areas where there are some homes
in decline or incompatible land uses exist.
• Loss of single-family homes will be equated with loss of families.
• Richfield does not have any new, modern townhome or condominium developments and
people's perceptions of multi-unit housing are not always positive.
• Change is difficult and is often resisted. It is rarely understood that change will happen
even if no action is taken.
This housing choices communications plan is designed to help Richfield identify its
communications goals and key messages for its target audiences. The plan suggests tools
and tactics and strategies to help achieve the City's communications goals with its various
audiences.
0
i 2. Communications Goals
These goals correlate with the target audiences and the strategies and tactics which have
been developed and appear in later sections of this communications plan.
G o a 1 N o. 1 -- Inform community members and develop their support for the need to
provide new housing choices and replace lost housing through redevelopment so Richfield
can remain vital.
Goal No. 2 -- Help community members to understand the link between new housing
choices and attracting families with children for Richfield schools. Strong schools = a
strong community.
Goal No. 3 -- Equip community leaders with the knowledge and tools to lead the public
discussion of Richfield's need to expand housing choices.
Goal No. 4 -- Equip City and School District employees with the knowledge that enables
them to speak with others about the need to expand Richfield's housing choices.
• Goal No. 5 -- Inform and develop support among Richfield realtors, bankers and
lenders, business community members, and other community groups, Richfield's
expansion of housing choices.
G o a 1 N o. 6 -- Create knowledge and interest among metro area employers, real estate
agents, residents and news media about Richfield's new housing opportunities.
•
2
•
3. Key Messages
This is a general set of key messages for Richfield's new housing choices initiatives. The
messages are primarily geared toward Richfield's internal audiences (Communications
Goals 1-5). When tailoring for metro-wide (external) audiences, the primary difference will
be that there is less of a need to convince the audience of the benefit of housing choices and
more of a need to communicate Richfield's vitality and competitiveness with other suburbs
through its cutting-edge redevelopment successes.
• Richfield needs to provide modern housing choices and replace lost housing if it is
to remain a vital community that can keep and attract residents and compete with
developing suburbs.
• Providing new housing choices and replacing lost housing will involve selectively
redeveloping areas where single family homes are in decline or are adjacent to
highways, airports or commercial development.
• Providing new housing choices, such as multi-unit housing in the form of
townhomes or condominiums, will provide housing for long-time Richfield
residents who no longer wish to maintain a home but don't want to leave the
community. That will free up single-family homes for new families.
• Attracting new families with children will keep the school population strong. Strong
schools mean a strong community.
• Without more housing choices, fewer and fewer people will seek houses in
Richfield. Decreased demand will mean declining neighborhoods.
• Richfield has already realized success with programs to remodel and redevelop its
1950s housing stock and redevelop commercial areas.
0
0 4. Target Audiences
The target audiences for this project basically fit into two groups. The bulk of the target
audiences are internal, Richfield audiences. The rest are metro area audiences.
Richfield Audiences (Internal)
• Richfield residents
• Richfield area realtors
• Richfield community leaders
• Richfield City and School District employees
• Richfield service clubs
• Richfield area bankers/lenders
• Richfield business community
Metro Area Audiences (External)
• I-494 employers
• Major metro area employers
• Metro area real estate agents
• Metro Area residents
• Metro Area news media contacts
•
5. Tools List
The following tools have been developed, are being developed or should be developed for
use in the communication plan's strategies and tactics.
• Slide Presentation -- A slide presentation has been developed around the key
messages for presentations to groups in Richfield and for use with exhibits at
events.
• Video Presentation -- A video version of the slide presentation is being
developed with professional narration for convenience of use in presentations.
• Brochure -- A brochure is being developed which will stress the themes and
images developed in the slide presentation and which will include an opinion card
which can be mailed in. The card will ask community members for their ideas on
new housing choices that they have seen, liked, or in which they have an interest.
• Articles -- Articles will be developed for Your City, Your Schools and City and
School District employee newsletters, in addition to other targeted trade publications
that may be identified. A Q&A in the January "Your City" is the first of these
articles.
• Board Display/Exhibit -- A display/exhibit should be developed to be used
with a video/slide presentation at a variety of events.
4
0
• Fact Sheet(s) -- A fact sheet on a single page should be developed which would
summarize key information and contacts and could be used with employers and the
news media.
• News Release -- A news release should be developed for a news media
campaign. A news hook -- a housing award, the opening of a new housing
development, etc., -- would need to be identified and that would drive the timing of
the news release.
• Briefing Book -- A briefing book should be developed which would highlight
key messages, important facts and information. It would be used to equip
community leaders to comfortably handle the topic and the most likely questions.
• Employer Packets -- This packet would summarize housing opportunities,
Richfield housing contacts, and other selling points for Richfield as a community.
• Potential New Resident Information Packets -- These packets would be
left with employer human resource departments for new employees that are looking
for a home or be used at events such as Richfield Remodeling Fair.
6. Tactics and Strategies
1) Leader Training -- Provide community leaders such as members of the City
• Council, HRA, Planning Commission and School Board with the tools and training
that enable them to make presentations to groups and lead a discussion.
Audience: Community leaders
Tools: Briefing book, slide presentation/video &
brochure
Communications Goal: 3
Timing: Already begun
2) Presentations -- These will be made to a wide range of community groups such
as the Chamber of Commerce and civic organizations. They will be made by
community leaders with the opportunity for discussion on desirable and needed
Richfield housing choices.
Audience: Community members
Tools: Slide/video presentation, brochure
Communications Goal: 5
Timing:, Over the next six months
3) Events -- A housing exhibit/display will be presented at various events in Richfield
and the metro area. These include: Remodeler's Fair, Remodeler's Showcase,
Parade of Homes, open houses for new homes, St. Paul and Minneapolis Home
and Garden Show.
Audience: Community members; metro area realtors,
home buyers, and general public.
Tools: Video presentation, display, brochure,
potential new resident packets
Communications Goal(s); 1, 2, 5
Timing: As events occur
4) Articles and Publicity -- Various articles and news brief items will be
developed for City and School Board employee newsletters and for "Your City"
and "Your Schools," in addition to other targeted publications that are identified.
Audience: Community members, City employees and
School District employees
Tools: Article(s)
Communications Goal(s): 1, 2, 4
Timing: Within the next six months
5) Cable TV Presentation -- Show the video on Cable TV and schedule an
appearance for a segment of Southwest Community News.
Audience: Community members
Tools: Video presentation
Communications Goals(s): 1,2
Timing: Within next two months
6) Realtors Presentation and Tour -- A Saturday morning presentation and tour
will be provided to metro area realtors.
Audience: Realtors
Tools: Slide/video presentation, brochure, fact sheet
Communications Goal: 5
Timing: Within the next six months
7) Richfield Bankers/Lenders Breakfast -- A breakfast meeting should be held
for Richfield area bankers and lenders, with the video/slide presentation, a
discussion of Richfield housing choices and successes and distribution of materials.
Audience: Richfield Area Bankers and Lenders
Tools: Slide/video presentation, brochure, fact sheet
Communications Goal: 5
Timing: Within the next six months
0 6
8) City/School District Employee Housing Fairs-- Schedule separate housing
fairs or incorporate a housing element into existing employee fairs for City
employees and School District employees. The fair could highlight all of Richfield's
housing opportunities, programs and successes. Provide food, promotional items
and make education fun.
Audience: City Employees and School District Employees
Tools: Slide/video Presentation, brochure
potentially promotional items
Communications Goal: 4
Timing: To be determined
9) Employer Outreach -- Meet with the human service departments of Richfield
employers, I-494 employers and other major employers and provide them with
information on housing opportunities in Richfield. Opportunities will be developed
for disseminating information to employees through employee newsletters or
bulletin boards such as new housing programs, developments or upcoming housing
events.
Audience: Metro area employers and their new employees
Tools: Employer packets and potential new resident
information packet
Communications Goal(s): 5,6
Timing: Within next six months
10) Metro Area Media Outreach -- Spread the message of Richfield's housing
40 successes and housing plans beyond the community through the metro area news
media.
Audience: Metro area home buyers & others through news
media
Tools: News release, fact sheet, video, etc.
Communications Goals: 6
Timing: Within next six months
is 7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 6
Agenda January 5, 1998
10 meetings, wherein any resident could come in and review the market value of their
Issue Statement:
Discussion of new legislation affecting Local Boards of Review.
Background:
Attached is a letter from Hennepin County describing 1997 legislation regarding the
Local Board of Review process. The new legislation only affects cities where
assessment functions are performed by the County Assessor. This is the case for the
City of Richfield which contracts with Hennepin County for assessment services. The
new law provides the option for cities such as Richfield to transfer their duties as Local
Boards of Review to the County. The statute requires that an alternative option, like the
"open book" process used in Dakota County, be made available to taxpayers in a city
which would exercise this option.
Currently Dakota County and other jurisdictions in the State of Minnesota utilize a
process where the County Board is the official Board of Review for all cities within the
County and each city within the County has the previously mentioned "open book"
process. The "open book" meeting is a process where property appraisal staff (in
Richfield's case, Larry Miller and staff) conduct an open meeting, or a series of open
property and how the appraisers arrived at that value. This process is a more formal
way of approaching what Larry Miller and staff do at the City of Richfield informally,
often on the phone, with residents prior to the City's Local Board of Review process. If
a resident is not satisfied after the open book meeting, the matter could be contested at
the County Board.
This information is being presented to the City Council as an option to consider. The
Local Board of Review process works best with local experts such as property
appraisers available to sit on the Board as is prescribed in the City Charter. Currently
the City is fortunate to have two such qualified individuals who are willing to serve on
the Board. If those individuals became unavailable for any reason, it would be very
difficult to find qualified replacements.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss the implications of the new law for Local Boards of Review.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The law was changed to allow for cities that contract with the County for assessing
services to transfer Board of Review responsibilities to the County for three-year
periods.
2. A similar model has been used for several years by other cities in Minnesota that
Is* are located in counties that perform assessing services for the entire County.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could discuss this matter at a future date..
Discussion/Decision Mode:
With the next Board of Review just four months away, this may be an appropriate time
to discuss this new provision of law.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam . Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
•
_ Hennepin County.
1r An Equal Opporrunicy Employer
September 12, 1997
James D: Prosser, City Manager
6700 Portland Ave. So.
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Prosser:
The 1997 Legislature passed new legislation affecting the Local Board of Review process. This
new legislation, a copy of which is attached, only affects those cities where the assessment
function is performed by the County Assessor. In Hennepin County, this would give those cities
which contract with Hennepin County for assessment services, the option to transfer their duties
as a local board of review. The statute requires that an alternative review option like an "open
book" meeting be made available to the taxpayers in cities which exercise this option.
This statute was passed to address some problems which existed around the State concerning `
boards of review lacking a quorum or not performing as the law prescribes.
This letter is to inform you about the new statute and the option it provides to the Local Board of
Review process. My suggestion is that in Hennepin County we continue to operate as we have in
the past with Local Boards of Review scheduled in each city. If after reviewing the statute, you
have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact myself or Bob
Hanscom at 348-3046.
Sincerely,
??0-errYlCxO
Thomas J. May
Hennepin County Assessor
TJM.jn
cc: Steven Devich, Admn. Services Dir.
Hennepin County General Services
County Assessor Division Recycled Paper
A-2103 Hennepin County Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
M Study Session Letter No. 5
Agenda January 5, 1998
Issue Statement:
Discussion of increased parking availability at City Hall and Heredia Park by
constructing an addition to the current parking lot.
Background:
Council previously approved purchase of the properties at 6734 Portland Avenue and
6758 Portland Avenue for the purpose of expanding parking adjacent to City Hall and
Heredia Park. The property between these two City owned properties has not yet been
purchased by the City. Since the purchase of 6734 Portland, the property immediately
adjacent to the existing City Hall parking lot, City staff have been looking at possible
parking lot designs and the problems associated with each design . Attached is a
sketch/plan of what staff believes is the most viable option for increasing the size of the
City Hall parking lot.
If constructed according to the attached plan, the parking lot will accommodate 23
vehicles more than the present parking configuration. Because of the poor surface
condition of the existing parking lot, and the need to match the elevations of the existing
lot to those of the proposed lot expansion, most of the existing blacktopped surface in
the upper parking lot needs to be removed and the existing parking lot repaved.
Standards for new development and redevelopment require on-site storm water pickup
for properties larger that one half acre. The City Hall site is in excess of that limit. The
enclosed design, therefore, includes provision for two catch basins and sufficient storm
main to drain the parking lot directly to an existing storm sewer main at 68th Street and
Fifth Avenue. In addition to storm sewer, provision has also been made for lighting,
tree replacement and improved traffic circulation.
The estimated cost of this parking lot expansion is:
Demolition .................................. $ 7,000
Preliminary Engineering ............. $ 8,000
Construction ............................... $ 78,000
Field Engineering and Survey.... $ 8,000
Contingency ................................ $ 11,700
TOTAL $115,000
Recommended Motion:
The discussion should include financial and park related implications as well as impact
on the remaining property located between two City owned properties. No action is
recommended at this time although staff is asking that Council provide some direction.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. There is a desire to expand the parking for Richfield City Hall and Heredia Park..
2. The City owns the property immediately south of and adjacent to the existing
parking lot.
4W 3. The Comprehensive Plan shows the proposed use of the three lots as park.
4. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and past Council direction, the lot at 6734
Portland was purchased in September 1997.
5. There is no identified source of funding for expanding the City Hall parking lot. The .
project is not included in the adopted 1998 Capital Improvement Budget nor in the
adopted 1999 - 2003 Capital Improvement Program.
Alternative Recommendation:
One or more of the following could be considered by Council as direction to staff:
1. Do nothing at this time to expand the parking for Richfield City Hall and Heredia
Park.
2. Proceed as necessary to purchase the property between 6734 Portland and 6758
Portland.
3. Prepare a parking lot design that would include both the property as 6734 Portland
as well as the property at 6758 Portland.
4. Proceed with only the demolition/removal of structure(s) at 6734 Portland but do not
construct an addition to the existing parking lot.
5. Determine possible sources of funding for expanding the City Hall and Heredia Park
parking to include only the property at 6734 Portland at this time and prepare an
amendment to the 1998 Capital Budget to incorporate the expansion.
6. Determine possible sources of funding for expanding the City Hall parking and
prepare a proposal for the 1999 Capital Budget or for the 2000 - 2004 Capital
Improvement Program to incorporate the expansion.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council is requested to discuss financial and park related implications as well as impact
on the remaining property located between two City owned properties and to provide
direction to staff regarding Capital Improvement Budgets, Capital Improvement
Programs, and timing for expansion of City Hall and Heredia Park parking.
Resp tfully submitted,
Jam . Prosser
City nager
JDP:cak
Ll
PORTLAND AVE.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 4
Agenda January 5,1998
Issue Statement:
Discussion of moving a pedestrian signal to 67th Street and Nicollet Avenue.
Background:
In August City staff contacted representatives of St. Peter's Church and Academy of the
Holy Angels (AHA) about a proposal to move the existing pedestrian signal in the
middle of the 6700 block of Nicollet Avenue to the intersection of 67th Street and
Nicollet Avenue. Their positive response led to the City hiring BRW, Inc. to explore the
possibility of moving the signal and redesigning the intersection.
A preliminary signal justification report, prepared by BRW, Inc., shows that a traffic
signal can be warranted at 67th Street and Nicollet Avenue. Two proposed layouts will
be discussed at the Study Session. They are:
• Combining the driveways to both AHA and St. Peter's Church at 67th Street and
adding a traffic signal. Nicollet Avenue would remain a four-lane undivided
roadway.
• Similar to the previous alternative for access to both AHA and St. Peter's Church but
Nicollet Avenue would be converted to a three lane road with the center lane
designed as a two-way left-turn lane. The three lane section would extend from
66th Street to 77th Street. This option offers certain advantages of safety and traffic
calming that may benefit the neighborhood.
i
In either alternative the City would have to address certain issues with both property
owners. The City will ask for a shared access and shared parking agreement between
St. Peter's Church and the Academy of Holy Angels. Also, changes in access to the St.
Peter's parking lot will be requested to eliminate direct access to residential streets.
The Academy of Holy Angels will be asked to correct problems with the storm pond that
was created at the time the athletic dome was built.
If the Council wants the project to proceed, County financial participation to cover 25%
of project costs may be requested. County funds would not become available before
1999. Richfield could, however, finance the project's entire cost of $130,000 using its
own Municipal State Aid Street (gas tax) funds. Any changes in the road must,
however, receive County approval.
If Council chooses to explore the three-lane option, City staff will need to engage the
neighborhood in a planning process.
Recommended Motion:
There is no motion. This is for discussion purposes only.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Both alternatives offer improvements in safety and access to both properties.
2. The existing mid-block pedestrian signal is in a location where motorists do not
16 expect it.
3. The proposal for a three-lane road may improve safety and strengthen the
residential character of Nicollet Avenue.
Alternative Recommendation:
Reject moving the signal.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
No decision is expected at this time.
Respectf Ily submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 1
Agenda January 5, 1998
Issue Statement:
Council update on the new maintenance facility.
Background:
The purpose of this item is to discuss design and funding issues for a new Public Works
maintenance facility.
Design
On September 8, 1997, Council approved a concept plan for a new Public Works
maintenance facility. Estimated cost for the approved plans was $5.6 million.
The engineering/architectural consultant, Short Elliot Hendrickson (SEH), was directed
to proceed with preparation of bid specifications and refined cost estimates, and to
return to the Council with the information in time for review and consideration of a
January advertisement for bids.
To achieve that end, staff, SEH and their sub-contractors met bi-weekly from
September through November, and then on a weekly basis during December to
determine the City's needs from plumbing and furnaces to cubicles and hydraulic lifts.
A neighborhood meeting on the feasibility of a signal at 64th Street and Portland
Avenue was held. Several phone calls were received from residents and an article in
the Sun newspaper about tree removal on the selected site have occurred.
These meetings have resulted in a recommendation to proceed with the project with a
construction manager, Adolfson & Peterson, Inc., hired by the Council at the December
22, 1997 meeting.
A neighborhood meeting, including residents on Portland Avenue and Fifth Avenue
near the site, was held on December 30, 1997 and about 30 people attended. During
that meeting, three basic interests appeared to be represented. Some residents
strongly opposed the project altogether due to loss of open space; others were
concerned about the need to replace wildlife habitat and natural vegetation; finally,
some indicated general interest in the project.
The meetings also resulted in the addition of some alternates to the bid specifications
which may or may not be feasible depending on whether or not they fall into the original
cost estimate. These alternates include:
• An elevator and stairway to the mezzanine
. A mezzanine space in the equipment maintenance bays, and
• A possible link connection between the Water Plant and the Dewatering Building.
Staff, SEH personnel, and the construction manager from Adolfson & Peterson will be
available to address questions, concerns and comments regarding the specifications
prior to official consideration by the Council at its regularly scheduled January 12, 1997
meeting.
Funding
The recommended funding source is reflected on the attached exhibit. Staff will be
prepared to discuss in more detail and respond to questions at the Study Session.
Recommended Motion:
No specific Council action is requested at this time. However, if Council wishes to
change specifications, or to direct staff to investigate alternatives to specifications, it will
be necessary to do so now before final action is requested on the specifications on
January 12, 1998. The Council may also decide to delay or delete the project.
Basis of Recommendation:
The purpose of this discussion is to update the Council on the current status of the
planning for the new maintenance facility and to address questions, concerns and
comments regarding the design and funding for the facility. This discussion follows a
request that the consultant proceed with preparation of bid specifications and refined
cost estimates, and return to the Council with the information in time for review and
. consideration of a January advertisement for bids.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may review the specifications as presented without making suggestions for
alterations.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
To stay on schedule for a January 1998 advertisement for bids with an early spring
construction start, it is necessary to keep the process moving.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja s D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
0
•
Amount Source Balance Implications - If any
$1,500,000 Land Sale Proceeds-HRA $30400;000 Funds would be readily available from
Lampert Site bond proceeds in the HRA
Garage Site & Misc.-Parcels .
$750,000 Land Sale Proceeds-77th. St $2,600,000 None, -although these funds are now
Garage -$ 690,300 held-in-the Capital Fund (301)
Roosevelt Park -$54,700 (Remaining balance of Capital Fund)
$750,000 Utility Fund - fund balance $$50,1= Using $ .75 million of the Utility Fund
fund balance will have a negative
impact on the interest earnings of the
fund and will mean that $45,000 in
annual earnings will have to be replaced
$350,000 Central Garage Fund - fund $1,300,000 No real impact in the fund in the short
balance term; will require a moderate rate
increase in the future.
$500,000 Pension Reserve $600,-000 City general fund money set aside to
make lump sum contributions to the
City's pension funds if needed.
it would seem that not all of this
funding is needed.
$750,000 Capital Fund - fund balance $1,850,000 The Capital fund is also used as a fall
back source of cash to the General
Fund. At times the General Fund has
a negative cash balance and needs a
source of short term cash advance to
pay salaries and pay City bills. $1.8
million would be an adequate balance
to maintain.
$1,000,000 Self-Insurance Fund - Loan -$2,800,-000 The self insurance fund has done very
The Self-insurance Fund well in the past few years and could
could loan the funds for the make such a contribution to the project
project and be repaid-by-the with relatively little impact to the fund.
Utility fund over the next 7-10 This would increase water and sewer
years. fees by twelve cents per thousand
gallons during the repayment period.
$5,600,000 Total Funds Available
¦E Decision
• ¦¦ Resources Ltd.
EXECUTIVE SUAINL4RY
City of Richfield Residential Survey
Methodology:
• Survey of 400 randomly selected residents of the City of Richfield.
• Average interview time of forty-nine minutes.
• Telephone interviews completed between October 27 and November 24, 1997.
• Results projectable to their respective universes within f 5.0 percent in 95 out of 100
cases.
Residential Demographics:
• Median longevity in the city of 16.3 years.
• Twenty-seven percent residents for five years or less.
• Twenty-six percent residents for over thirty years.
Median longevity at current residence of 10.1 years.
• Thirty-five percent residents for five years or less.
• Thirty-three percent residents for over twenty years.
Median adult age of 45.5 years old.
• Twenty-five percent were under 35 years old.
• Thirty-six percent were over 54 years old.
Median education level of some college, albeit short of graduation.
• Thirty-four percent had high school or less education.
• Thirty-nine percent were at least college graduates.
Thirty-eight percent of households contained school-aged children or pre-schoolers.
• Twenty-two percent were "single parent households."
Twenty-six percent of households contained senior citizens.
•
3128 Dean Court 9 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 • (612) 920-0337 • Fax (612) 929.6166
Decision Resources, Ltd.
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
Forty-two percent were currently involved in volunteer activities for their school district, city,
church, civic organization, or other public service program.
Sixty-eight percent owned their present residence.
• The median current value of residential property was $115,500.00.
Women outnumbered men by two percent in the sample.
Ward representation tended to be fairly uniform across the community.
• Thirty-four percent resided in Ward One.
• Thirty-five percent lived in Ward Two.
• Thirty-one percent dwelled in Ward Three.
Airport quadrant representation also proved to be fairly uniform.
• Thirty-six percent lived in Quadrants One and Two.
• Thirty-two percent resided in Quadrants Three and Four.
• Thirty-three percent dwelled in Quadrants Five and Six.
Perspectives on Current and Future Residences: •
Thirty-four percent moved to Richfield from the City of Minneapolis.
• Twenty-three percent always resided in the city.
• Twenty percent moved from other Hennepin County suburbs.
Thirty-seven percent chose Richfield as a place to live because of its "location."
• Twenty percent based the choice on "housing opportunities."
• Ten percent reported "their family was here."
• Ten percent liked the "peacefulness and quiet."
• Nine percent said "their job was located here."
Sixty percent rented their prior residence.
Seventy-one percent now lived in a single family home.
• Twenty-one percent resided in an apartment building.
• Six percent lived in a duplex or double bungalow.
Eighty-seven percent were "satisfied" with the home they currently inhabited.
• Fifty-six percent reported they were "very satisfied."
• Fourteen percent were "dissatisfied."
•
Page 2
Decision Resources, Ltd.
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
In five years, fifty-nine percent expected to still live in their "present home."
• Fourteen percent expected to move to another Richfield home.
• Eight percent wanted to live elsewhere in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
• Ten percent saw themselves living outside of the Metropolitan Area.
If they were to move, fifty-six percent would seek a single family home.
• Thirteen percent would re-locate to an apartment building.
• Nineteen percent would move to a townhouse or condominium.
• Eighty-one percent thought they would own their next residence.
In looking for new housing, residents placed the greatest importance on four characteristics:
• "Have a home with new/updated roof, plumbing, heating, and electrical system."
• "Have a home with new or updated insulation."
• "Have an updated kitchen."
• "Have adequate off-street parking."
Forty-six percent felt the type of homes they could afford and would like to live in were "more
available in Richfield than in suburbs further from the core cities."
• Twenty-nine percent felt the opposite was the case.
Sixty percent were satisfied with the current range of housing available in the City of Richfield.
• Nine percent wanted more "townhouses."
• Eight percent sought more "high income housing."
• Eight percent wanted more "senior housing."
Neighborhood Perspectives:
Ninety percent were "satisfied" with their neighborhood as a place to live.
• Fifty-six percent were "very satisfied."
• Ten percent reported "dissatisfaction."
Thirty-seven percent chose their current neighborhood because of its "location."
• Twenty-one percent moved there because of "housing availability."
• Fourteen percent considered the neighborhood to be a "nice area."
Forty-four percent defined the quality of their neighborhood in terms of "the quality of things
such as schools, churches, parks, and other services."
• Twenty-two percent saw it as "the friendships I have with the people who live there."
• Twenty percent defined it as "the feeling that I'm living among people like myself
whether I know them or not."
0 Page 3
Decision Resources, Ltd.
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
Fifty-seven percent "had real roots in my neighborhood."
• Thirty-five percent disagreed.
Fifty-four percent felt "their neighbors are pretty much like themselves."
• Forty-one percent saw "their neighbors as quite different from them."
Fifty-five percent had noted "no change" in the types of people who lived in their neighborhood
in recent years.
• Fifteen percent felt it had "changed for the better."
• Thirteen percent thought it had "changed for the worse."
City services provided to the neighborhood were generally well-regarded.
• Exceptionally high ratings were awarded for "street maintenance," "snow plowing of
streets and alleys," "street light replacement," "parking availability," "park maintenance,"
"curb and gutter repair," and "tree maintenance along the boulevards."
• Moderately high negative ratings were posted for "having reasonable property taxes" and
"street traffic."
•
Fifty-five percent saw "no change" in the desirability of their neighborhood as a place to live in
the past few years.
• Twenty-one percent felt it was "more desirable."
• Fourteen percent saw it as "less desirable."
Residents were particularly positive about their area of Richfield as a place to live.
• Very high ratings were posted for "general appearance and livability," "street
maintenance," "a place to purchase a starter home," "safety from violent personal crime,"
and "a place to raise children."
• Above average negative scores were given on "safety from property crimes," "bus
service," "freedom from excessive noise," "convenience of shopping areas," "a place to
retire," "available health care facilities," and "available full-time jobs."
Sixty-nine percent reported there had been no decline in the appearance of housing in their
neighborhood during the past few years.
Only eighteen percent felt their were blighted residences in their neighborhood or felt neighbors
did not look out for one another.
But, thirty-three percent reported their pride in their neighborhood had not increased during the
past few years.
Page 4
•
Decision Resources, Ltd.
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
Forty-four percent felt "excessive speeding" was at least a "somewhat serious" problem on their
neighborhood's residential streets..
• Thirty-four percent similarly rated "excessive through traffic" and "too much traffic."
• Thirty-three percent rated "traffic threats to children and bicyclists" and "dangerous
intersections" as "very serious"or "somewhat serious."
In giving an overall grade to their neighborhood, sixty-seven percent awarded a rating between
"B+ and B-."
• Eighteen percent awarded it either an "A" or "A-."
• Twelve percent gave a grade in the "C" range.
City Perspectives:
"Location" was considered to be the best thing about living in Richfield by thirty-three percent of
the respondents.
• Fourteen percent cited "small town ambience."
• Twelve percent pointed to "sense of community."
• Ten percent talked about "nice people."
• Nine percent liked the "peacefulness and quiet."
• Nine percent also cited it as a "suburban community."
Twenty percent thought "airport noise" was the worst thing about living in Richfield.
• Eighteen percent cited "crime."
• Eleven percent reacted negatively to "growth."
• Twelve percent were "boosters" who disliked nothing about the community.
Fifty-six percent regarded the desirability of Richfield as a place to live as "unchanged" in the
past few years.
• Twenty-three percent saw it as "more desirable."
• Sixteen percent felt it was "less desirable."
In assessing a community as a place to live, residents placed a very high importance on several
characteristics:
• Greater importance was assigned to "clean, well kept-up neighborhood," "reasonably safe
area," "street maintenance and trash cleanup in the neighborhood," "lack of vandalism in
the area," and "responsiveness of the police force."
• Lower importance was placed upon "being in an area where people are very similar to
you," "good day-care available for children," "bikeways and trails in the area," "park
programs in the area," and "bus service in the area."
Page 5
Decision Resources, Ltd.
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
Eighty-nine percent rated the quality of life in the community as "excellent" or "good."
• Eleven percent rated it as "only fair" or "poor."
• Needed improvements included "less crime and gangs," suggested by sixteen percent,
"less airport noise," at eleven percent, "less growth," cited by eight percent, and
"improvement of run-down areas," mentioned by seven percent.
"Crime," at thirty-two percent, was regarded as the most serious issue facing the community
today.
• "Growth" was mentioned by twenty-three percent.
• "Airport noise" was key for ten percent.
Sixty-eight percent felt the City of Richfield was headed in the "right direction."
• Fifteen percent saw it as "off on the wrong track."
• Unhappiness was based on "growth and re-development," at twenty-five percent, and
"crime," cited by twelve percent.
A solid eighty-four percent would recommend living in Richfield to others.
• Only seven percent disagreed.
In assessing community characteristics, most residents regarded Richfield as having "about the
right amount" of each one.
• However, thirty percent felt the city had "too many" rental units.
• More than twenty-five percent, felt the city had "too few" higher cost housing
opportunities, townhouses, trails and bikeways, light manufacturing industry,
entertainment and dining establishments, and full-time head-of-household job
opportunities.
Airport Noise:
Sixty-one percent had been annoyed by aircraft operations at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul
International Airport.
• Thirty-five percent were annoyed on a daily basis.
• Thirty-one percent reported being annoyed weekly.
• Summer was by far the most annoying season.
• Evening, followed by morning, were the most annoying times of day.
•
Page 6
Decision Resources, Ltd.
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
Richfield Public Schools:
Sixty-seven percent rated the Richfield Public Schools as "excellent" or "good."
• Ten percent saw them as "only fair" or "poor."
Forty-three percent felt the quality of the public schools had remained "about the same."
• Thirteen percent saw it as "getting better."
• Sixteen percent felt it was "getting worse."
Thirty-nine percent felt the Richfield Public Schools were good enough to be a reason to "stay"
in the city.
• Only six percent felt they were a reason to "not stay."
Fifty-three percent reported visiting a Richfield Public School Building during the past three
years.
City Government and Staff.
Fifty-seven percent felt they could have a say about the way things were run in this community.
• Twenty-nine percent felt they could not.
By a forty-one percent to thirty-three percent margin, residents supported a city property tax
increase if it were needed to maintain city services as their current level.
• Fifty-two percent saw Richfield property taxes as "about average" in comparison with
nearby areas.
• Twenty percent felt they were comparatively "high," while four percent felt they were
comparatively "low."
• Eighty-one percent viewed the value of city services in terms of the property taxes paid as
"excellent" or "good."
Thirty-nine percent felt they knew "a great deal" or "a fair amount" about the work of the Mayor
and City Council.
• An unusually high sixty-four percent "approved"of the job of the Mayor and City
Council.
• Eight percent expressed "disapproval."
Twenty-nine percent experienced "quite a lot" or "some" first-hand contact with the Richfield
City Staff.
• A very solid sixty-nine percent rated the City Staff as "excellent" or "good."
• Fifteen percent rated them as "only fair" or "poor."
Page 7
Decision Resources, Ltd.
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
Forty-six percent had contacted - by telephone or in person - a staff member at Richfield City
Hall.
• Twenty-four percent contacted the Motor Vehicle Licensing Office.
• Fifteen percent talked with the Public Works and Engineering Departments.
• Thirteen percent contacted the Police Department.
• Twelve percent each talked with the Housing Inspection Office and the Park and
Recreation Department.
• On each quality service dimension, City Hall was rated "excellent or "good" by at least
eighty-four percent.
Park and Recreation Opportunities:
Seventy-two percent felt either "very well informed" or "somewhat informed" about the
Richfield Park System and facilities.
• Twenty-five percent rated themselves as "not too well informed" or "not at all informed."
E
A very high ninety percent rated the park and, recreation facilities in the City as "excellent" or
"good." is
• Only five percent felt they were "only fair."
Eighty-one percent had used the Community Parks during the past year.
• Seventy-four percent rated them as "excellent" or "good."
Seventy percent each had visited the trails and Woodlake Nature Center.
• Sixty-five rated the Woodlake Nature Center as "excellent" or "good."
• Sixty-one percent similarly rated the trails.
Fifty-two percent had visited the Municipal Swimming Pool and Water Park during the past year.
• Forty-five percent rated it highly.
Thirty-eight percent used the Rich Acres Golf Course in the past year.
• Thirty-one percent rated the course as "excellent" or "good."
Twenty-eight percent had used the Ice Arena.
• Twenty-two percent rated the arena positively.
•
Page 8
Decision Resources, Ltd.
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
Forty-one percent regularly left the city to use leisure time recreational facilities or programs.
• Twelve percent left to use lakes and boats.
• Ten percent headed for biking and hiking trails.
• Eight percent visited other parks.
Seventy-five percent rated the overall job the City of Richfield was doing in maintaining trees as
"excellent" or "good."
• Nineteen percent were more critical in their evaluations.
New Community Center Facility:
Seventy-seven percent favored the construction of a new City of Richfield Community Center.
• Sixteen percent opposed it.
• The typical resident would support a property tax increase of $32.80 annually to support
the construction and partial operation of the facility.
Over seventy-five percent supported eight facilities in the center.
• Eighty-one percent each supported "an aerobics, exercise, and fitness room" and "a
relocated senior citizens center."
• Seventy-nine percent favored "an indoor running-walking track."
• Seventy-eight percent each favored "an indoor swimming pool" and "an arts and crafts
room for instructional programs and classes."
• Seventy-six percent supported "group meeting rooms."
• Seventy-five percent each favored "a gymnasium" and "day care and pre-school space."
Public Safety Issues:
Richfield residents were intensely concerned about five public safety issues in their neighborhood.
• Eighty percent were concerned about "juvenile delinquency and mischief."
• Seventy-nine percent expressed concern over "speeding and careless driving."
• Seventy-eight percent were concerned about "burglary."
• Seventy-six percent were apprehensive about "general theft."
• Seventy-five percent were concerned about "vandalism and graffiti."
Majorities of residents were afraid to walk alone at night in three locations.
• "The park closest to their home" was troublesome to sixty-six percent.
• "Veteran's Memorial Park" was mentioned by seventy-two percent.
• "Woodlake Nature Center" concerned seventy-five percent.
•
Page 9
Decision Resources, Ltd.
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
Sixty-one percent felt crime in their neighborhood had "remained about the same" during the past
three years.
• Twenty-four percent noted an "increase."
only thirty-eight percent felt crime in the City of Richfield had "remained about the same" during
that time period.
• Forty-nine percent thought it had "increased."
"Vandalism and burglary" was judged to be the "most serious" crime problem by thirty-seven
percent.
• Thirteen percent each pointed to "drugs" and "gangs."
• Sixty percent based their responses on "hearsay" and "news reports."
Fifty-seven percent thought Richfield Police patrol activity had "remained about the same" in
their neighborhood during the past year.
• Nineteen percent noted an "increase."
• Twenty percent were "uncertain."
•
Forty percent reported their neighborhood or apartment building belonged to Neighborhood
Watch.
• Seventy-three percent read "Eye Spy" newsletter.
• Sixty-three percent felt their block or building was active in the program.
• Sixty-two percent felt Neighborhood Watch had helped them get to know their neighbors
better.
Communications Channels:
Forty-five percent regarded either the "Sun-Current" or "the local newspaper" as their principal
source of information about city government and its activities.
• Twenty-two percent cited the "city newsletter."
Seventy-eight percent recalled receiving "Your City" newsletter.
• Ninety-one percent of those who recalled reported "regularly reading" it.
• Forty-five percent "kept it around for later reference."
• Eighty-six percent rated the newsletter as "very effective" or "somewhat effective."
Fifty-eight percent of the households currently subscribed to cable television.
• Twenty-eight percent had watched telecasts of the Richfield City Council Meetings during
the past six years.
Page 10
Decision Resources, Ltd.
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
Forty percent currently owned or had access to a modem-equipped personal computer.
• Another eleven percent expected to have access in the future.
• Forty-eight percent registered interest in receiving city information through computer on-
line services.
Conclusions:
1. Richfield again possessed one of the highest residential ratings in the Metropolitan Area
on city services, City Government, and City Staff. The Mayor and City Council scored a
sixty-four percent approval rating compared with a suburban area norm of fifty percent.
City Staff was rated positively by sixty-nine percent, compared with a suburban area norm
of forty-six percent. On average, among those expressing opinions, eighty-five percent
approved of each service provided by the City; this average rating was thirteen percent
above the Metropolitan Area suburban norm.
2. Neighborhood ratings were generally high, and the vast majority of residents believed
neighborhood quality had not declined during the past few years.
4' 3. Airport noise, a perennial problem in the community, has been displaced by concerns
about crime, particularly juvenile vandalism and burglary, and growth/redevelopment.
4. Most residents still regarded Richfield as possessing a "small town ambience" in spite of
its proximity to Minneapolis. Very high ratings were awarded the community on its
cohesiveness, friendliness, and connectedness.
5. The tax climate remained relatively benign despite increased hostility in neighboring areas.
In fact, the value placed on quality city services for the taxes paid was the highest in the
Metropolitan Area.
6. Support for a Community Center was moderately positive. However, the acceptable level
of taxation may not equate with the full-service facility which many residents envisioned.
7. Communications by the City to its citizenry was excellent. The reach and respect of both
the city newsletter and the "Sun-Current" were solid. Cable television provided a good
augmentation to the print media, while computer processes may be a further future
enhancement to be considered.
The City of Richfield remains among the top-rated communities in the Metropolitan Area. At a
time when evaluations of many institutions are tending to become more and more negative,
Richfield continues to be exceptionally well-regarded by its residents.
Page 11
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 3
Agenda January 5, 1998
Issue Statement:
Report from the consultant, George Watson, Brauer and Associates, and discussion on
the Recreation Assets Relocation Plan.
Background:
The Ball Field Task Force began to look at the concerns raised by loss of land at the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) in November 1996. The Task Force
consisted of representatives of the baseball, softball, soccer and football youth athletic
organizations, Holy Angels, Richfield School District and the Richfield Adult Softball
Association. It was important to include all field users to insure the replacement of
diamonds would not disrupt other field users in the community. With input from all the
user associations, the consultant determined actual use patterns and developed four
proposals to meet all the current needs of existing groups.
Those four eventually became one plan which was presented to the public for input on
two occasions. Staff also met with Richfield School District, Holy Angels and St. Peter's
staff to modify plans based on their input. The final plan as reviewed and approved by
the Task Force, Master Park Plan Sub-Committee and Community Services Advisory
Commission is attached. All three groups recommended that private land not be taken
• to construct additional fields if possible. All three requested the opportunity to review
any proposal to take private land, should it appear to be necessary.
The consultant is concerned about the amount of parking needed compared to space
available and the loss of neighborhood park amenities in the Roosevelt Park and
Lincoln Field adaptations. He believes that additional land at Lincoln Field is desirable
to providing field and parking space in a safe layout. The layouts shown are as
requested by the three advisory groups. Adding a fourth field at Roosevelt Park
essentially turns a primarily neighborhood park into an athletic complex. Input from that
neighborhood has not been specifically requested, and should be provided prior to any
development in the area.
It is important to note that there is virtually no room for growth in this plan. It meets the
current needs based on today's population. As Richfield adds population with new
housing units, that need will increase and the City will be forced to look for alternatives
for additional fields. This report is being discussed more fully at a Study Session to
provide a more detailed understanding of the consequences raised by the solutions.
Recommended Motion:
The report, which was accepted by the City Council on December 8, 1997, includes
financial and park related implications which should be discussed by the Council for
future Capital Improvements Programs. No action is recommended at this time.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Metropolitan Airports Commission has notified the City that the lease will not be
• renewed for the land which currently serves as the site for youth athletic fields in
east Richfield.
2. A Task Force consisting of all Richfield users of athletic fields was formed because it
was important to include all field users to insure the replacement of diamonds would
not disrupt other field users in the community.
3. Four proposals developed by the consultant eventually became one plan which was
presented to the public for input on two occasions, recommended by the Task
Force, Master Park Plan Sub-Committee and Community Services Advisory
Commission, and presented to the City Council.
4. It is important there be complete understanding of the consequences raised by the
solutions.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Request additional study by the City staff, consultant, Task Force, Master Park Plan
Sub-Committee, Community Services Advisory Commission, and the public.
2. Ask the youth athletic organizations and other ballfield users to arrive at their own
solution(s) and, if needed, to seek Council approval or authorization for said
• solution(s).
3. Do nothing to prepare for loss of the leased land.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council is requested to ask any questions they may have regarding the report and to
give careful consideration to a direction to be taken in providing ballfield space now and
in the future. Council will undoubtedly be asked in the future to take action related to
Capital Improvement Budgets and Capital Improvement Programs and to park related
issues.
Respectf submitted,
rosser
Jam ianager
City JDP:cak
0
---- -- ----- --------
Recreation Asset Replacement Study
City of Richfield Community Services Department
Prepared for
City of Richfield, Minnesota
by
Brauer and Associates, Ltd.
November 28, 1997
1
Executive.Summary
Planning Framework
This study has been prepared as a response to the future loss of Richfield athletic recreational facilities,
currently existing on land leased from the Metropolitan Airports Commission at the Minneapolis - St. Paul
Airport. Thirteen baseball and softball fields will be lost to the expansion of the airport. The present airport
construction schedule indicates that these fields will not be available to the city after the 1998 summer season.
In reply to this loss of athletic field space, the City of Richfield organized a task force of the following
i representatives of youth and adult athletic organizations within the City of Richfield. This group was charged
with the responsibility for devising a plan for replacement of the lost athletic facilities.
Task Force
Member
Mr. Gordy Larson
Mr. Rick Jabs
Mr. Jerry Millette
Ms. Jan Williams
Mr. Scott Freeman
Mr. Rodney Fors
Mr. Paul Woodnick
Mr. Mike Johnson
Mr. Jim Sloss
Association
Richfield Senior Babe Ruth and Richfield Mickey Mantle
West Richfield Little League and Richfield Babe Ruth
East Little League
Richfield Girls Fast Pitch Softball
Richfield Girls Softball Association
Richfield Football League
Richfield Soccer Association
Richfield Adult Softball Association
Richfield School District
Aiding the Task Force were city staff members Gretchen Blank, Director of Recreation Services and Frank
White, Recreation Manager.
Planning Objectives -
The vision statement of the Task Force was:
To develop a plan for providing sufficient outdoor athletic field for the
citizens of Richfield including youth, high school, and adult teams and
2 Recreation Asset Replacement Study
City of Richfield, Minnesota
organizations: to provide equivalent service to all youth sports based
upon numbers of users:
The objectives of the Task Force were:
1. To provide replacement athletic recreational facilities for
use by Richfield residents
2: To provide these facilities within the City of Richfield
3. To fulfil the need for youth athletic recreational facilities
firs
4. To provide capacity for future growth in recreation
participation.
Planning Process
The study process has included an Assessment of Current Facility Capacity and Current Demand, Comparison
of Demand and Capacity and Determination of Facility Needs, Alternative Approaches to Meeting Facility
Needs, Preferred Approach, Development Priorities, and Development Costs.
The Task Force first met on December 18, 1996 and has met almost monthly since that time to prepare this
study. Four alternative approaches to meeting the facility needs were developed and evaluated. The Task Force
prepared a preliminary final approach and recommendation. This preliminary approach and recommendation
was then presented to the public for comment. Two public information meetings were held, (September 24,
• 1997 and October 9, 1997), at which all Richfield residents were invited to review and comment on the plans.
The comments of the citizens were evaluated by the Task Force and, as deemed appropriate, incorporated into
the final approach and recommendation.
The final approach and recommendation has been presented to the Master Park Plan Subcommittee and
Community Services Advisory Commission, both voted to accept the approach and recommendation as made
by the Task Force and included in this report.
Study Findings The Task Force made the following findings during the course of the study:
1. That the loss of the 13 fields currently located on the
Metropolitan Airport property represents a significant loss
of athletic facilities for the City of Richfield.
2. That city owned park land alone can not absorb all of the lost
recreational facilities.
3. That both Richfield School District and quasi-public land
will be needed to accommodate current athletic field
demand.
4. That reconfiguring Richfield's existing park land to
accommodate the lost athletic fields will require adjustments
3. Recreation Asset Replacement Study
City of Richfield, Minnesota
to existing athletic facilities.
5. That Yeconfguring _ Richfield's existing park `land to
accommodate the lost athletic fields will require the loss of
some existing neighborhood park improvements.
6. That the reduced number of athletic fields will increase the
maintenance required on each field to maintain the quality
and safety expected by citizens.
7. That individual athletic associations will no longer be able to
have a specific park dedicated to each associations practices
and games. This will require a centralization of the
scheduling of field use.
8. That although accommodations can be made to meet today's
demand for athletic fields; little flexibility remains in the
system to accept future growth.
Study Recommendations -
The following improvements have been recommended for each facility type.
Little League Fields
1. Lincoln Park This facility should be
redeveloped to include four
little league fields meeting the
standards set in this study.
2. Roosevelt Park This facility should be
redeveloped to include four
little league fields meeting the
standards set in this study.
(See attached graphic number 1 for standards and proposed facility
layout.)
Girls Fast Pitch Fields
1. Holy Angels This facility shall be
reconfigured to include a single
field meeting the standards set
in this study.
(See attached graphic number 2 for standards and proposed facility
layout.)
4 Recreation Asset Replacement Study
City of Richfield, Minnesota
(• _Babe Babe Ruth / Mickey.Mantle Fields
1. Holy Angels This facility shall be
reconfigured to include a
single field meeting the
standards set in this study.
2. Richfield High School This existing field facility
should have lighting added to
increase play time.
(See attached graphic number 3 for standards and proposed facility layout.)
Youth Slow Pitch Fields
1. Richfield Jr. High School This facility should be
redeveloped to include four
fields meeting the standards
set in this study.
2. Richfield Intermediate School This facility should be
redeveloped to include two
fields meeting the standards
set in this study.
(See attached graphic number 4 for standards and proposed facility
layout.)
Soccer Fields
1. Richfield Jr. High School This facility shall be
reconfigured to include a
single field meeting the
standards set in this study.
2. Donaldson Park This facility shall be
developed to include an
additional field meeting the
standards set in this study.
3. Richfield Intermediate School This facility should be
redeveloped to include two
fields meeting the standards
set in this study.
(See attached graphic number S forstandards and proposedfacility layout.)
5 Recreation Asset Replacement Study
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Football.fields
1. Richfield Jr. High School This facility shall be
reconfigured to include a
single field meeting the
standards set in this study.
2. Donaldson Park This facility shall be
developed to include an
additional field meeting the
standards set in this study.
Note: These are overlays of proposed soccer fields.
(See attached graphic number 6 for standards and proposed facility
layout.)
T-Ball Fields & Training Facility
1. Taft Park This facility shall be developed
to include an additional four
fields meeting the standards set
in this study and additional
batting cages and practice
pitching mounds.
(See attached graphic number 7 for standards and proposed facility
layout.)
Development Priorities and Schedule
The Task Force considers all improvements to be of equal importance. Due to the fact that each facility
improvement, with the exception of Holy Angels and Taft Park, involves the disruption of existing athletic
fields, all improvements will need to be completed within a reasonable time of each other. Timing of the
individual improvements will need to be coordinated with the schedules for school district sports and athletic
association schedules.
If all improvements are begun in June 1998 and the city elects to seed the turf, the new fields will not be
playable until June 2000. If the turf areas are sodded, a more costly option, the fields could be used as early
as July 1999. The following estimate of construction cost anticipates seeding the fields.
•
6.
Recreation Asset Replacement Study
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Item # Park Total Cost
1. Donaldson Park & West Junior High School $1,637,200.00
2. Richfield Community Education / Intermediate School $146,900.00
3. Roosevelt Park $554,200.00
4. St. Peters / Holy Angels Fields $197,100.00
5. Taft Park $149,900.00
6. Richfield High School $110,000.00
7. Lincoln Fields $831,600.00
Subtotal $3,626,900.00
10% Construction Contingency $362,690.00
Design, Engineering, Testing Etc. $478,750.80
Total Estimated Development Cost $4,468,340.80
0
Recreation Asset Replacement Study
City of Richfield, Minnesota
•
0
Little League Fields
y
City of Richfield Recreation Asset Replacement Study,
This Study hr MMlM.p.1.dM.I..potlrb M/l.e.lordPodAMd naN/oWfifafna rIa*WMYV anYM Wd/vmri YMCpo.1?KPH Cen.Nriat TliWnEr?ld rtldWrfdA. w•WYtbri
atpateYndri b•¦wapaftISM Pet Mpot TM wtayttb ebwssla ri ktadot}wdoa a*rnm sporogro." Inonal t.dbramoaat. - -
A Task Force dwp...tt ar..driRwl+d AdtMieAloolebr. Ydld DyriClNdRkbbNaYRed CXWPr 111101 •a.b+b ?m°aYrm,raurYn erriegdrm N rousitfaomb"of
ttlaa. - ed ohdOM oft boos in Daart- dIN&
The Vision Statement: Todaalopaplanbrptovift * idet addmrWdwell"forgo cbmad Ig"I al °pYO? ^Id"d°°l'"d'd lt'r UP W *qAvm-- load
youth sports based an ttottboe dttaata
Study Process Wets br ktdd.d an Ma Wmt ofOwerd folly Copadbr ed WodFmft Domnd.« wd ska C rnpedson dri Damod and Capadb• From 10 mttp.ran stew msoft of Marta
ta0I bmadritald ItMI daadtawociallmhobanpaprod. Firep Ydanlaptttad Warns have beendaMloped by the TakFaoa. TM TeekFooo'a Fr oft Satanwkrtttlaaq twtoadsdaandriRlydolld
AitebAaaodebtrYdalalad hua MpNonrlawatd oommrt.hadallatbriYtantadotrlmoltp.Ptaa rdriladya•MmWObriCllyd RMMNs PokedRoroaaon A&4m7BWd. and CkyCatad Mmrd
and aatapartaa.
Little League Field Standards cTrYOt x[c[La
rAacwcAmxtur
t l .. i Lt I l t t t r f t_I t t t I t t f t I t
• 2OX30XM adebp - - ? I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 r f i l l 1 i l l 1111111111 1 . 1.
0 Wines"
• 2WOodww dkYttn -
0 Me hbb rrM plkltna nand -
• 2pin bwldta wimhty ttaa
• 44'Pthdtkta tlirtrta - 2
• 2-trotow bloaatara
• Pteb adaw oyetn
- i
i
Little League Field Demand -
Corona Gains ScheAft
Appwk Wy4=0n parbray
M ewrapo of 45 Oman per we* with ana pew pr ow pedila. - :aw
Flalda llaadadbCararalaawo _ ^ V]d 's°.+wT.r
Bpltviytad iokla:dier prdpdpelNN bbttdaytbiattyt Friday pkOt1llt Patric
otrol t0 ieaoa p«wwk wM ear boleti osyn on tk•adrya. ® LLIDd11 Park
UtHe League Field Improvements
• uwab Park weld be w plerytowraYd. Four Yapw
? v 1 A
bklawom a biol. talky appmktrely20111ottdr
mnhdatrd trfaaYbWntltt. lnoderMrir/odtbh '---.--".- .?,•_,
aarhmd. ptttpnybritrMedantttottdtrr.lobe ---
Raarrak Patkfedeoo Abomt WIN" .nNYd C i ? t\ \
Foirur.taoptataba woatd ba euttaidtti rpptehtaYh ..: --..?.
2D mood MoarhtatnwWkd«Yeidttn.t.
rWyalweaed wrd pmwlywdlmMatnrd j _:". ?- - _
• Extra
(o= '?
foradotriW padaa. t t
- 0-
a-
Utde League Fields c
Total
r -,
• kttporad«Ib.tdtw?.aitw FYlrY ..
i c?I
sARmaaret
. TaW UtlY LaaYtw Flaldo
t s i ._..
a?
_........... .ttaaaaat? ? i ( ~
'A i
Cf _ .. - I
'A L
a1
y p .....
C
Recreation Services Department
6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
The Urban Hometown ¦
Girls Fast Pitch Fields
Citv of Richfield Recreation Asset Replacement Study
(I*
•
This Study hr bow Pnpwd ral•apww bthatra•IMa(N FWdnatitrrlf?r•M?a.?.??YdipalndMwdti°^U?.Mr°voMr Kpar Cam Wl°4 nirm e.r•r •b a°Ahr biftMMbObM
wPnrlandOw MrrwapoYlBabt P'ad Atpwt.7M aidyare ddrra ria bradapwdu#wawapatW P•PWwnwwlwd#mrddw?
.A. Force d?a.••rwrdb.werra?wwbomwd",. awwwe»ardnwwria.ra.nam.r.?hra•+ "°"'°•Y•ea?"'"?m"°'°`"'°° ra."°°"by""a?'d rrTar FO?o.wo.i
mr• I WA atafyb• Ohio Www In Daodtwdt IN&
The Vision Statement: Toaw.eP.Pwbrvw?arq¦araowmr+n+rraftWfW ¦a&MWd"k++w°b° dvra?n "a'aan• "°'°R"" in°°a"?'tl°""paNO"??"'??r""'br
ydM@P"bandann %bmduwa
Study PrOCOSS bad.Iw.twddrMrwrradCn.rrPwiyC?padtywdQwwtFr•yDrWd rarr aCmgwYmd2000 nwndwdC0PN*-Flowdta•aaI I adw motwel mdtwrra•r
nQt. b""toWd roach of aadh aooodatlm hr bar ptapw•d. Fla pn• htarydw-WpttwtwLwlwa he-bWdWOWWbyft *FOM wCltyd ParWa Ww om worm an raw* cr Glyafmftd WN
AtAftArodW*M Y dMoUd tiara # pWbnYWw ad aar wm%M adMm bow btonnadwtd nwatlip, Pnawt-Ww
and aoetplwwa.
Girls Fast Pitch Field Standards
• 2030OX 0b•dwbP
• W baaarw
• 2ar.22WW*.awta.
• 916twdttltld
• 2PI" OwadrVOMAWYr+w
• a@ Padwr-.tear..
• 2-11n b adtw•
• CwWWmbuld•
• F1bFe addiraayaWn
Girls Fast Pitch Field Demand
APWCWMd y7Qo•naa W0WWL
M aanpa d a 9rr W w•r.
FWr N"dd I* C-ar•waaw
T- u'"" 2$ift19wrwWrty1tWfA1d11orrdaY 104 Fddry
Oowr• to Orw Pwwaar.
Girls Fast Pitch Field Improvements
• uF.waAreNwwrawnrd....awdaoe?aawr
rwwrwad. Tr aawttWWaworrrOddurMwab Oth
Fad PIM taW Is Omtbudd. Coiwbram afd twerlabadwrt
wi tab sppwft dy20 NM*M
• E.*& 11 w1 wdadwalpnpwlyaaNadwtdbauad
#•d•brrl pr• '
Total Girls Fast Pitch Fields
• Wip-aM arNaw•bW Feat PWM FWlr
1 d NoN An-da-uiatrd
1 TOW Naar Ohl. Faw Prde FWft
2 m Ltrc-In U.I~
2 TOW LWbq •tW Faw P tdt Fldr
?'YOFRT F
rAUt.ocwllantMAP ur St eOenlHdyAtgda
IIIt111tiI111tItIi111illllltilll .1.?I??-.?6tllatrt?Iti-tttlltttllt
A. r
2
- 1
t
X: T11
CO _ .._ 2mn2tm2nIl`
O
2
r
a --L
i..
L
f
t E
` az t t
Recreation Services Department
6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
The Urban Hometown
211
Babe Ruth/Mickey Mantle Fields
Citv of Richfield Recreation Asset Replacement Study
.0
This Study hre..naw•d•a r•n I*k*MI=dPhAI "dew gWW%dWWC,,.+/adMno WWWw..dfom to weapa Pkpoh.Oan+ kn T*Ir b-.ed and W%d$""be I.MIA#a
•a.wkle coin MrrapoO ISM pad mpat Tha awatoad6-.-bY•d.V?+?-lormo.taPOn.Va4•„•ro"099ormdlw?
A Task Foraedwa-•++?•-arrPoerrd?uwe?-mre. aid.dern.ardwaerd.err.dm.?Wai,-o?aa.•dw•e.w.a?.?.mn.v?e•oare..+onnr+.ardra?Wa n»T,r?wa.e.o-
er.•q.led reyrq dA.l.ww ?, 0..-rf•a 1pA6.
The Vision Statement: TodwwwaPwforwf•q.AdWWAde•+tl %Wfwlro-, dMftM faWWAa'°r"aWt'M'aai
ymMap"Wand-nwv"*au M .
Study IPrOCOSS tia.rn-a,md.ea,Amom-tdO.-tFaditCwedb.mw,mtftMVMMWAmwds%aCmw?•••der n-rN.nd cpolr. ?nw. m?PrWnaa.wnrrondU. ro•Ir
npuad 10~VWNW r"&d.rha-od@d*nh a lwePaprai FMl.•?•?Y??**WMhM - *NAOWbYMTS*Fmw.TMTN*Fau'a RGMMMSCh u1Wm.rtVft 1 of I d-NlrAWd
AAA.Ib A..WW rYd.WWMmtrpi6lonvNwandomnrLIn addYonnMiManrNareeuaA'iP.Pn•r ?dAraWdYMMmWabMa G9'dRlrtArda Prkand R.araaeAdyYaY Bo.0. aM Cb ?aadtrn?Mr
aid aea.plrlo..
Babe Ruthh/Mlckey Mantle Field Standards
• 300MWbad-Op
• W air
• 3W-360aaAbdWan-
0 360-4W=ftrOWdYWI-
0 Ga WWkII WIh IV';'Mwalnolatl
• 2pirywt bW h-wr.rryam
• tIW-I diq dl,& e
• 3-aavwn ear Olaa I
• Cmoaron Olriq
• PLOG , avow"
Babe Ruth/MM Field Demand
YdMh-appmle 1) 115, aaar par a. a aon. 3r. 8M* aM M WW
lA•Ala l.p.Aw have OFF ,''nlal h 30, ••W pwaaaam om
Thwa Y a ON sww of 23- p.rwa.O.
FWda Wes" b Caws •-W:
7ao6*VAd OldaaMt udp'A.d Olt 2p-e-parrWparG Aed§W
Mmtlyfhogh FlmaywOM -ewr23 paw parwaak and 3.OaWr
nand -aval.bbbeaa-nrO.aMa O•nw, ae_
Babe Ruth/MM Field Improvements
• 3RFrwrnaYAnp.lae.nWd wmWt*=p.WV
l•. .. ThaoalnAOld.wcWMada(lar WAMOr Or..
RM 2nd Y arwmaA.d. CWWh.WW and tafa.WAWan.ea
w3 er• oppla dla.ar1 Daaa•r
• RI II.I I High 3dadae.ley'WaFWdaaaAdlru.adtrpnd!-
t.edl
M OF RIQ2=
PA2[1DCAIIO7Iw
Illltltltl)Ileelillt)rl)ll
1
1
•
t'
01
C
i
01
W
1
m
_T
O
S
m
m
a
In
Total Babe Ru"M Fields
• UperWarNawYaprlrWFrla
O NdrAno.W-,rAghW
1 TOM mw do" ae+.r Fwd.
• E151"S h. ft*b W r4l"
, OWddI.ld"3dod-LIOmY(paclf-)
, m Lr" Fwd.-od"W W-O-)
2 O oard.on Park • adA.d
4T.W- - - -4d fta mm porch
Recreation Services Department
6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
The Urban Hometown 3N
Mouth Slow Pitch Fields
Citv of Richfield - Recreation Asset Replacement Study
r"0
i •
This StudyhrbunR.Pbbra,rporrbMMnbrdWrJtlM,d,w.rdrlW1l.a..* q-ww w..d V. Nm% OWM*.5M T*- b-" WWa- brtbM
ON to MkmspsU J a"RW Alpat TM sswy.so.db....s to Mdsquww or""Opos va" h roar rwWroondYO,. ...
A Task Forced,.p..rftW" dt-WOWACtrle Ar,oduaw. MOO WM Cnyd rarl+wd WAffWwoos.ankhft I -b "V4bPWtCxaplb.&j2wMd8- N 7MTA*F*Wb"W
,nee•q end ehwyY• tli. brA b O.or,bad,9db.
The Vision Statement:Tod.wop.pwbrpow"&#Wwt*umotsd*ftftasbrMaa ofMd'Ifrdbaa'Qywn r`„br
you, spins bond an,.nMn dtrrs.
Study Process dodsahrbd,dsdmAmormtdC,m,tFr•y Cepsdyaw Cwmt FuNw Ornrw.rwMr.,CoM ^dMOrnrw aw Csp.dyFmmdt.mmrbr,.d+rn+++m dM6a1.s
. bmrt MbddrAwk dead, ModsbMhrbr pep, rsQ FbAPIIM rydw+eWpn-.OdWm Mw besn dr.AWptl byM To* Fa The Trk Fr "RO-dad-.- bmeewq Mn.ededs.d,dMRYlwrA
ANYMIoArad.tlorsdebWUdhr.bpbft nw.wawo.mwtbsddMmbMYAo,n,.tlo dn-sdr•e.P -dMsbuywobsmW.bMprydW "ft PrkwWRW*N" MYbMacrdrw C1yCMu br?wW
snd.ooeptr-e.
Youth Slow Pitch Field Standards
• 200020 bsdmlop
• W bmako
• 24M-2adW6-abbr,oe
• 2ps,.. br ' M.daysm.
• 49 phYfipdbW=
• 2-MmwMrdw.
• Crn.rr, busd,p
• Fubkoft...syAw
Youth Slow Pitch Field Demand
Appmdnwby216Orw Pw..smt
An.vsnps of 2T arnr pwvn k
R" M..d.d to cev..0-
F.lahrd II 2 psnw pw dyt pwdsM Mmweyd.aiph FMsy
man 40 yrr.. p.r.r.k.
YSP Field improvements
• 7,...wyat-RawdJr. Mdt9dbdwotd bs
avo,.d. aw mid b. oddprybamd 12,mur.
• 0,-fdd aM Fft" Jr. Mph ad-d world b.,-w
carb,dw snd urld „d be nsdyb sbat2a maaa
• Two fords aM Mtn-deY adadMb.b4n
Can.b,rJlan?fAsaabY.+,rtwa WasppmrnsWy 12
nuiM.
• Fksds Irakowhwd pedraw edwd p.prty mtd be umd
b.*No" peeks.
Total YSP Fields
• In_* dwNMV8F FWds
4 4 FWAW Jr. Ily, adN d- NVOd
2 tb Menned.s 8d,od-urwdtsd
6TMd TiPFWds
x(xq _
lL ..__..._........ .
,
......_........_..._.._... _i
C
Of
c
N
W
C
0
to
C
O
D
Of
J=
V
W
QTY OF RICEIFE
Mh[,DCAT" MAP
Illtlll,l,ll„ t,llllEltEl)
/P,
R _-l%.- ,v
RkhWd Jr. High
m
0
a
O
El.
,
8
U
m
l0
m
m
C
Recreation Services Department
6700 Portland Avenue . Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
The Urban Hometown
,,,,I_,.i,,,III
m
N
0
CL
e
a.
,
C
N
O
C
0
e
Df
S
r
V
W
'7 7,
,
I F-
kIbWMedlaOa Stlwd
4.
=AM
Soccer Fields
City of Richfield - Recreation Asset Replacement Study
(0
0 Th.f,A aber uuI-I fwde OmfWk.aprdpMMwWryfewph Fddaycold
This Stud/ Imbam ppre-.atMpana in E. Abbe lo_ of III, n dnwaalonel&CUM o,, W+yW"" W Wel Yaeed fvm a. MwopollenMpaY Corm" M 7i10011 barbel NW adreal llede wi be lad III M ,
atMrrlondtha A6r+apoMrBaYKPrI AYP? TM afdYieaa•_rr ar YWaP?ba trmatge?Y Pa4a Y ampRan illor , -
A Task Foreedkp.,olo Nwar-Foa m"w Arodrm., ddtlbya.chi.(Mdda eWWWm_wrA t_p w_a tl+ftal ge rtoabbpeaoooWers YnbyMCWdRI I N nu Tar[pnro•bOW
meaaru•and afdykp aie YauaYDaortbrdlYY1.
The Vision Statement:ToMwepapr+brvowarp¦aea.xa+aoar.wwY+rasrur+n. dm.^adwa+Yw ir?wpyan bb"°'°°4 a"°'°er." '"°°rr+°°°"bv°"°aaww"t rvb.bd
'yodhpmYhwdon rser i down.
Stud/ Process bdedehr widadr Aeeee.rkeMdoarerM FadtYCapacb and o--t Fuay OrnwxLnwalea.aoapwbmdd.Dee_WNW(NpedlY. FrankOft" emp.tem ad.wmbrbndlofacIlr
mgkiedbtrdtlr asM redadeadrarritlpn has Egan gapred.FM peinkrery develapr_Mad_k.ahMbemdaeripedbya.Taek F* The TeakFerrh Rdredskben.bra.sm-Ownroedwmdtl.PoddYld
AEYdkAwtldwla Y OaWed Ikara IorpWb rswew and awrerrdt h addbim b ba YrwrtWlorrt rkkaetkk/e, Raaantalbrr o f#* A*uIll be made Iota Mef Rl Wwft Perk aM RawadwrAdWwy Bond, rW City court for -Im
and aeoepteruoa. .
Soccer Field Standards
Your sooner Adult SooW CITY OF RIB -
rAMLIACAMMMAr
• Fleld dae:lsD'xfl0 • Field aba:22Sz310'
.Ie..1..l.ir.lltrrr,rrrl,rtrllrlltir
• Fm 90018 • i4m_.dDoW 1111111111111, fill I III IIII III I[II
• 2-tM ro. Eleadwa _
Soccer Field Demand
sxk_ sneer.
o.e.eeOrn.sd.waer - -
Aat Bcaor Ilea apprwanatM/32 Efnrr peraeaawl, aA alwtaladl Ertrapr _ 1
week. Yadhlreppnmir.Yyffia.r.aprwedk.am.dwhMll haletwr•rnr
e erlaW m arle MM d • am - ,
Cambano there Yr -e/e of A Peer prwrk. a ana d.*kh babble- - r.st?r•e
i-
FYWa Neadedb CewOrw: mew .
ThroefbdbagMadleft Double headers played m rdl&W brtwrrlplOa -
week could cow]•Banrpw A*L •
T%-fa akin lpMWtYWad2bl abe I-I ,YNe: Double nee.. Oeyedon t .
eadkMWfordn dypaprwrkaaMmwrabwR,OOarkr pvredc
FYI
Curmd (arse sd»bde: -
FalaceorhrppoWmeYlyl/Yan.at+rweakaomeawMdktwetwr?kkr -
averlWmarleleNatanrle, arW am.ars baby. - .?.e?""'.. ?•• .
FleMa Nea6dfacoerffealr: «d IBOBnrMdkIN Sdxxm :y
T1eofW alb lptd fddc Double lueadera pYyed on am* tlW fortourril" a ® Ridyll•Id Jr. F9Qh _
week oodd oowabout,40Beraaa prwrk. ?.... • .
corrabwM ]/ E.aea parwael.
Soccer Field Improvements y
> > , j °
• 7WowpetYtleatrieflldaeW Jr. High ScladOmdder Pak
would be-cw.buksm OwkdnrJwk.W baf
o.-mraMataer bleu dol. schodwolcl be ' ?` ?' r f } ?; j.
, -- t\ \! . r
eorlaoeaed, apaY Ylkq p b20 rt_Wr farakrYadbn arW 01.
CO)
bdaebbleerrd. to _.•? ..
Total Soccer Fields
• klgrowW «Ns teeor PYMa O, _' - 3
,mwdddd.r.HylsduodONW) LWIT
IT. W ,eDOrWdean rk(Irae)-lJBtrr ? _"fa•E 1 - .' :?'? \.
kkiae,.a.r sohoel (Ulm r.rcEYd
Soccer FAkle
• Emblift SeeerFldde
, aTaEPark")-IyMad
, a wadilolm Park ")- laMf/aed
, @ Donald m perk (lmtM)-IpMed
1 a Christer, Pwk(Yrle)-EplYd
D1
C
.y
W
g
r
U
W
m
A
13
4)
4)
C
a Tad F?dalbE •aeor FYW
U -
N
W
V
m
CO
O
G
`
1 °o
L
U
4)
r
(Q
4)
w
C
Recreation Services Department
6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
The Urban Hometown
Y.
5.1
•
Football Fields
Citv of Richfield - Recreation Asset
t Study
This Study hrOrnp.pr.dratwwrbrrW.fordWWWdIgWdWowwoo elbfj?WipmWdIwrdlanIMMMOpo?I?NPaYCal?a?ThYrrlEr?O?/r10?olWrfIMd?MWlatbtir
.porWndtdM.rapaYyB.YtPw Akpvt.TM..dytr addearutr braptdr lortrot?ororvwrbannut andkrtordtoa
A Task Farcedt.p...t w.. dt eNdIdW MONO Ar oloNoM aided by me andR-+ +WWWOMoultorl hNIF F ' ""R0tr10'P'"Y°01'"if1en°y1Ai°Y0111. A . Tn.T,rtFda.e.yn
I . Bard tudlktp lfY Yrrb Ormbrd1LLR
The Vision Statement: redommoomapoM3q¦rd.tptdor.tt.tpuN.brn. dYr¦dWb1Y?d MJU•bY h ?n°'dtM'"""d°p'd'r°'ebp°`N"pI'r4'd"""°'br
'yoW apotY haaad m nator.drra.
tld CWNCIW. Fmm arda?p.rm da.rnr.?w? do basks
Study Process bdWhrbdded.n Aft.@ tdCmtrtFuryc o.*Neon.t FOWDo rnd,rndmsConoMredlholl n
ngtiad bndttorlaN rtad.daadt aarrlYYn Odd tract papantd.FM paY,ltrtyda`.Ypttrt adtrr-hMO/an eratdOW MYor TarFmr.TrT.YtFatot'. Pnlortd 9dornr brttorMtpMr daamdtr 1-dtdatd
AthNbA.lodYtbr Ydnrd hr. brptlotNarttM eotntrtYad7toebtiY/attn.to,rlnwttp,pror..brdtra7dy.• O. nrdab to CkydFldtWt Prk&,WR a . AdNVy9oo4¦rd ClyCaurlbrmiow
ae0 mptrda
Football Field Standards
ToodterSw Fo ttr
• FYtdebw 12ft=
• FYNttmd lWx3W
• P.-to W
• 2-Mmorllwdws
Football Field Demand
Yotah/pact hr¦ loW-of oppp-n 171-mra Prrrorddran
awaa dltpanrporraatt. FY0lbOdpYl.2-orrlon009 ddt
pr? Adltbotrltrsrpp 1 -)32-m-pr..st+Mmaw.d.
db-mwprwMt.
Conrkrd tltr. an roPtmltWY11 ta.ra prratc
FWY 11rd.d b c~ftmea:
Tlar kl tr lpltr takke Tnatalr trh dedla ltarora ndraurad
dar tlmrarattadmw ]t gamr pr?Mc
Football Field Improvements
• TgfYr at Riddold Jr. HyrDWNWM Poe[ opldbe
narmurbbbr.COMMKOon andul rhnrt.WA ldr
appmitr1 4 20 mddr.
• Cna nwrtdd at N*At•WOMM tr-be for 01203011 P200M
Total Football Fields
• btpnwdar"loo, mr"'"
I eCotrII park. U-NT
1 r RbIIaN x. Halr-1doNy
2ToW M-FedOd FYId.
• CdnYy Food" ndr
l OTat Pork-tytrd
1 OOdWe-t Pork-lighted
3 TaW Od,•r- /sort Mile
J
QTYOFRIl7?[D
PAY[IACATIMAIM
\7
-p : •'
m .:..... _..
W i
0
a
0
a
r
c `E --
0 -
Recreation Services Department
6700 Portland Avenue to Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
The Urban Hometown
Irrrt?t
nrr.a.k
i:?.rrua?
6.
'T-Ball Fields & Training Facility
City of Richfield - Recreation Asset Replacement Study
This Stuo Iwbrpdprwdrdlwpor blubre brdRiddiwldnwwwda,o16i1Y?rw,?OdYrdr,)mbwd tordlam th MOwaPwNr,Abpar Cmndrla,. TNrIwonbrwbdwnd wdEYIYMwRb MtIOlu
wtmw,Wandlul?,,,wwPar/BrdPrd Alpaf.Tbr,aYtlww m+rrhYrdePr'?#mot?pari?4?brio?e?W,rm,rca
A Task Forceatmo"W60mofd,. raewwAfMtloAroribar.+WW b1r+»?rdrW,ere ware eawmeIMF I IWO"bPffl" a brm+bOrMb" byrOCK OMI R M 7IOT8$kFCaeb8pr
nrwd,q wnd wtudybq diw brr h Cwarbr a 1II4
The Vision Statement: Te r,.bpepr+orp,oNOrq «Aaf?taaba b++l?+*tb?r?d^d r'd bG'°'91°d' "a"?°01 ididR~""n°°?atl°r in wow" OW*'WWd -- 10-9
YMO wprr bwrd on ombrw da mw
Study Process brla hr br?tldrNrr?wRdGL,rtFe3YC?tlYrtlllnrtFraYOrrW rwY a4?? dtlr DrrW rdC?edIY. Fran 0i mn4rYO^ erYmbrh,dtlrbr?r
,wp,iwd to„rotdr 1111111 room afwwd, rwoablbn h" br, p,wprwd. FNw Por„brYrwQOawwwh hnwbrdFwlaga bywu TrlFar.Tlu TrbFar'wPWw Bdu„rfor„roM,plr rradrd, Of" R§Chf ld
ANWOArodYldubdwurdhwwfarp"a Is-rtdoe i-ChadRdr,bTw hbmrlb„d moMbp.p,wdYtrrddu¦*,AbmodwbfbClyCfIW w prlrWRwawwdanA&4WYBard.rdMOozedfur miww
rd mpdnaw
T-Ball Fled Standards CrrY OPRTrja7m IZ TRdt Palk
IARKLOCA'17R UM
• Wimobbdubp 11111111 Ill. till [Ill 1111111111 a
• lP bwwwib
Wfaw WWI'
• Slilnmd Mold
• 20"W w bwndw W dd*lr,ow
2
T-Ball Fled Demand •
Kt
NnrltOrufidudlde I
Appo *nOW2M 9wmww pwrral bdun Ian UNw laWa rd Youth
Slow PWL -
M wwwpwd28 (lrwr prwrol.
PYIr Nw.rdr Cawwdlrrwl LLI=p
four T-0wILNb2yruw pwrtdytPwfYNMrpwyd Go AWY - Y r
awAm O Mar pwwwwdl wlri Swbw,Myw w,rhNwdwb,wlr,ar. rrw :.°rTr
QWMM6 OIL
•(PWdw wnlhb,tlrbb,rdrprtdwlriq/rlIYMUPwdbo a??- .
bdbdft rwal r Ted onm a to rr OW drnr,rfan M LNG
Lwow rtl Youth Blow PM wwwodWML)
T-Ball Field Improvements
rn ?
• TwRPrhwdddbprrFY,ato wbd badurbarT4WIG" _
rprtdbdwNbPMdwbwwwblhdhllwbig- IIII• r _
and a n pbbwwnd nbbrw. .L!US f"?
TbhrllywouM wb hobdw pIMYp
bortR aBro•, pftJigoraNw lrwadlh,aN,pra ? 111TLr1
Thw waddbwrrwm,ra,ddb
Z
Total T-Ball F/elds ??? I(? Iwtr r.
to TOR Pork -urdaWAd V A(b
?TwIdNw T4PdFYldw - 7oo ?? "`9, U11 w ..
G w
O
a
,
O
Z
v
N
Recreation Services Department
Low 6700 Portland Avenue . Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
The Urban Hometown z
I-
CITY OF, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 2
Agenda January 5, 1998
Issue Statement:
Discussion of the executive summary of the City of Richfield residential survey
conducted by Decision Resources, Inc.
Background:
Decision Resources, Inc. conducted a City services survey of 400 randomly selected
residents of the City of Richfield. These telephone interviews were completed between
October 27 and November 24, 1997.
Bill Morris of Decision Resources, Inc. will attend the Study Session to present and
discuss a summary of the survey results.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss the residential survey results conducted by Decision Resources, Inc.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Decision Resources, Inc. conducted a residential survey between October 27 and
November 24, 1997.
2. Bill Morris of Decision Resources, Inc. will review and discuss a summary of the
survey results.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Discussion of the residential survey results is scheduled for the January 5, 1998 City
Council Study Session.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
0