Loading...
2-22-93 agendaI CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1993 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6:45 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM CALL TO ORDER I. INTERVIEW OF APPLICANT FOR APPOINTMENT TO SISTER CITY COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE • APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF (1) JOINT MEETING OF RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL AND RICHFIELD SCHOOL BOARD OF FEBRUARY 8, 1993 AND (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 1993 PRESENTATIONS 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA 2. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA WEEK IN RICHFIELD MARCH 7 -14, 1993 3. PRESENTATIONS TO STUDENT DELEGATION AND CHAPERONES WHO TRAVELED TO SISTER CITY HEREDIA, COSTA RICA AGENDA APPROVAL 4. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. 5A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF $15,000 FROM RICHFIELD'S MUNICIPAL STATE AID CONSTRUCTION OFF - SYSTEM FUND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PEDESTRIAN RAMPS IN COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT C.L. 49 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO BRW, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR 77TH STREET RIGHT OF WAY CLEARANCE PLAN PROJECT FROM I -35W TO PORTLAND AVENUE IN AMOUNT OF $52,194 C.L. 50 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENOVATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY INDOOR FIREARMS RANGE BY CASWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AT COST OF $25,770.00 C.L. 51 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE'IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FROM KELLEY FUELS, INC. FOR UNLEADED GASOLINE IN AMOUNT OF $6,343.21 C.L. 52 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FROM MTI DISTRIBUTING, INC. FOR PURCHASE OF A TORO 325D MOWER WITH MULCHING DECK IN AMOUNT OF $14,295 C.L. 53 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FROM TECH SALES COMPANY FOR TWO ISCO STORM WATER MONITORING AND SAMPLING SYSTEMS IN AMOUNT OF $11,816 C.L. 54 G. ESTIMATE #3 PAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION & INSTALLATION OF MINIATURE GOLF COURSE; OLYMPIC POOLS, INC.; $22,950.00 • PUBLIC HEARING 6. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS AT 7200 CEDAR AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 55 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES /TABULATION AND AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR WATER SYSTEM EQUIPMENT FOR TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1,054,167 TO: . - FLAHERTY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION FOR THREE GENERATOR SETS AS SPECIFIED IN AMOUNT OF $231,641 - BRY -AIR COMPANY FOR FURNISHING DEHUMIDIFIER AS SPECIFIED IN AMOUNT OF $32,611 INFILCO- DEGREMONT, INC. FOR TWO UNITS OF LIME SOFTENING REACTOR /CLARIFIER EQUIPMENT AS SPECIFIED IN AMOUNT OF $732,165 - CHEMCO EQUIPMENT COMPANY FOR TWO LIME SLAKERS AS SPECIFIED IN AMOUNT OF $57,750 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 56 G i • 8. CONSIDERATION'TO AUTHORIZE $500,000 FROM SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF NICOLLET PARK IN 1993 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 57 9. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT A 60 QUESTION COMMUNITY CITY SERVICES SURVEY BY DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. IN AMOUNT OF $7,200.PLUS $90 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL SURVEY QUESTION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 58 10. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF PERSON TO SISTER CITY COMMISSION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 59 11. CONSIDERATION AS TO WHETHER'TO HOLD A CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ON MARCH 1, 1993 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 60 AIRPORT BUSINESS 12. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT 13. LEGISLATIVE REPORT CORRESPONDENCE COUNCIL CHOICE 14. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 15. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 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 Council Letter No. 60 Agenda February 22, 1993 Issue Statement: Council consideration as to whether to hold a City Council Study Session on March 1, 1993. Background: The City Council regularly conducts a Study Session on the first Monday evening of each month. However, any business can be carried over to the April 5 regularly scheduled Study Session. Also, the City Manager will be out of town that week. Recommended Motion: Cancel the City Council Study Session regularly scheduled for March 1, 1993. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Any business can be carried over to the April 5 regularly scheduled City Council Study Session. 2. The City Manager is out of town that week. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not cancel the Study Session. . 2. Reschedule the Study Session. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the February 22, 1993 City Council agenda so proper notification can be made if the Study Session is cancelled or rescheduled. JDP:cak Respectfully submitted, James . Prosser City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 59 Agenda February 22, 1993 Issue Statement: Consideration of appointment to Sister City Commission. Background Several terms of City Board and Commission Members expired on January 31, 1993. In addition, some Commissions had vacancies resulting from resignations. At the February 8, 1993 City Council meeting, the Council appointed persons to fill the vacancies. However, one vacancy remained on the Sister City Commission. This is a one year unexpired term that ends on January 31, 1994. One applicant was interviewed on February 22 prior to the regular City Council meeting. Recommended Motion: Appoint a person to fill the vacancy on the Sister City Commission. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This appointment completes the membership of the Sister City Commission. • 2. An applicant was interviewed on February 22. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Defer an appointment to a later Council meeting. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is placed on the February 22, 1993 Council agenda for Council consideration. The appointment will begin immediately. Respectfully submitted, Jame . Prosser City nager JDP:cak CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No.58 Agenda February 22, 1993 Issue Statement: Consideration of a proposal to conduct a 60 question community City services survey by Decision Resources, Ltd. in the amount of $7,200, plus $90 for each additional survey question. Background: The City Council has expressed an interest in conducting a City services survey. A similar survey was conducted by Decision Resources, Ltd. in October 1989. The general purpose of the survey is to gather information regarding the perception of the residents regarding quality of life, quality and variety of City services provided, identify emerging issues, address special topical concerns. Some of the topical concerns which need to be addressed in this current survey include solid waste disposal, recycling, health needs of Richfield citizens, airport issues, reactions to possible service reductions due to budget cuts, reactions to potential increases in taxes and /or fees for services in lieu of budget cuts. This latter information will be especially helpful in addressing issues with Legislatures as the Legislature continues to examine alternatives to addressing the State's financial plight. Additionally, there are a number of follow up issues from the past survey. Those issues include health issues, perception of public safety issues and recreation. A copy of the executive summary and survey instrument from the 1989 survey is attached for review. The survey is conducted based upon a random sampling of 400 residents within the City. A copy of the full proposal is attached. The final survey questions will be provided to the City Council for approval prior to the actual survey. Recommended Motion: Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Decision Resources, Ltd. for a community survey in the amount of $7,200, plus $90 for each additional survey question. Basis of Recommendation: 1. It is essential to continue to monitor critical issues before the City. The use of a scientific survey has proven to be extremely helpful in gathering critical information. 2. The City has previously received proposals from other firms that provide similar services and found Decision Resources, Ltd. to provide the best data at the lowest reasonable cost. Q'I 3. The Council has expressed in interest in conducting a City services survey. The cable television /program budget contains adequate funds to pay for a survey. 4. It will be extremely valuable to receive information regarding a number of critical issues including the potential budget cuts and impacts on residents, as well as solid waste and recycling and public safety issues in a timely fashion. 5. It will be helpful to have much of the information provided prior to the close of the legislative session. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Receive proposals from other firms. 2. Do not conduct a survey. Discussion /Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for action at the Council meeting of February 22, 1993. If the proposal is approved, Decision Resources, Ltd. will meet the City Council within the next 30 days to seek Council input regarding questions to be included in the survey. It is expected that the survey would be completed approximately 60 days after the meeting with the Council. JDP:cak • Respectfully submitted, Jam s Prosser City anager • 9-� CITY OF RICHFIELD Memorandum DATE: October 13, 1992 TO: Jim Prosser, City Manager FROM: Betsy Christensen, Health Administrator SUBJECT: Richfield Advisory Board of Health At their September 21, 1992 meeting, the Richfield Advisory Board of Health made the following motion and directed me to forward the motion to you for further consideration /discussion with the City Council. Their motion is as follows: "The Richfield Advisory Board of Health recommends to the City Council that a citywide survey be developed and implemented to include questions pertaining to the health needs of • Richfield's citizens." Discussion and questions followed regarding the telephone survey that was conducted by the City in 1987. The Board's action was for a similar survey to be conducted at this time to update that 1987 information. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the board's action. bac:ttf cc: Jack Erskine, Director of Public Safety • � Decision W � Resources Ltd. 9 -3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected residents of the City of Richfield. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers between August 25 and September 6, 1988. The average interview took nineteen minutes. In general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of Richfield residents within +5.0 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases. Richfield, as a mature and relatively complete suburb, has characteristics which suggest great stability. But, more surprising to the casual observer, it also in many ways appears more like a second- or third -ring community. Reinforcing the first image are the facts that the median age is 42 years old, retirees head twenty -one percent of the households,- and twenty percent of all family units are composed exclusively of senior citizens. Supporting the second image is the number of new arrivals, twenty -three percent of the households during the past two years, thirty -five percent of the population under 35 years old, and almost forty percent of the households classifiable as up-scale white collar. Richfield, then, has escaped the rapid aging and stagnation of many inner ring suburbs across the nation. But, this hybrid nature has come at a price. Richfield must be classified as one of the most heterogeneous communities in the Metropolitan Area. While heterogeneity insures a dynamic city, it also makes the quest for consensus on urban policies much more difficult. Shifting coalitions and compromises become the order of the day. Often diverse and conflicting points of view must be balanced in the quest for sound incremental policies. But, even so, most inner ring communities would much rather face this type. of solvable problem than wrestle with the negative externalities of a finished and stagnant community. Richfield is a very clear example of the traditional function of a suburb near the core city. In the past, it has received many young Minneapolis families seeking starter homes to begin the roots - digging process. Even today, Richfield still attracts a steady stream of younger urban dwellers. But, unlike yesterday, more growing families are leaving the community 3n search of larger homes and lots, since the turnover rate in this type of housing has greatly decreased. Retention, rather than attraction of growing families, appears to be the -major problem in the constant rejuvenation of the city. 3128 Dean Court • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 • (6L) 920 -0337 _1` 1 Richfield, in comparison with many other communitie'l, face, a unique set of challenges because of its "hybrid" nature. It is much further along the "life cycle" than many of its neighbors. Declining school enrollments, residential aging, and open space planning and development, common problems impacting most inner- ring communities, must be addressed. But, Richfield also appears to have a unique and solid reputation as a place to live. And, the traditional out- migration patterns from Minneapolis are intact. These comparative advantages permit policy- makers to build upon.the past rather than starting afresh. They also allow creative solutions to first -ring issues which other communities could neither consider nor implement. As one interviewee told us, "Richfield is a special place." -The demographics would suggest that this statement accurately summarizes both the challenges and prospects facing the community. Richfield residents are very content with their community. Ninety -eight percent approved of the quality of life there; forty -seven percent, strongly so. Eighty -eight percent rated the appearance of their neighborhood highly.. Eighty -three percent rated both the strength of community and sense of neighborliness as exceptional. And, more people report their neighborhood has changed for the better than for the worse during recent years. on every indicator, residents take pride in their city. Richfield exhibits two persona in the minds.of its citizens, though. One group sees it as an attractive suburban location. A second group, equally large, sees the community as a small town. Policy- makers, then, face the task of reconciling these images: redevelopment and revitalization while preserving the unique sense of community. There is also a sizable antipathy toward the airport and the noise it generates. At twenty -four percent, airport noise is the major issue facing the community at present. Frustration with noise levels should not be equated with opposition to the airport location, however. Affirmative action by the City would certainly be appreciated by Richfield residents. Most residents report satisfaction'with their current homes. But, one - quarter of the survey stated some worries about the future. While home improvements would favorably impact about one -third of this group, the availability of more homes in the city for young and growing families would greatly neutralize any problem. In fact, most residents contemplating moves to.single family houses stated that their preferred type of housing was already present in Richfield; it is availability which.proved to be the major concern. Richfield, then, is felt to be a good place to live. Most residents are pleased with their community. Older settlers look at the past and view any present obstacles as surmountable in the �' same way. New- comers quickly appreciate the unique civic culture that links residents. Optimism, then, is the prevailing opinion. The Richfield park and strongly positive light by most the sample rated it as eitl correspondingly high numbers recreational facilities meet Similarly, residents see the system and exhibit remarkably sets of facilities. recreation system is viewed in a citizens. Over ninety percent of her "excellent" or "good," and feel that its current mix of the needs of their households. need for most components of the high levels of usage of several The most important single facility in the system are the city parks. They are rated as the most important recreational opportunity for the city as a whole and are used by almost ninety percent of the population. City playgrounds ran second in terms of their importance to the community, but somewhat lower in usage rates. The nature center scored just behind playgrounds. Residents seem to place a great value on opportunities which are most suitable for family activities. If there is a priority need for future developments in the park system, two types of offerings were singled out. Residents would like to see a more extensive trail system and would like to see better and modern playground equipment. Unlike most cities which evidence support for major facilities, residents focused upon expansions to current offerings and their modernization. The Richfield parks and recreation system is rated among the . highest in the Metropolitan Area. It is considered to be complete and well - maintained. Most residents, in fact, view the park and recreation system as a key factor in making the community a special place to live. Richfield residents rate their city services among the highest 'in the Metropolitan Area. Police protection, fire protection, water quality, sewers, snow plowing, and park maintenance received highly favorable ratings, with approval by approximately ninety percent in each case. City street repair and maintenance and animal control, two services whose approval ratings generally drop to at least the mid- sixties in most communities, scored through at eighty -three and seventy -six percents, respectively. These evaluations indicate a high level of satisfaction with the .services provided by the City of Richfield. Negative ratings, which were few, were usually based upon perceived slowness in the delivery of a service. Residents rating the police and fire departments, as well as snow plowing, lower, tended to cite the lag time they had encountered in response to a call. The most bothersome problem for most residents, however, are the numbers of loose animals on Richfield streets: sixteen percent of the residents felt this to be at a very high level. A re- examination of animal control procedures, consequently, may be in order. q_�(p City- and school district - sponsored programs drew about twenty -nine percent of the sample, the norm for most suburban communities. Baseball, swimming, and general entertainment were the most frequently mentioned youth activities. And, satisfaction with the programs was virtually unanimous. More popular adult programming were the various types of classes offered by the city and school district. Again, satisfaction was unanimous. The current breadth of these offerings was also judged sufficient by a vast majority of the populace: in fact, the most common suggestion was for more of the same type of offerings, rather than new types of opportunities. There was also no support for cutting back or discontinuing any adult or children programs. Overall, the city and school district have done a very impressive job of satisfying the many. different interests and needs of the citizenry. Ninety -eight percent of the residents reported they would telephone 911 in an emergency situation. The remaining two percent would call the Richfield Police directly. About one - third of the households in the sample had already used the 911 system, with police being registered as the most frequent contact, rescue squad or ambulance, second, and fire, third. The City and other agencies have done a very thorough indoctrination of residents into the usage of the 911 system. About one - quarter of the sample were aware of the availability of nursing services through the public health ' division in the Bloomington. Since seniors were numbered overwhelmingly in this category, the most likely audience has been reached. But, even so, improvement in marketing these services could significantly increase awareness. Drugs and alcohol education were rated as the top priorities for the Richfield Advisory Board of Health to pursue. Fifty - seven percent rated them as first or second health priorities from a list of ten health issues. Child and domestic abuse ranked second with fifty percent of the sample choosing it as their first or second priorities. Receiving about half this number of selections were AIDS and the disposal of household hazardous waste. The residents of Richfield, then, have clear priorities with respect to health education. Sixty -six percent of the sample reported purchasing products from the Richfield off -sale liquor stores, one of the highest residential usage rates in the Metropolitan Area. The staff was uniformly rated courteous,.helpful, and knowledgeable about their products. Only two suggestions were offered for improvement of the services there: lower prices, a perennial concern, and better, wider selections. But, these proposals arose from only seven percent of the clientele. More surprising was the faot that fifty -five percent of the sample was aware that the Richfield Municipal Liquor operations transfers about $300,000 annually to the city for capital improvements.. In many other communities, most citizens are unaware of the disposition of any store profits. The Richfield Municipal Liquor Stores must be is 9 viewed as one of the most successful businesses of its type in the area. Richfield residents are not dogmatically "anti- taxes." They are willing to pay for demonstrable community needs or insure that service levels do not decline in quality. Fifty -six percent of the residents would support a property, tax increase if it were required to maintain city services at their current level.- Part of this predisposition is attributable to the general perception that property taxes are about.average.in comparison with other suburbs. But, much of this orientation is undoubtedly due to the uniformly positive ratings awarded city services, themselves. It should also be noted that this open approach to tax increases exists in spite of the overestimation of. the city's share of the property tax. Residents who had opinions on the matter averaged twenty -two percent as their estimate of the city portion of the property tax. As the recognition grows that Richfield is actually more cost - effective than realized, a higher value placed upon city services should result. Residents felt that there had been increases in property crime during the past five years, but judged people crimes as having leveled off. The two major public safety problems were felt to be juvenile crimes and vandalism and burglary. Even so, only twenty -six percent of the residents felt that the amount of patrolling by the police department in their neighborhoods was insufficient. But, both problem may require some special attention by policy- makers in the future. Prevention services offered by Richfield were found to be underutilized. In fact, those oriented toward thwarting burglaries, Neighborhood Watch and Operation ID, were used by only nineteen and twenty -eight percent. of the sample, respectively. Fire education in the schools had impacted thirty- one percent of the households, while voluntary fire inspections of residences, and home and business security analyses each drew less than eleven percent participation. Citizens view past and current development policies with great approval. Almost sixty percent felt that zoning and land use decisions were wise and that the process is open for general input. Sixty -six percent view the current.number of apartment and condominium buildings as about right for the city. And, a similar number view commercial and retail development in the same manner. On the issue of code enforcement, sixty -seven percent felt that the City was about right in the toughness with which ordinances were enforced. But, twenty -eight percent indicated they thought that Richfield could be tougher. The major concOrn is the number of loose animals across the city. Junk cars, noise, and messy yards were also perceived as areas in which the codes should.be more strictly enforced. 9-13 If there is divergence in city opinions, it lies in the best development course for the future. Sixty -five percent of the citizenry support aggressive efforts by the City to attract new commercial and retail developments. But, residents split forty - five percent to forty -three percent in favor of providing development incentives. New economic opportunities for the city should be explored, but some care should be taken in insuring that the cost to the city does not negate the advantage. 0 The Not- In -My- Back -Yard syndrome was also encountered in development perspectives. When queried about the building of new commercial office and retail development adjacent to their neighborhood, sixty -three percent opposed the construction; twenty -nine percent supported it. There are two factors which mitigate these concerns, however. If assurances about minimum additional traffic and noise in the neighborhood could be made, opposition shrinks by about one - third. And, linking new development to ,the retardation of property tax increases or service cutbacks similarly shrinks opposition. The results suggest that a more complete discussion and information process on the pros and cons of economic development is necessary. Even so, however, forty -one percent of the sample still remained opposed to development adjacent to residential areas. On the expansion of Highway 494 and the resulting realignment of the frontage road, a consensus appears to have developed. Eighty percent of the sample supported the current mix of establishments along the expressway. Sixty -two percent also supported upgrading 77th Street to a four -lane boulevard and restricting access to the residential areas north of it. On the issue of discouraging large companies and office complexes from building there, residents split: fifty percent favored discouragement as a means to minimize traffic congestion, while forty- one.percent opposed these actions by the city. Again, the key concern was increased traffic in residential areas; if residents are persuaded that new development will not overspill onto their streets, majority support should be attainable on most projects. In viewing existing shopping opportunities, two - thirds of the sample were satisfied with current Richfield offerings. A new grocery store attracted ten percent support, while a new department store was sought by almost as many. The principal shopping areas most frequently by residents were Southdale, drawing fifty -one percent, and the Hub, at twenty -six percent. Both distance and age of the respondent correlated with these choices. Richfield residents are justifiably proud of both their city government and its staff. The pride comes from two factors: First, most residents feel that the city is well run and well managed; and second, most of the first -hand experience or detailed knowledge citizens possess casts a favorable light on the civic enterprise. As a result, a rippling occurs, and a reservoir of good will is also present among those who may not be now familiar with either the elected or employed city servants. The Mayor and City Council received a seventy -six percent approval rating from their constituents. Only six percent disapproved. It is noteworthy that as knowledge of their activities increased, the ratings also rose. This very strong vote of confidence is based not only upon the lack of problems facing the city, but the perception that office holders have worked hard on behalf of the citizenry. City staff were rated highly by seventy -seven percent of the residents. Among those having contact, the rating soared to ninety -one percent. This is extraordinarily strong in comparison with other suburbs. People generally found the staff efficient and effective in addressing their questions and problems. One potential area for improvement, though, appears to be the handling of general inquiries by seniors. But, even this must be viewed as a minor problem in light of the generally favorable responses. As the first line in the establishment of an image for the City, the staff has done an exceptional job. Communications with residents were found to be uniformly excellent in Richfield. Very few people reported being out of the information loop; and in some cases, this appeared to be conscious "opting- out.0' Less than ten percent of the residents, for example, reported they did not have a communications channel they relied upon for city government information. Richfield, then, must be judged as an integrated and cohesive community from a communications perspective. "Your City and Schools" was received by a very high eighty - two percent of the population. Two- thirds reported reading the publication on a regular basis, and most residents felt it to be effective. The data suggests, however, that non - parents may regard it as being targeted toward households with school children; so, increased readership might be achieved through a stylistic or content broadening to allay this perception. Cable television reached into forty -four percent of the sample households. Thirty percent of these households at least occasionally watch Council Meetings, a reach below the the suburban norm.- As a result, the City may wish to re- examine its cable telecasts to insure that they are easy to follow and provide on -going information to the viewer. There also appears to be some interest among younger residents in basic cable services. Many current non - subscribers were unaware of the basic rate structure and increased publicity could significantly expand the current cable audience. But, even though these possibilities exist, the moist effective communications channels in Richfield are through print vehicles. The "Richfield Sun - Current" is clearly one of the most successful suburban newspapers in the Metropolitan Area. Eighty - seven percent of the residents regularly read the paper, well above suburban norms. In addition, sixty -six percent of the q110 residents stated it was their principal source of government information. Conversely, though, there is some room for improvement. About one -third of the subscribers reported irregular delivery and the papers reach into apartment complexes and among new- comers is somewhat lower. It is understandable, in light of the very effective existing communications system, why Richfield is viewed by many of its residents as a "small- town." The challenge for the future will be maintaining communications at their very high levels of effectiveness and augmenting them to reach even further. But, to date, Richfield has done an enviable job in keeping its citizens informed. In summary, Richfield citizens are very pleased with their city, particularly city - provided services. They seem satisfied with past policies and actions. The areas of most concern appear to be the course of future development -- maintaining livability in the neighborhoods while expanding the economic base of the city. There is also a great appreciation of the balance that has been maintained to date -- cohesive neighborhoods, economic growth, and a top -rated park and recreational system. In fact, many residents view one of the major strengths of Richfield as its ambiance and community spirit. In many ways, the city has the achieved the highly positive image of a well -run "small town" in a mass urban setting. The preservation and enhancement of this obvious strength, while reenergizing the tax base, will be the key issue facing decision - makers in the future. 1] DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. Richfield Marketing Study 3128 Dean Court CURRENT RESIDENTS • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 October, 1989 Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by a coalition of citizens groups in the City, the School District, and representatives of the business and church communities to speak with young families who reside in Richfield. We'd like to ask you a few questions about your experiences in Richfield and what attracted you to this location. Your answers will be held strictly confidential; only aggregate responses will be reported back to the coalition. 1. How long have you lived at your LESS THAN ONE YEARS ... 12% current residence? ONE OR TWO YEARS ...... 44% THREE TO FIVE YEARS...40% OVER FIVE YEARS ........ 4% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% 2. What were the main reasons you chose Richfield as a place to live? (PROBE) LOCATION, 43 %; SCHOOLS, 13 %; RAISED THERE, 11 %; QUIET CITY, 5 %; FRIENDS - FAMILY, 4 %; NEIGHBORHOODS, 7 %; HOUSING, 16 %; SCATTERED, 1% 3. Where did you live just prior to your present home? MINNEAPOLIS, 32 %; OUT OF STATE, 14 %; RICHFIELD, 11 %; BLOOMINGTON, 13 %; SOUTH HENNEPIN, 11 %; RURAL MN, 3% RAMSEY CO, 7 %; DAKOTA CO, 6 %; NORTH HENN, 3 %; SCATTERED,1% 4. Why did you decide to move from there? (PROBE) NO ANSWER, 0 %; MARRIED, 6 %; BOUGHT HOUSE,-35 %; JOB,26% DISLIKED, 8 %; LEFT PARENTS, 3 %; IMPROVEMENT, 7 %; SCHOOLS, 5 %; BACK MN, 5 %; SCATTERED, 2% 5. Had you or any members of your YES ...................40% family previously lived in Rich- NO ....................60% field? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% 6. Had any close friends of your YES ...................44% family previously lived in Rich- NO ....................55% field? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% 7. Excluding your own children, have YES ...................28% you or any members of your family NO :...................72% attended schools in Richfield? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.....$ 1 q -1 �-- 8. What type of home did you live in now? Is it a... (READ CATEGORIES) • Other: • 9. In general, how satisfied are you with the.HOME that you live in Now -- very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? 10. Thinking about the future, where do you expect to live five years from now? Would you say.... (READ CATEGORIES) OTHER: �r SINGLE FAMILY HOME .... 80% DUPLEX.................6% CONDOMINIUM ............ 0% TOWNHOUSE ..............0% APARTMENT BUILDING .... 14% OTHER ..................0% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% VERY SATISFIED ........ 60 SOMEWHAT SATISFIED .... 25% NEUTRAL (VOL) .......... 7% SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED..5% VERY .DISSATISFIED ...... 0t DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% YOUR PRESENT HOME ..... 48% ANOTHER RESIDENCE IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD.7% ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD IN THIS CITY........ 11% ELSEWHERE IN THE TWIN CITIES SUBURBS ...... 13% OUTSIDE OF THE METRO- POLITAN AREA......... 8% OTHER................... 3% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 11% IF PLANNING TO MOVE (ANSWERS X12 - #6), ASK: il. What are the main reasons why you would move in the next five years? (PROBE CAREFULLY; PARTICULARLY FOR TYPE OF RESIDENCE SOUGHT) NO ANSWER, 15 %; COST LIVING, 3 %; DETERIORATION, 5 %; BETTER, 19 %; LARGER, 27 %; JOB RELATED, 6 %; SCHOOLS, 4 %; MORE SPACE, 14 %; WANT TO MOVE, 7% 12. Would you consider remodel- ing your current residence to better meet those future needs? IF "NO," ASK: 13. Why not? YES.*.**** ... 00.0* .... 19% NO ....................60% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED....21 NO ANSWER, 5 %; DON'T WISH, 28 %; T0O OLD, 5 %; RENT, 31 %; CAN'T BE DONE, 24 %; MOVING, 5 %; SCATTERED, 2% 14. Would you be ,more likely to 'YES .................... 17% remodel your current resi- dence if financial incen- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 12% tives were available? 2 Suppose you were shopping for a home or remodelling your current home. I'm going to name some housing features and I want you to tell me how desirable they would be to you. Considering your needs and budget, how important would you say that each aspect would be to you personally -- would it be absolutely essential, very important, somewhat important, or not important? ES VI SI NI DK 15. Have more than one bathroom .. ............24$.38$..21$.14$.3$ 16. Have a two -car or three -car garage ....... 17$.35$..27$.18$.2$ 17. Have a fourth bedroom ..................... 7$.17$..26$.48$.3% 18. Have a driveway rather than using an alley ................... ............21$.38$..20$.16$.5$ 19. Have a large, roomy home ..... ............17$.44$..20$.17$.2$ 20. Have a large yard ................ . ..... ..12$.37$..28$.19$.3$ 21. Have an older style home with individual character and charm ...... ............5$.24$..27$.39$.6$ 22. Have a fairly small yard that is easy to take care of ............. ............6$.21$..18$.50$.5$ 23. Have a home with new /updated roof,.plumbing heating, and electrical system ......29$.43$..15$..9$.4$ 24. Have established landscaping with mature trees................... .............9 %.27 %..36%.24%.3% 25. Have an attached garage ...... .............6$.25$..28$.39$.2$ 26. Have a sidewalk .............. .............7$.20$..26$.43$.4$ 27. Have a home that's different in design from other homes on the street .... ...5$.29$..30$.33$.3$ 40 28. Have a family room............ ...........18$.31$..24$.21$.5$ 29. Have an older home that can be remodeled attractively........... ............4$.25$..31$.35$.5$ 30. Have a maintenance -free exterior and landscape, such as as a townhouse or condominium .......... ............5$.17$..22$.51$.5$ 31. Now, think about the types of' MORE IN RICHFIELD.... o26% homes you can afford and would MORE IN OTHER SUBURBS.32% like to live in. Are these types NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE... 28% of homes more available in Rich - DON'T KNOW /REFUSED...-13% field, more available in other suburbs, or is there not much difference? 32. How serious do you consider the problem of noise -- whether from the airport, automobiles, or neighbors -- where you live -- very serious, somewhat serious, or not at all serious? VERY SERIOUS .......... 26$ SOMEWHAT SERIOUS...... 35% NOT AT ALL SERIOUS .... 36% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 3$ 33. Which do you consider more bother- AIRPORT ...............52% some -- airport noise OR traffic TRAFFIC*********** ... *24% noise? BOTH EQUALLY (VOL) .... 10% NEITHER (VOL) ......... 14% . DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% 3 1] NO ANSWER., 35 %; CONVENIENCE, 2 %; STILL LIKE, 21 %; NO CHANGE, 8 %; BETTER PEOPLE, 10 %; WORSE PEOPLE, 6 %; CRIME, 6 %; TRAFFIC, 3 %; AIRPORT, 2 %; DEVELOPMENT, 3 %; MORE HOUSING, 5 %; SCATTERED, 3% How would you rate the area of Richfield where you now live on the following things -- would you say excellent, good, only fair, or poor.... EX GD OF PR DK 36. General appearance and livability ....... 36$..53$.10$..1$..1$ 37. Safety from property crimes .. ...........25$..55 %.12%..7$..l% 38. Safety from violent personal crimes ..... 29$..51$.10$..5$..6$ 39. Resale value of homes........ ......... ..28$..48$.10$..2$.13$ 40. Street maintenance .............. ........27$..6.1$..5$..2$..6$ 41. Public transportation ........ ...........23$..44$.13$..6$.14$ 42. Freedom from excessive noise ......... ...20$..39$.26$.13$..3% 43. Convenience of shopping areas. ..........53$..38$..5$..4$..1$ 44. A place to raise children .... ...........40$..44$..8$..5$..3$ 45. Convenience to my church or place of worship .................. ..........38$..44$..5$..5$.10$ 46. Available day- care-for children ...... ... 29$..35$..9$..4$.23$ 47. Convenience to my work.... o..00000.0000*42%..43%..9%oo4%.o3% 48. Accessibility to the airport ..... . ...... 47$..45$..5$..3$..1$ 49. Friendliness of people in your neighborhood ............. ....,.....31$..52$.10$..4$..3$ 50. Accessibility to other areas in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area......42 %..49$..5 %..2 %..3% 51. Closeness to hospitals and medical clinics ................. ...........43$..46$..7$..4$..1$ I would like to read you a list of.items that households pur- chase. For each one, please-tell me whether you generally buy the item in Richfield or go outside of the city. Please bear in mind that the Southdale Area lies outside of Richfield. If you don't buy an item, just say so. IN CITY OUTSIDE BOTH EQUALLY 52. Groceries? 36% 52% Let's talk about your neighborhood in Richfield.... 53. Furniture? 34. Do you think that in the past few MORE DESIRABLE ........ 21% Liquor? years your neighborhood has become LESS DESIRABLE ........ 17% 55. more desirable as a place to live, NOT MUCH CHANGE....... 51% 6% less desirable, or has there not DON'T KNOW /REFUSED....11% 63$ 21% been much change? 35. Why do you feel that way? (PROBE CAREFULLY) 1] NO ANSWER., 35 %; CONVENIENCE, 2 %; STILL LIKE, 21 %; NO CHANGE, 8 %; BETTER PEOPLE, 10 %; WORSE PEOPLE, 6 %; CRIME, 6 %; TRAFFIC, 3 %; AIRPORT, 2 %; DEVELOPMENT, 3 %; MORE HOUSING, 5 %; SCATTERED, 3% How would you rate the area of Richfield where you now live on the following things -- would you say excellent, good, only fair, or poor.... EX GD OF PR DK 36. General appearance and livability ....... 36$..53$.10$..1$..1$ 37. Safety from property crimes .. ...........25$..55 %.12%..7$..l% 38. Safety from violent personal crimes ..... 29$..51$.10$..5$..6$ 39. Resale value of homes........ ......... ..28$..48$.10$..2$.13$ 40. Street maintenance .............. ........27$..6.1$..5$..2$..6$ 41. Public transportation ........ ...........23$..44$.13$..6$.14$ 42. Freedom from excessive noise ......... ...20$..39$.26$.13$..3% 43. Convenience of shopping areas. ..........53$..38$..5$..4$..1$ 44. A place to raise children .... ...........40$..44$..8$..5$..3$ 45. Convenience to my church or place of worship .................. ..........38$..44$..5$..5$.10$ 46. Available day- care-for children ...... ... 29$..35$..9$..4$.23$ 47. Convenience to my work.... o..00000.0000*42%..43%..9%oo4%.o3% 48. Accessibility to the airport ..... . ...... 47$..45$..5$..3$..1$ 49. Friendliness of people in your neighborhood ............. ....,.....31$..52$.10$..4$..3$ 50. Accessibility to other areas in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area......42 %..49$..5 %..2 %..3% 51. Closeness to hospitals and medical clinics ................. ...........43$..46$..7$..4$..1$ I would like to read you a list of.items that households pur- chase. For each one, please-tell me whether you generally buy the item in Richfield or go outside of the city. Please bear in mind that the Southdale Area lies outside of Richfield. If you don't buy an item, just say so. IN CITY OUTSIDE BOTH EQUALLY 52. Groceries? 36% 52% 12% 53. Furniture? 16% 67% 3% 54. Liquor? 64% 16% 3% 55. Gasoline? 83% 8% 6% 56. Hardware? 63$ 21% 11$ 4 DONT BUY 0% 14% 17% 4% 4% I- Richfield is served -by both public and non - public schools. 67. Do you have children in or intend PUBLIC SCHOOLS ........ 40% to send them to the public NON- PUBLIC SCHOOLS ..... 61 schools, non - public schools, both BOTH.... oo-ooe­ .......4% types, or are you not sure? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED....51% IF "PUBLIC SCHOOLS" OR "BOTH," ASK: 68. Now, I want to ask you about the Richfield Public Schools. Would you say on the whole the Richfield Public Schools are excellent, good, only fair, or poor? EXCELLENT.............64% GOOD..................28% ONLYFAIR ..............3% POOR..*..**..* ..... * ... 0% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 5% 69. From what you have seen or heard, GETTING BETTER ........ 51% do you think the Richfield Public GETTING WORSE .......... 3% Schools have generally been get ABOUT THE SAME ........ 31% ting better in recent years, been DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 15% getting worse, or had they stayed about the same? 70. Would you say that Richfield YES ...................91% Public Schools are good enough NO .....................5t that they are a reason for you to SCHOOLS DON'T MATTER ... 2$ stay in Richfield, or.not? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 2% 71. Why do you say that? (PROBE) NO ANSWER, 10 %; TEACHERS, 14 %; ED QUALITY, 65 %; PROGRAMS, 3 %; SCATTERED, 8% Now, from what you know or-have heard, please rate the Richfield Public Schools as excellent, good, only fair, or poor on the • following.... 5 IN CITY OUTSIDE .BOTH DONT EQUALLY BUY 57. Shoes? 33% 48% 14% 5% 58. Movie Rentals? 59% 25% 4% 12% 59. Appliances? 27% 48% 8% 17% 60. Prescription Drugs? 58% 32% 6% 5% 61. Sporting Goods? 23% 52% 14% 11% 62. Men's Clothing? 15% 57% 19% 9% 63. Women's Clothing? 16% 50% 24% 10% 64. Children's Clothing? 13% 45% 23% 19% 65. -Restaurants? 17% 26% 55% it 66. When you go to a retail or ser- MAJOR PROBLEM .......... 7% vice establishment in Richfield, MINOR PROBLEM .......... 29% do you generally find parking to NOT A PROBLEM ......... 62% be a major problem, a minor prob- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 2% lem, or not a problem? I- Richfield is served -by both public and non - public schools. 67. Do you have children in or intend PUBLIC SCHOOLS ........ 40% to send them to the public NON- PUBLIC SCHOOLS ..... 61 schools, non - public schools, both BOTH.... oo-ooe­ .......4% types, or are you not sure? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED....51% IF "PUBLIC SCHOOLS" OR "BOTH," ASK: 68. Now, I want to ask you about the Richfield Public Schools. Would you say on the whole the Richfield Public Schools are excellent, good, only fair, or poor? EXCELLENT.............64% GOOD..................28% ONLYFAIR ..............3% POOR..*..**..* ..... * ... 0% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 5% 69. From what you have seen or heard, GETTING BETTER ........ 51% do you think the Richfield Public GETTING WORSE .......... 3% Schools have generally been get ABOUT THE SAME ........ 31% ting better in recent years, been DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 15% getting worse, or had they stayed about the same? 70. Would you say that Richfield YES ...................91% Public Schools are good enough NO .....................5t that they are a reason for you to SCHOOLS DON'T MATTER ... 2$ stay in Richfield, or.not? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 2% 71. Why do you say that? (PROBE) NO ANSWER, 10 %; TEACHERS, 14 %; ED QUALITY, 65 %; PROGRAMS, 3 %; SCATTERED, 8% Now, from what you know or-have heard, please rate the Richfield Public Schools as excellent, good, only fair, or poor on the • following.... 5 9-1& EX GD OF PR DK 72. 73. Class size ................... ............24 %.42 %.18 %..1 %.15% Discipline ................... ............28 %.41 %..7 %..0 %.24% 74. Number and range of course offered ....... 24 %.46 %..5 %..2 %.24% 75. Availability of art, music, and per - formance arts courses ... ............15 %.60 %..6 %..0 %.19% 76. Quality of teaching .......... ............38 %.49 %..1 %..0 %.13% 77. Learning environment in the schools ...... 31 %.44 %..3 %..2 %.19% 78. Extra - curricular activities and team sports....... ........... ............38 %.47 %..1 %..0 %.15% 79. The distance children have to travel to get to school ........... ............24 %.52 %..7 %..0 %.17% 80. Preparation of students for college ...... 26 %.30 %..1 %..0 %.43% 81. The upkeep of school buildings ... .... ....30 %.55 %..1 %..0 %.15% 82. Responsiveness of teachers and other school personnel. ... 9--o-oo**.*.000*33%*40%.o5t..O%.23% 83. Provision of programs for students with special needs., ..... o.00 ... o ... 27%.38%.#'2%.oO%o33% 84. Student's interest in learning ...........25 %.48 %.10 %..0 %.17% 85. Students learning the basic skills .......32 %.50 %..2 %..0 %.16% 86. Personal safety of students .. ............35 %.48 %..2 %..2 %.13% IF "NON- PUBLIC" OR "BOTH," ASK: 87. Now, I.want to ask you about the EXCELLENT .............50% non- public schools in Richfield. GOOD ..................39% Would you say on the whole the ONLY FAIR ..............0% non- public schools are excellent, POOR.** ....... 00 ... 0­11% good, only fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% 88. From what you have seen or heard, do you think the city's non - public schools have generally been get- ting better in recent years, been getting worse, or had they stayed about the same? GETTING BETTER ......... 2% GETTING WORSE .......... 0% ABOUT THE SAME......... 2% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED....35% 89. Would you say that Richfield non- YES ....................3% public schools are good enough NO .....................2% that they are a reason for you to SCHOOLS DON'T MATTER ... 1% stay in Richfield, or not? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 33% 90. Why do you say that? (PROBE) NO ANSWER, 95 %; TEACHERS, 1 %; ED QUALITY, 3 %; PROGRAMS, 1% GETTING WORSE, 1% From what you know or have heard, please rate the non- public schools in Richfield as excellent, good, only fair, or poor on the following.... EX GD OF PR DK • 91. Class size ................... ............78 %.22 %..0 %..0$..0% 6 9— %r7 92. Discipline .... 57� 43� ........................... ..0 %..0 %..0% 93. Number and range of course offered....... 22 %.78 %..0 %..04..0% 94. Availability of art, music, and per- formance arts courses ................ 04.1004.04..04..0$ 95. Quality of teaching .......... ............444.564..04..04..04 96. Learning environment in the schools ...... 444.564..04..04..04 97. Extra- curricular activities and team sports .................. ............404.604..04..04..0$ 98. The distance children have to travel to get to school .......... ............604.404..04..04..0% 99. Preparation of students for college .. .... 134.884..04..04..04 100. The upkeep of school buildings ........... 304.704..04..04..04 101. Responsiveness of teachers and other school personnel..*.**** .... e..** ... 70%.30%.-0%--0%--0% 102. Provision of programs for students with special needs.... 0 ....... 103. Student's interest in learning ... ........ 504.50$..04..04..04 104. Students learning the basic skills ....... .504.504..04..04..0% 105. Personal safety of students .. ............804.204..04..04..04 106. Moral and spiritual environment .. ....... .504.504..04..04..04 ASK EVERYONE: 107. in general, which of the following SAME BACKGROUNDS ...... 17% statements do you agree with most? DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS.574 A. Children are better off attending BOTH (VOL)...0000.0..0114 schools where students have sim- NEITHER (VOL)..........44 ilar social and economic back - DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 11% grounds; OR, B. Children are better off attending schools where students have a.vari- ety of social and economic back - rounds. Changing topics.... 108. Are there changes in the Richfield community which could be made that would increase the likelihood that you would remain here for the next decade or longer? (PROBE) NO ANSWER, 224; NONE, 354; MORE SHOPPING, 34; AIRPORT, 184; MORE HOUSING, 74; IMPROVE SCHOOLS, 34; LOWER TAXES, 14; QUAL LIFE, 64; REDUCE CRIME, 24; MORE PARKS, 24 SCATTERED, 24 In deciding where to live, some things may be more desirable but are not really as important as other things. Now, for each one of the following, please tell me if it would be absolutely essential to you, very important, somewhat important, or not too important, in deciding where to live. ES VI SI NI 'PK 109. It's a clean, well kept -up neighborhood ..414.504..84...04..14 110. It's a reasonably safe area.... • 111. The resale value of homes in the area .... 30 %.55 %.11L .M .3% 7 • °' f) RS VT ST NT nv 112. Being in a quiet neighborhood ............ 15$.58$.24$..3$..1$ 113. Street maintenance and trash clean -up in the neighborhood ..... ............24$.62%.12%..0$..1$ 114. Parking availability .....................19 %.50$.24 %..6 %..1% 115. Types of businesses in the area .......... 16 %.37 %.32 %.14 %..2% 116. Lack of vandalism in the area ............ 37 %.57 %..4 %..1 %..2% 117. Quality of schools ........... ............45 %.45 %..5 %..3 %..3% 118. Park programs in the area .... ............24 %.46 %.22 %..5$..2$ 119. Public transportation in the area ........ 12 %.40$.29 %.16$..3$ 120. Shopping areas nearby ........ ............20$.42 %.32 %..5$..1$ 121. Reasonable property tax rates ....... .....34 %.54$.10 %..1 %..1$ 122. Responsiveness of public safety services.33 %.53 %.11$..1 %..2% 123. Good day -care available for children ..... 23 %.37 %.20 %.13 %..7% 124. Convenience for travel to work ........... 22$.51 %.21 %..4 %..2% 125. Being in an area with people of diverse social and ethnic backgrounds ....... 10$.32 %.32 %.23$..3% 126. Different ages in the neighborhood ....... 10 %.37 %.26 %.22 %..4% 127. Churches serving the community ........... 17 %.40 %.33$..9$..2% 128. Strong community organizations ........... 11 %.49 %.26 %.12 %..2% 129. Family support services ..................10 %.43 %.34 %.10$..4% 130. What do you think is the greatest challenge facing the community of Richfield during the next few years NO ANSWER, 22 %; AIRPORT, 28 %; DEVELOPMENT, 7 %; SHOPPING, 4 %; EDUCATION, 4 %; CRIME, 5 %; TAXES, 4 %• TRAFFIC, 4 %; LIFE QUAL, 11 %; MEGA MALL, 2 %; MORE HOUSING, 5 %; SCATTERED, 6% 131. In general, do you feel the City is taking decisive action on managing issues that affect the community now and in the future? 132. Do you feel that the current park and recreational facilities in the city meet the needs of your household? 133. As your family matures, do you feel that the current offerings in the city's parks and recrea- tion system will continue to meet their needs in the future, assum- ing they are well maintained and updated? YES.**.*..* ... *.*** ... 66% NO*** .... * ....... * .... 16% DON'T XNOW /REFUSED.... 18% YES...*.* ....... 90% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 5% YES...................88$ No.....................7$ DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 5% As you may know, Richfield's current bonding levy will be expir- ing during the next few years. There has been a proposal to ask voters to extend that levy -- this action would not increase property taxes -- to undertake several projects. For each of the following, please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a bond levy that did not change your property taxes to undertake that construction.... 8 • FAV OPP DK /R 134. Earlier completion of the community park facilities at Veterans Memorial Park? 55% lit 34% 135. Earlier redevelopment and updating of equipment at neighborhood parks? 78% 10% 13% 136. Construction of a new Community Recreation Center including -a leisure complex and swimming pools at Veter- ans Memorial.Park? 61% 18% 20% Now, just a few questions for demographic purposes.... 137. What is your age, please? 138. What is the highest level of formal education you completed? 139. What is your marital status, please? 140. Do you own or rent your present residence? 18- 24 ..................8% 25- 34 .................64$ 35- 44 .................24$ 45- 54 ..................2$ 55- 64 ..................2$ 65 AND OVER... .........1% LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL..5% HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE..24% VO -TECH SCHOOL........ 12% SOME COLLEGE .......... 18% COLLEGE GRADUATE...... 31% POST-GRADUATE ......... 10% DON'T XNOW /REFUSED..... 0% SINGLE................23% MARRIED...............69$ DIVORCED...............7% WIDOWED.***** ... e*e.0*.0% REFUSED.... OWN-*-**** ... *.*ee ... *74% RENT... ee-oo ... ee ..... 26% .DON'T XNOW /REFUSED..... 0% 141. What is the occupation of the head of this household? REFUSED, 2 %; PROFESSIONAL, 26% OWNER- MANAGER, 18 %; FARM RELATED, 1 %; CLERICAL- SALES, 16 %; BLUE COLLAR, 31 %; RETIRED, 1 %; SCATTERED, 5% 142. Do any of the school -aged child- YES ...................35% ren in this household attend the No :...................5,6% Richfield Public Schools? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... at IF "YES," ASK: 9 0 f lam 143. How many are in grades Kindergarten 0: 31 %, 1: 47 %, through three? 2: 21 %, 3: 1% 144. In grades four through six? 0: 68 %0 1: 28 %, 3: 18 6: 3% 145. In grades seven and eight? 0: 75 %, It 13 %,, 2:'6 %, 3: 4 %, 4: 3% 146. In grades nine through twelve? 0: 80 %, 1: 9 %, 2: 7 %, 3: 4% 147. Do any of the school -aged child- YES ....................5% ren in this household attend non- NO .....................77% public schools in Richfield? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 18% IF "YES," ASK: 148. How many are in grades Kindergarten through three? 0: 30 %, 1: 70% 149. In grades four through six? 0: 60 %, 1: 30$, 2: 10% 150. In grades seven and eight? 0: 100% 151. In grades nine through twelve? 0: 50 %, 1: 30 %, 2: 20% 152. Are there any veterans in this YES ...................19% household? NO ....................81% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% 153. Are there any current members of YES ...................lot the American Legion, VFW, or their NO...... ..............90$ auxiliaries in this household? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.....0% 154. Which of the following categories _UNDER $12,500..........4$ includes your total pre -tax house- $12,500 - $25,000.......30% hold income? Please stop me when $25,001- $37,500.......32% I read the right one. $37,501 - $50,000.......27% OVER$50,000..........16% DON'T KNOW .............3% REFUSED................8% 155. Gender. (DO NOT ASK.) (IF FEMALE, ASK:) Do you work outside of the home? Thanks for your time. 10 FEMALE /AT HOME ......... 6% FEMALE /WORKS OUTSIDE-.44% s r- �1 F � k 3128 Dean (.oust • . nnrnneapous,inr�esotas4i�.; C] CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No. 57 Agenda February 22, 1993 Issue Statement: Determination of neighborhood park to be redeveloped in 1993. Background: When the City Council adopted the 1993 Capital Budget, it was decided that a neighborhood park, to be determined, would be redeveloped in 1993. Neighborhood parks awaiting major redevelopment are Sheridan Park, Madison Park, Nicollet Park and Washington Park. Sheridan Park, 65th Street and Thomas Avenue, and Madison Park, 63rd Street and Knox Avenue, are in the northwest sector of Richfield. The other nearest neighborhood parks are Jefferson Park, 68th Street and Upton Avenue, which received major redevelopment in 1992, and Monroe /Fairwood Park(s) at 67th Street and James Avenue. Nicollet Park, 63rd Street and First Avenue, is centrally located along the far north edge of the City. Its nearest neighborhood parks are Memorial Park at 67th Street and Fifth Avenue and Augsburg Park at 71st Street and Nicollet Avenue. It is expected that there will be construction at the well house in Nicollet • Park in 1993. Washington Park, 77th Street and 17th Avenue, is located in the far southeast corner of Richfield. The nearest neighborhood parks are Roosevelt Park, 77th Street and Fifth Avenue, and Christian Park, 69th Street and Bloomington Avenue. Washington Park will be affected by the 77th Street improvements scheduled to take place in 1994. The Community Services Commission and the Planning Commission each gave consideration to which neighborhood park should be considered for major redevelopment in 1993. Factors included in the consideration were providing for a geographic balance throughout the community and coordination with other projects. On January 12, 1993 the Community Services Commission unanimously recommended redevelopment of Nicollet Park in 1993. The Planning Commission, on January 26, 1993, also unanimously recommended redevelopment of Nicollet Park in 1993. Recommended Motion: Authorize $500,000 of Special Revenue for redevelopment of Nicollet Park in 1993. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Council has decided a neighborhood park should be redeveloped in 1993. s -i 2. The Community Services Commission recommends Nicollet Park be selected as the neighborhood park to be redeveloped in 1993. 3. The Planning Commission recommends Nicollet Park be selected as the neighborhood park to be redeveloped in 1993. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not do any park redevelopment in 1993. 2. Select another neighborhood park for redevelopment in 1993. Discussion /Decision Mode: The Council is asked to make a decision on February 22, 1993 to allow sufficient time for park planning and design with the neighborhood of the park selected for redevelopment in 1993 and to allow sufficient time for construction in 1993. JDP:ds n U r� U Respect-filly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 56 Agenda February 22, 1993 Issue Statement: Award of contract for water plant system equipment including: ♦ three emergency generators; ♦ one dehumidifier; ♦ two lime softening reactor /clarifier units; and ♦ two lime slakers. Background: The adopted 1993 budget included $3,180,000 in water utility funds for purchase of three generators and modification and expansion of water softening capabilities. The generators will provide emergency back -up and will reduce energy cost. The current water softening system is beyond its estimated life, prone to excessive maintenance requirements and requires replacement. If the equipment is not replaced, the City will not be able to assure a continuous supply of softened water. The contracts under consideration provide most of the mechanical equipment required for the conversion. The balance of the project cost, approximately $1.8 million, will include changes to the building to accommodate the equipment. The equipment • purchases under consideration represent an estimated one -third of total project cost and include the following: ♦ Three emergency generators; two of these generators will be used at separate well sites, the third generator will be used at the Water Plant. The generators will be capable of activating all seven wells. The addition of the generators at the well sites will significantly reduce energy cost. Use of the generators during peak NSP periods will cut demand charges by over one -half. In addition, the generators will provide emergency power during power outages, which is an extremely important safety concern. The payback on the pumps is estimated to be five to six years. The life expectancy of the generators is approximately 25 years. Five bids were submitted for the generators. The low bidder, Flaherty Equipment Corporation of New Brighton, submitted an acceptable bid in the amount of $231,641. ♦ Two bids were submitted for the dehumidifier. This equipment will be used at the Water Plant. The dehumidifier is necessary to avoid excessive humidity which can be a source of equipment malfunction and excessive maintenance. The low bid, submitted by Bry -Air Company of Sunbury, Ohio, in the amount of $32,611 is satisfactory. ♦ Three bids were submitted for furnishing the lime slakers. • Lime slakers are an integral part of the water softening process. The low bid from Chemco Equipment Company was in the amount of $57,750 is satisfactory. . ♦ One one bid was submitted for furnishing the lime softening reactor /clarifier equipment. The bidding specifications were written to permit several manufacturer of lime softening equipment to submit bids. Five manufacturers of lime softening equipment were prequalified to submit bids. Apparently, the four manufacturers decided not to submit bids because the equipment specified by the City was different than equipment normally provided by the manufacturers. The manufacturers apparently decided not to modify their equipment to meet specifications. In preparing specifications, the city engineers had also prepared an alternative design which would have permitted the use of standard equipment manufactured by other companies. However, in order to accommodate the standard equipment, the cost for building renovation would have increased by approximately $2 million. The sole bidder, Infilco Degrement Inc.; submitted a bid of $732,165. The total amount bid for procurement package No. l was $1,054,167. This amount is $130,000 below the Engineers' estimated price of $1,185,000. It should be noted that the new State law requiring cities to pay sales tax does not appear to apply to production of water. However, there is some question whether or not the tax will apply to replacement of equipment. The bids submitted have all been exclusive of sales tax. If it is determined that sales tax must be paid, there will still be sufficient funds to complete the project. Recommended Motion: 1. Accept the bid minutes /tabulation. 2. Award a contract to Flaherty Equipment Corporation in the amount of $231,641 for three generator sets as specified. 3. Award a contract to Bry -Air Company in the amount of $32,611 for furnishing of the dehumidifier as specified. 4. Award a contract to Infilco - Degremont Inc. in the amount of $732,165 for two units of lime softening reactor /clarifier equipment as specified. 5. Award a contract to Chemco Equipment Company in the amount of $57,750 for two lime slakers as specified. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Water Plant is in need of improvement to increase the ability to provide softened water to the community and to provide greater flexibility in the provision of that water. 2. The Community Services Commission has recommended, and the Council adopted, expansion of the Water Plant through construction of two side -by -side water softening units using the existing space at the Water Plant. 3. The greater efficiency associated with the improvements should reduce energy demand and thereby reduce operating costs. 4. Funding for such capital improvements at the Water Plant and for two emergency generators to be used at well houses is included in the adopted 1993 budget. 5. The low bids submitted for this portion of the project were within the estimated amount. 6. Bidders submitting the low bids are considered to be responsive and reasonable. The consultant has recommended award of contracts to the bidders named in the recommended motion. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not improve the Water Plant. The policy decision on whether to improve this portion of the Water Plant was affirmed in past Capital Improvement Program /Budget discussions. Cancelling the project now would not allow for added capacity nor for increased flexibility and efficiency. It should also be noted that the Water Plant is 30 years old and parts for equipment are difficult to find. 2. Award contracts to other than the recommended bidders. However, this would be additional cost for the project and neither the staff nor the consultant have verified the responsiveness and responsibility of the other bidders. 3. Award only some of the four contracts outlined in this letter. It should be noted that this is the first of three bidding packages for the total project and that separate portions,- with the possible exception of the two generators for the wells, cannot function alone and must be considered part of the larger project. The items in this bid package were bid first because of the time required to manufacture and deliver the equipment. It is imperative that all equipment and the whole of the process proceed in an organized manner to keep to a minimum any disruption during actual construction and installation at the Water Plant. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the February 22, 1993 Council meeting. Action is requested at this time to facilitate timely provision of the equipment provided in these contracts. It is necessary to await authorization to purchase equipment prior to receiving bids for building modifications. Respe,ct,fVlly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP :ds Attachment CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening February 9, 1993 10:00 A.M. AEquipment Procurement Package No. 1 Richfield Water Treatment Plant Bid No. 93 -04, City Project No. 703 -1592 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for equipment procurement package no. 1 Richfield Water Treatment Plant, bid no. 93 -04, as advertised in the official newspaper on January 27, 1993. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR ; BID ; TOTAL ; SECURITY CONTRACT NO. 1 - GENERATOR SETS - SECTION 16620 AND 16621 Northern Waterworks Supply ; 5$ Bid Bond ; $320,352.00 ; Brooklyn Park Cummins Diesel Sales Inc St. Paul; 5% Bid Bond $264,514.05 ; Flaherty Equip. Corp.New Brighton; 5% Bid Bond $231,641.00 Ziegler Bloomington; 5% Bid Bond ; $247,978.00 Interstate Detroit Diesel, Inc. ; 5% Bid Bond ; $262,705.00 ; Bloomington ; CONTRACT NO. 2 - DEHUMIDIFIER - SECTION 15850 ; EER Products, Inc. Mpls. ; Cashier's ; $ 37,945.00 ; Check Bry -Air, Inc. Sundbury, Ohio; Cashier's ; $ 32,611.00 ; Check CONTRACT NO. 3 - LIME SOFTENING REACTOR /CLARIFIER EQUIPMENT ; SECTION 11223 Infilco Degrement Inc. ; 5% Bid Bond ; $732,165.00 ; Richmond, Virginia r� r 2/9/9 Bid Minutes Page 2 VENDOR ; BID ; TOTAL SECURITY ; CONTRACT NO. 4 - LIME SLAKER - SECTION 11255 ; The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the February 22, 1993 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Vessco,Inc. Eden Prairie ; Cashier's ; $ 80,240.00 ; Check ; Chemco Lawrence, Pennsylvania! 5% Bid Bond $ 57,750.00 Automatic Systems Co. St. Paul; Cashier's ; $ 79,356.0.0 CheckI ; The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the February 22, 1993 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 55 Agenda February 22, 1993 Issue Statement: Request for a conditional use permit to allow an auto repair business at 7200 Cedar Avenue. Background: Steve Jensen is requesting a conditional use permit to construct an auto repair facility at 7200 Cedar Avenue. He currently owns and operates a transmission shop at 6958 Cedar. The proposal is for a 5,112 square foot building with a 2,528 square foot mezzanine. Repairs will be limited to light maintenance, and operating hours will be from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The site will contain 24 parking spaces. The proposed use is allowed in the C -2 distr conditional use permit. However, the use is 1989 comprehensive plan amendment (attached) this site as Mixed - Use - District A. District intensive development that will fit into the adjacent residential area. ict with a in conflict with a which has designated A encourages context of the The Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit by a 7 -2 vote. Although the compatibility of the proposed use with the existing land use is questionable, the Commissioners stated that the proposed use would not necessarily hamper future redevelopment in the area. Recommended Motion: Deny the request for a conditional use permit on the basis it is in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Auto repair is not necessarily suitable in a residential area because it may produce noise, traffic, and parking problems. 2. Section 545.09, Subdivision 6 stipulates that a conditional use permit may not be granted unless it is in accordance with the comprehensive plan: The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use for which the conditional use permit is sought is in compliance with the (i) comprehensive municipal plan, (ii) and officially adopted redevelopment plan and urban design guideline, and (iii) applicable parking regulations and landscape guidelines. (Amended Bill No. 1988 -7). 3. Approval of the conditional use permit may be detrimental to the health, safety, morals comfort, convenience or welfare of persons residing in the adjacent neighborhood due to potential overflow of parking and /or increase in traffic. Petitioner stated that at his present site, he routinely parks cars on the street during the day. The zoning for this site is general commercial and Section 545.09, Subdivision 5, stipulates that a conditional use permit may be issued for the proposed use if the following conditions are met: The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use for which the conditional use permit is sought will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental, (i) to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or (ii) to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. (Amended Bill No. 1988 -7). 4. The proposed use would occupy a single lot, thereby limiting potential for future lot combination to accommodate larger development. It also does not necessarily present a unified image within its context or as seen from TH77. Alternative Recommendation: Approve the request for a conditional use permit for an auto service station at 7200 Cedar Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. That a cash escrow be provided for landscaping; 2. That petitioner be responsible for maintenance of the entire site, including the contiguous boulevard; 3. That petitioner provide additional off - street parking if warned or cited for on- street parking issues; 4. That no on- street parking be allowed; and 5. That operation be limited to the hours between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Basis of Alternative Recommendation: 1. On January 26, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal for an auto service station and determined that the existing land use is of a residential scale and context, and future redevelopment of the area may lean towards a community oriented service such as that which is proposed. This would dictate a need to review the 1989 comprehensive plan amendment, which allows "wholesale, office and office retail" uses in this area, and indicates that an auto service station - retail service in nature is in conflict with the plan. 2. The proposed lot is sensitively developed and is in scale with the surrounding area. The building is well- designed and provides a buffer for TH77 and airport related noise. It also provides new activity and reinforces existing activity within the area. 3. The proposal has provided adequate landscaping along the western edge to provide a buffer from the adjacent residential area. The lighting has been designed in a way to minimize glare onto neighboring residential properties and meets all code requirements. Discussion /Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 22, 1993. The hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of the City of Richfield, City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of public hearing was published in the Sun - Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Resp lly submitted, Jame D. Prosser City anager JDP:ds Attachments • 0 3 RESOLUTION N0. 7587 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 4 WHEREAS, the TH77 /New Ford Town (Area) represents a special St.dy area of the L. and Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, study of this Area was prompted by the need to evaluate changing land use needs; and WHEREAS, this study has resulted in the formulation of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the city's Comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has considered this amendment and made recommendations to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Area study and related amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held'a public hearing on the proposed amendment on Tuesday, December 5, 1989 and approved Concept B; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on December 1989. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that: • Land Use'Concept B of the TH77 /New Ford Town Study is hereby adopted and thereby amends the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. PASSED by the City Council of the 51y of 'chf' d, this 11th day of . December, 1989. ATTEST: Thomasf Ferber City Clerk rr „,: Mayor 4/ 1N ZZ, Zi woo— •t .•- • it Ph ov CA -�... ► 1 � • `fit ` ' f�. � •` .fir✓ - ..+ y'` ,q 1 1 Ill �1 C �a ► i FFN L4 6 a� r a� AA W Vl V a� AA W Vl 1VA f;�:♦ too Al I its e � � ♦ t � �� 7A J 4 .:: ., is �� � � �.u, +r"' • � '�"'`�. . t i Cam' 5F CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No-54 Agenda February 22, 1993 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 of two Isco Storm Water Monitoring and Sampling Systems. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requires storm water testing to comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit regulations. The Utility Division will take composite samples from several rainfall events in the next year and have the water tested for pollutants. Quotations were requested from two vendors with the following results: Tech Sales Company $11,816 American Sigma 11,952 Recommended Motion: Approve a 1993 purchase order to Tech Sales Company for $11,816 for the purchase of two Isco Storm Water Monitoring and Sampling Systems. The system includes the bubbler flow meter, flowlink software and sampler for $5,908 each, a total purchase price of $11,816. Basis of Recommendation: 1. NPDES requires city stormwater testing to comply with permit regulations. 2. Tech Sales Company provided the lowest quotation. 3. The 1993 stormwater utility budget includes $10,000 for the monitoring and sampling system. The revised 1993 stormwater utility budget will include an additional $1,816. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose not to accept any of the quotations and instruct staff to obtain new quotes. Discussion /Decision Mode: Staff requests approval at the February 22, 1993 Council meeting. JDP:ds Respectfully submitted, J C sser 9 0 0 57C, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.53 Agenda February 22, 1993 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for riding lawn mower. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. City Unit #306, a 1987 John Deere riding lawn mower, is fully depreciated and due for replacement in 1993. Our experience indicates that if it is not replaced we will experience excessive downtime due to repairs. This mower has a 72" mowing deck, and is one of four mowers this size used in the parks. Two of the machines are John Deere models, and two are Toros. Staff obtained quotes from two local distributors of these commercial machines, requesting a two -wheel drive mower. However, John Deere does not make this size machine in a two - wheel drive. The quotes are as follows: Corcoran Equipment John Deere Model #1145 72" Side Discharge Deck 4 -Post Rollover Protection 4 -Wheel Drive /24 HP Diesel $12,800 + $832 (tax) TOTAL: $13,632.00 MTI Distributing, Inc. Toro Model #325D 72" Side Discharge Deck 4 -Post Rollover Protection 2 -Wheel Drive /25 HP Diesel $12,139 + $789.03 (tax) $12,928.03 While soliciting quotations, staff became aware that Toro now offers a mulching mower deck for their machine, which they introduced last year. Staff made inquiries of Toro customers who purchased these decks, and comments were very positive. The mulching deck eliminated much of the need for turf sweeping athletic fields all summer, and leaf cleanup in the fall along with the costs associated with hauling this material to a compost site for disposal. The additional cost for one of these decks is $1,284. John Deere does not have a mulching deck available for their machine at this time. Total cost for a Toro 325D with mulching deck would be $13,423 plus $872 in tax, for a total of $14,295. The 1993 Central Garage capital outlay budget contains adequate funds for this purchase. Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase purchase of a Toro $14,295. order to MTI Distributing, Inc. for the 325D mower with mulching deck for a total of 5E I Basis for Recommendation: 1. MTI Distributing, Inc. submitted the low quotation for the type of machine requested. 2. Costs for disposal of waste materials is getting higher each year, significantly cutting into the maintenance budgets. The addition of a mulching deck will not only be cost- effective, but more environmentally responsible. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council could reject the quotes and direct staff to obtain new quotations. 2. Council could reject the addition of the mulching deck. Discussion /Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval of this purchase at the February 22, 1993 Council meeting. RespectfU14y submitted, James D Prosser City ager 0 JDP:ds l�l 5h CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No. 52 Agenda February 22, 1993 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for unleaded gasoline. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The City participates in a Hennepin County joint purchasing program for the purchase of gasoline. Occasionally, the Hennepin County vendor is unwilling or unable to meet a lower price from another distributor. On February 10, 1993, Central Garage staff ordered 7,999 gallons of unleaded gasoline from Kelley Fuels, Inc. at a total price of $6,343.21. The price through the Hennepin County vendor for the same amount of gasoline would have been $6,751.16. Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to Kelley Fuels, Inc. in the amount of $6,343.21 for the purchase of unleaded gasoline. • Basis for Recommendation: 1. Unleaded gasoline was needed on Feburary 10, 1993. 2. This gasoline was the lowest price available at the time. 3. The gasoline has been delivered. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion /Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval at the February 22, 1993 Council meeting. JDP:ds r� U Respec ul submitted, James Prosser City Manager 5(2-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 51 Agenda February 22, 1993 Issue Statement: Consideration of the renovation of the Public Safety indoor firearms range. Background: As part of the 1981 expansion and remodeling of the Public Safety facility, a new indoor firearms range was installed on the Public Safety side of the City Hall building. The old range had been located on the Administrative Services side of the building. The new range equipment was purchased from, and installed by, Caswell International Corporation. For the past 12 years, the range has been in constant use by officers as they train and qualify with their firearms as required by the State Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) board and Richfield Public Safety Department policy. While the bullet trap, rail system and shooter's stalls are still in good condition, the audio system, the firing line security system, the master control console and the target • holders /carriers are in need of replacement. There are constant breakdowns associated with the carriers and their electronics. Because the technology used in the electrical controls and carriers is obsolete, and because the parts are not "off the shelf ", they are in limited supply and costly. Breakdowns render the range useless until repaired, and this is disruptive to Department firearms policies that require quarterly and sometimes monthly firearms certification. Caswell is the sole supplier of equipment for their ranges and they have inspected the range and submitted estimates for replacement of the needed equipment. Total cost for the renovation, including tax and labor, is $25,770.00. Funds for the renovation will be taken from the Drug /Felony Forfeiture Fund which, by statute, must be used for law enforcement purposes. The funds for the renovation were in the revised 1992 budget, but the project was not undertaken. Funding will be in the revised 1993 budget. Recommended Motion: Approve the renovation of the firearms range by Caswell International Corporation at a cost of $25,770.00. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The range is in need of repair. Breakdowns result in officers not being able to qualify per policy. 92-) 2. Firearms training is an essential activity for police performance and to reduce liability. 3. Caswell is the sole supplier of equipment for their ranges. 4. The City Attorney has advised that the renovation does not need to be bid because Caswell is the sole source of their equipment. 5. There is no alternative range that can be conveniently used instead of our range. 6. Funding is available via the Drug /Felony Forfeiture Fund. Alternative Recommendation: The Council may choose to deny the renovation of the firearms range. However, the frequency at which breakdowns occur with the current equipment is making firearms qualifications difficult to do in a timely manner. Attendant to the lack of firearms qualification is a significant liability by the City if an officer is involved in.a shooting. Discussion /Decision Mode: Caswell International is a worldwide distributor /installer of firearms ranges. Therefore, there is about a three month delay between order placement and the start of the renovation. If the Council decides to approve the renovation, it should do so now so the project can begin as soon as possible. JDP:ds lly submitted, James',EY. Prosser City M6nager Caswell International Corporation •gob, E 1� Shooting Ranges Since 1926 • 15 February 1993 Captain Barry Fritz Richfield Police Dept. 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Captain Fritz: Enclosed is our quotation to retrofit your indoor shooting range. Retrofitting will allow you to upgrade to the newest system by using the overhead rails and shooting stalls, and saving you thousands of dollars than if you purchases: a complete new system. I am also enclosing the referenced specifications for your use. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, CASWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Deloria (Dee) Shavinsky Sales Engineer DS:cnh Enclosure 221 Marshall Street N.E. • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 -1055 • (612) 379 -2000 • FAX: 612 - 379 -2367 ,5C -3 Captain Barry Fritz . Richfield Police Dept. Richfield, MN 15 February 1993 I• SUGGESTED BILL OF MATERIALS Range Parameters: 3 shooting positions 12' -6" room width 50' range length 3 ea Cas -Rail Target Retrieval Systems, Model CB- 4 -50', monorail type, oscillating 180 °, with three (3) intermediate distance stops. See Specification No. 2324. 1 ea Micro Console, Model MCCII, allows rangemaster complete operation of range, including timing and programming features. See Specification No. 2441. 3 ea Omicron Local Controls, Model EF5, mounted in the shooting stalls. See Specification No. 2420. 1 ea Wiring Harness, Model QW10, for three (3) positions (DC). See Specification No. 2492. 1 ea Theta Firing Line Security System, Model .EM30, with warning horn. See Specification No. 2612. 1 ea Theta Signal Light Control, Model EM8. See Specification No. 2612. 3 ea Theta Signal Light Terminals, Model EM15, in shooter's booth. See Specification No. 2612. 1 ea Theta Audio System, Model EG37, two -way type. See Specification • No. 2542. 5C--q Captain Barry Fritz Richfield Police Dept. Richfield, MN 15 February 1993 Page 2 Bill of Materials - Cont'd. 3 ea Theta Talk -Back Speakers, Model EG41, mounted to the shooter's booths. See Specification No. 2542. 4 ea Theta Ear Protector /Headsets, Model EG55. See Specification No. 2514. 1 ea Theta Audio Harness, Model EG43. As Req'd. Renovation of Leadalator Bullet Trap, Model LE5B -3. EQUIPMENT: $ 20,720.00 FREIGHT: $ 250.00 INSTALLATION: $ 4,800.00 TOTAL: $25,770.00 Any applicable taxes, fees, permits, licenses or bonds are the responsibility of Richfield Police Department. Delivery is about 60 days from receipt of your order. Quotation is firm for 60 days. • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No. 50 Agenda February 22, 1993 Issue Statement: Award of contract for professional construction engineering services for 77th Street Right of Way Clearance project to the firm of BRW, Inc. Background: The 77th Street Right of Way Clearance Project involves clearing the path for the new roadway by removing some trees and shrubs in an oak grove, demolishing and removing remaining buildings and garages, removing foundations, backfilling of basements, removal of septic tanks, and capping abandoned water wells. The City advertised in February 1992 for engineering consultant services to cover the entire design and construction supervision work consistent with State and Federal regulations. The BRW /OSM team was selected for the entire project by the City Council in February 1992. BRW proposed to perform the construction engineering work associated with the Right of Way Clearance plan for $52,194. An engineering firm is needed to supervise the demolition • contractor for this work. In addition to construction inspection, BRW, Inc. will maintain records for compliance with plans and specifications, prepare payment requests, and inform the City of progress and problems encountered on a regular basis. In their scope of work, BRW has included a survey for the relocation of some utilities as part of the demolition work in anticipation of the reconstruction of 77th Street. Recommended Motion: Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with BRW, Inc. in the amount of $52,194 to provide the City with professional construction engineering services for the 77th Street Right of Way Clearance Plan Project from I -35W to Portland Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. BRW, Inc. has expertise in transportation planning and engineering services for major transportation projects. 2. Selection of the engineering consultant for the 77th Street project was performed consistent with State and Federal regulations in February 1992. 3. BRW, Inc. has performed preliminary work related to this project. . 4. The scope of work and costs to perform the construction engineeering work appear reasonable. • 5. The original selection of this firm anticipated the continuation of this contract providing suitable performance was demonstrated in the initial contract. BRW has performed to our expectations. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Select another firm to perform this work. However, because of the need to have suitable background information, the cost is likely to be higher. In addition, selection of another firm would delay the project significantly. Discussion /Decision Mode: A decision is needed soon so that demolition work is not delayed past early April 1993. JDP:ds Attachment • • Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager < Projects >Contract:77thConsultant 5&0q- State Project No. SP 157 - 108 -09 77th St. Agreement City Project No. 8504 Work Type Construction Engineering Amount $52,194.00 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Agreement for Technical Services This Agreement between the City of Richfield acting through its Mayor and City Manager (hereinafter CITY) and Contractor: B R W Inc. Address: 700 Third Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55415 (hereinafter CONTRACTOR) witnesseth that: WHEREAS, CITY does not have available necessary and qualified personnel and facilities to conduct the services as described herein, and WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed: CONTRACTOR will perform all services and furnish and deliver all supplies set forth in the Special Conditions and /or the General Conditions of this Agreement and any attachments, enclosures or other conditions which are made part of this Agreement, by reference in the Special Conditions and /or General Conditions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this contract to be duly • executed intending to be bound thereby. Effective Date: March 1, 1993 Expiration: November 30, 1993 APPROVED: As to form and execution by the 1. CONTRACTOR 2. MAYOR (if a corporation, two corporate officers must execute.) By: By: Title: Date: Date: 3. CITY MANAGER By: By: Title: Date: Date: 4. Approved as to Form: CITY ATTORNEY By: • Date: SE)13 Special Conditions General Conditions Subject Budget n U Exhibit A: Progress Report Form Invoice Standards Invoice Cover Sheet Travel Regulations L_J INDEX Sections 1.0 - 9.0 Sections 10.0 - 34.0 ATTACHMENTS Designation A ENCLOSURES Total Pages Total Pages 8 Total Pages 1 1 1 1 . SPECIAL CONDITIONS Section 1.0 Term of Agreement Starting Date: Expiration Date: March 1, 1993 November 30, 1993 Section 2.0 Scope of Work 2.1 The services to be provided under this agreement include inspection, reporting on construction operations for compliance with Plans and Specifications, coordination and survey work for utility relocations, and preparation of payment estimates and final payment request for the clearance of the right -of -way for 77th Street from I -35W to Portland Avenue. The major work to be performed by a contractor in the right -of -way clearance plan includes clearing and grubbing of an oak woods near I -35W, demolition and removal of remaining homes and garages, removal of basement foundations and backfilling, removal of septic tanks, and abandonment of wells. The utility relocations are those needed to accommodate the proposed reconstruction of 77th Street. 2.2 Services are required from the time the Mn /DOT Contractor, hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR" is authorized to proceed with the right -of -way clearance until the final documentation has been checked and accepted by Mn /DOT and FHWA. 2.3 The consultant shall provide engineering services in accordance with Division I of the "Mn /DOT Standard Specifications for Construction, 1988 Edition" in the following general areas. 2.3.1 Provide construction coordination and project management services during the right -of -way clearance and utility relocation. 2.3.2 Provide resident inspection of right -of -way clearance activities. 2.3.3 Provide gradation testing for backfill of basements. 2.3.4 Coordinate and perform survey work needed for relocation of utilities necessary for the reconstruction of 77th Street. 2.3.5 Keep necessary records and prepare required reports and other documents related to the right -of -way clearance in accordance with State requirements. 2.3.6 Attend meetings as requested by the City for purposes of carrying out the right -of -way clearance plan and utility relocations. 2.4 The CITY reserves the right to supplement.this Agreement if it is determined to be in the best interest of the CITY to do so. Section 3.0 [Blank] �J 0 0 58-5 Section 4.0 [Blank] Section 5.0 Estimated Budget and Progress Reports 5.1 A Cost -plus method of payment will be used. See Attachment "A" for budget details. 5.2 Contractor agrees to not perform any work in excess of the .Estimated Budget of $52,194.00 for this Agreement without written authority to proceed. 5.3 The CONTRACTOR.shall submit monthly progress reports to the CITY showing an engineers estimate of the percent complete and relative to the amount expended to date. The progress report should also indicate the work completed, the work planned for next month, and any problems that exist. Section 6.0 Key Personnel The Consultant shall provide a Project Engineer and a Resident Project Inspector as defined in the Mn /DOT Standard Specifications for Construction, 1988 Edition. The following individuals shall be considered key personnel and subject to the provision of Section 14 "Contractor's Key Personnel" of the General Conditions: 1.Tony Heppelmann 2. Gary Orlich 3. Joe Maloney Section 7.0 Designation of CITY liaison Mike Eastling, Project Manager, City of Richfield, or his successor has been designated as CITY's liaison for this project. Section 8.0 fBLANKI Section 9.0 Additional Provisions 9.10 [BLANK] 9.20 Civil Rights. CONTRACTOR hereby certifies that it is an equal opportunity employer and will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Accordingly, 49 CFR 21 through Appendix C and 23 CFR 710.405(b) shall be applicable by reference and are made part of this Agreement by reference. CONTRACTOR shall incorporate these requirements in all subcontracts issued under this Agreement. 9.30 Reasonable Documentation. CONTRACTOR shall document the results of the work to the satisfaction of Mn /DOT and the FHWA. This shall include preparation of progress and final reports, plans, specifications and estimates, or similar evidence of attainment of the contract objectives. CONTRACTOR shall incorporate this requirement in all subcontracts issued under this Agreement. i Section 9.0 Additional Provisions (continued) 9.31 Right to Audit. To insure compliance with all applicable federal regulations and laws, the Commissioner on the Minnesota Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "Commissioner ", or his representative, shall have the right to audit, evaluate and monitor, as deemed necessary, the work to be performed under this Agreement. In addition, as provided under Minn. Stat. Sec. 16.095, all books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of CONTRACTOR are subject to examination by the Commissioner or his authorized representative and either the legislative auditor or the state auditor as appropriate. 9.32 Inspection of Work. The Commissioner shall, at all times during the Agreement . and for three years from the date of final payment of federal funds to the State with respect to the project, be accorded proper facilities for inspection of the work hereunder and shall at all times have access to the premises, to all books, records, correspondence, instruction, receipts, vouchers, memoranda of every description pertaining to the work hereunder. The Federal Highway Administration shall have the same right of inspection as accorded the Commissioner herein. 9.33 Records. CONTRACTOR shall maintain accurate records as to all costs incurred in connection with the subject of this Agreement and shall produce or cause to be produced for examination bills, invoices, vouchers and other reports and information at such reasonable time and place as may be designated by the Federal Highway Administration or by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representatives and shall permit extracts and copies to be made thereof. 9.40 Patent Rights. Applicable patent rights provisions described in 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 27 regarding rights to inventions are incorporated in this Agreement and shall be incorporated in all subcontracts by reference. 9.50 Copyrights. All right, title, and interest in all copyrightable material which CONTRACTOR shall conceive or originate, either individually or jointly with others, and which arises out of the performance of this Agreement, will.be the property of the State and are by this Agreement assigned to the State along with ownership of any and all copyrights in the copyrightable material. CONTRACTOR also agrees, upon the request of the State, to execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to assist the State to obtain and register copyrights on such materials. Where applicable, works of authorship created by CONTRACTOR for the State in performance of this Agreement shall be considered "works made for hire" as defined in the U.S. Copyright Act. Mn /DOT may permit copyrighting by CONTRACTOR. If copyrights are permitted, Mn /DOT and the FHWA shall have the royalty -free nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use the work for Government purposes. CONTRACTOR shall incorporate these 56 -9 Section 9.0 Additional Provisions (continued) requirements in all subcontracts issued under this Agreement. 9.60 Subcontracts. All contracts shall show that the CONTRACTOR is required to perform all work except specialized services or other tasks specifically exempted in the contract, except that governmental recipients of 23 U.S.C. 104(f) or 402 funds may subcontract as necessary to accomplish approved work program activities. 9.70 Certification for Federal -Aid Contracts. The CONTRACTOR certifies, by signing and submitting this bid or proposal, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: 9.71 No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the CONTRACTOR, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an office or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement. 9.72 If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan or. cooperative agreement, the CONTRACTOR shall complete and submit Standard Form LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 9.73 This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 9.74 The CONTRACTOR also agrees by submitting his or her bid or proposal that he or she shall require that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier subcontracts, which exceed $100,000, and that all such subcontractors shall certify and disclose accordingly. To: From: Project Manager D--, PROGRESS REPORT For Invoice No. ( sequential ) City Agreement No. 77th Street in Richfield Billing Period Ending (type of work) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ENGINEERING ESTIMATE I I I I I I I I I I I I (PERSON I TOTAL I% OF I I I I I% WORK I% WORK I WEIGHT I I HOURS I PERSONI BUDGET[ I I I ICOMPLETEICOMPLETEI % WORK IPERSONIACCRUEDI HOURS I HOURS I I TASKI I % OFI THIS I TO ICOMPLETEI HOURSI THIS 1ACCRUEDI USED I TEXT DESCRIPTION I NO.ITASK DESCRIPTIONITOTALI PERIOD I DATE I TO DATEIBUDGETI PERIODITO DATElby linel OF STATUS I - 1-- I------- 2-------- 1-- 3-- 1--- 4---- I--- 5---- I--- 6---- 1-- 7--- I-- -8-- -I---9-- -I -- -10--1 --- - -- 11--- -- - --- -I I I I I I I I I I I I =--- 1---------------- I----- 1-------- I-------- I-------- I------ I------- I------- I-------I---- -------- -- -- - ----I I I I I I I I I I I I ---- I---------------- I----- 1-------- I-------- I-------- I------ I------- I------- I- ----- -I--- ----- ------- - - -- - -I I I I I I I I I I I I --- -I---------------- I- - - - -I- I-------- I-------- I ------ I ------- I------- I ------- I - ----- -------- ------ - I I I I I I I I I I I I ---- I---------------- 1----- I-------- I-------- 1-------- I ------ i ------- 1------- I ------- I --------------------- I I I I I I I i I I I I ---- 1---------------- 1-----►-------- 1-------- 1-------- I ------ i ------- 1------- I ------- I --------------------- I I I I I I I i I I I I ---- 1---------------- I----- 1-------- I-------- I-------- I ------ i ------- ►------- I ------- I --------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I ---- I---------------- 1----- I-------- I-------- 1-------- I------ I------- I------- I--- ---- I-------------- -- - - - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I ---- 1---------------- I----- I-------- I-------- I-------- I------ I------- I------- I---- --- I- ------ ------- -- -- - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I ---- I---------------- 1----- 1-------- 1-------- 1-------- I------ I------- I------- I-------I--- -------- ------ -- - -I I I I I I I I i I I I ---- I---------------- 1----- 1-------- I-------- I-------- I------ I------- I------- I--- ---- I-- ------------- - - - - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I ---- I---------------- I----- I-------- I-------- I-------- 1------ I------- I------- I---- --- I---- ---- -- ------ - - - - -I TOTAL_ 1100.0I _NA_I —NA —I I I _1_1 I I I hereby certify that the above APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED statement is just and correct PAYMENT and payment has not been received. Project Manager • Est. Completion: (Frain Clmn.6 Progress Report) cc: , P.M., Mn /DOT Dist. _ RE: Agreement No. Work Order No. (if required) Period Ending: Invoice No. Invoice Date: Project Description: 77th Street in Richfield, Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- TOTAL ; TOTAL AGREEMENT ; BILLING AMOUNT ; TO DATE ------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 1. DIRECT SALARIES! See ATTACHMENT for breakdown ------------------------------------;-----------;----------- 2. OVERHEAD COSTS: Rate (Direct Salaries * Overhead Rate) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ------------ ----------- 3a. OTHER DIRECT NON- SALARY COSTS:; See ATTACHMENT for breakdown (attach support documentation) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ----------- - - - - - - - - - - - 3b. SUBCONSULTANT(s) COSTS: ; See ATTACHMENT for breakdown (show gross earnings as relates to this invoice) ------------------------------------ .----------- .----------- 4. FEE (PARTIAL PAYMENT): Fee Rate $ Maximwn Fee- .Fee = Fee Rate * (Salaries +Overhead) for this Invoice.)] .------------------------------------ .----------- .----------- SUB TOTAL: .------------------------------------ .----------- .----------- LESS RETAINAGE (2 %): .------------------------------------ .----------- .----------- TOTALS: ------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE: BILLED THIS INVOICE I I I 1 � 1 � I I hereby certify that the above statement is just and correct and payment has not been received. Title: Company: Date Approved for Payment � -J© GENERAL CONDITIONS THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE INTERPRETED PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Section 10.0 O0NSIDERATION For all services performed by CONTRACTOR pursuant to this Contract, the compensation to be paid by the CITY shall include any and all the following items: 10.1 Direct Salary Costs - shall be actual salary cost of employees time directly changeable to the services performed. 10.2 Overhead Costs - shall include Fringe Benefits and General and Administrative overhead costs and shall be a percentage of Direct Salary Costs. Overhead Costs shall be at the appropriate provisional overhead rate applicable to the work being performed and shall be adjusted based on final audits. 10.3 Fee - is in addition to the aforesaid costs. Fee shall be based on a percent of direct salary costs and overhead costs and shall not exceed a maximum established under Special Conditions of this Agreement. Fee payment shall be at the negotiated percentage for actual direct salary and overhead costs invoiced. In no case shall the m- w-umxn Fee for any work order be exceeded. It is understood that the maximum Fee will be subject to adjustment when there is an increase in the scope of work. 0 10.4 Other Direct Costs A. reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessary incurred by CONTRACTOR performance of this contract in an amount not to exceed the amount defined in the Special Conditions; provided, that CONTRACTOR shall be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "Commissioner's Plan" promulgated by the Commissioner of Employee Relations. CONTRACTOR shall not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside the State of Minnesota unless it has received prior written approval for such out of state travel from the CITY. B. cost and expenses not covered by Section 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4A and specially described in Special Conditions of this Agreement. Section 11.0 TERMS OF PAYMENT 11.1 PAYMENTS shall be paid by the CITY promptly after CONTRACTOR's presentation of invoices for services performed and acceptance of such services by the CITY's authorized agent. 11.11 Invoices shall be paid in an amount equal to 98% of the approved amount; retainage to be paid after satisfactory completion of the work under the terms of this Contract and as determined by final audit. 11.2 INVOICES /Partial Payment - CONTRACTOR may submit invoices, not more often than one each month. Such invoices shall identify the cost for work performed for the billing period and satisfy the requirements listed below: 11.21 FORMAT - Use attached format as cover or lead sheet when invoicing. 11.22 CONTROL INFORMATION - (To be shown on lead sheet of each monthly invoice ) A. Project Number B. Invoice Number, sequential C. Signature request on each invoice attesting to-services and costs as new and no previous payment received. D. A copy of each invoice is to be sent to the CITY's Project Manager for review and payment approval. 11.23 A PAYROLL COST BREAKDOWN which shall include the name of the employee, classification, rate of pay, hours worked, and total payment for each invoice period. 11.24 SIGNED TIME S=M for each employee listing dates and hours worked. Accounting- system - generated computer printouts of labor costs for the project may be substituted. The printouts should show the project number, each employee's name, hourly rate, regular and overtime hours, and the dollar amount charged to the project for each pay period. If computer printout sheets are used, copies of signed time sheets for each employee shall be made available for audit when and where requested by the CITY. Maintain current classification rates per project; include with first invoice and submit for approval updates relative to changes as needed. 11.25 DIRECT EXPENSES - Other direct non- salary costs shall be identified and supported with necessary documents to show that such costs are prioperly allowable to the project. Support documentation shall be separated in an orderly manner and correspond with each direct expense. 11.26 SUBOONSULTANT EXPE[JSES must have all the above documentation. 11.3 Overtime Premium Pay - for work or services performed by the CONTRACTOR or subcontractor may be authorized by specific tasks with advance approval by the CITY. Approval of premium pay for various classifications will be in accordance with existing CITY overtime policy. Hours worked in excess of regularly scheduled work days or in holidays without advance approval will be reim�bursed at regular rates. 11.4 Total Estimated Payment - If it appears at any time that the CONTRACTOR will exceed the total estimated payment stated in the Agreement, the CONTRACTOR agrees that he will not perform any work in excess of that amount until he has been advised by the CITY that a Supplemental . Agreement has been executed. 11.41 It shall be the responsibility of the CONTRACTOR to originate all requests for additional encumbrances, eonpensatien and for Supplemental Agreement. • i W 11.5 Final Payment - due the CONTRACTOR and subcontractor will be based on actual acceptable casts as determined by an audit conducted by the State of Minnesota. The audit will be conducted with the cost principles and procedures set forth in the Federal Aocquisiticn Regulations, 48 CFR 1 -31.2 (Contract with Commercial Organizations) which are made a part hereof by reference with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 11.51 Based upon final audit, the final payment to CONTRACTOR may exceed the maximum Contract amount without Supplemental Agreement. 11.6 When applicable, payments-are to be made from federal funds obtained from the CITY through current Titles, Acts, Laws and amendments. If at any time such funds become unavailable, this Contract shall be terminated immediately upon written notice of such fact the CITY to CONTRACTOR. In the event of such termination, CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. Section 12.0 CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT All services provided by 0ONTRACTOR pursuant to this Contract shall be performed to the satisfaction of the CITY, as determined in the sole . discretion of its authorized agent, and in accord with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. CONTRACTOR sha11 not receive the payment for work found by the CITY to be unsatisfactory, or performed in violation of Federal, State or local law, ordinance, rule or regulation. Section 13.0 fBUDKI Section 14.0 OONTRAC,' MIS KEY PERSONNEL 14.1 The CON'IRACTOR's key personnel specified by name in the Special Conditions of this Agreement are considered to be essential to the work being performed. 14.2 If, for any reason, substitution of a specified individual becomes necessary, the CONTRACTOR shall provide timely written notification to the Project Manager. Such written notification shall include the proposed successor's name and a resume of his or her qualifications. The CITY shall have a right to approve or reject the proposed successor. Section 15.0 ASSIGNMENT 15.1 CONTRACTOR shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this Contract without prior written consent of the CITY. Such written authority shall in no way relieve the CONTRACTOR from the primary responsibility for performance of the work. 15.2 All subcontractors agreements ex� $10,000.00 shall contain all required provisions of this Agreement. • 1 •� i �• a «a. 16.1 The CONTRACTOR shall confer with the CITY as often as is necessary in regard to the work to be done under this Agreement and perform the travel necessary for such conferences. 16.2 When requested by the CITY, the CONTRAC'T'OR shall assist the CITY in negotiations with other interested parties. Section 17.0 LIABILITY CONTRACTOR agrees to indemnify and save and hold the CITY, its agents and employees harmless fran any and all negligence claims and causes of action arising from the performance of this Contract by CONTRACTOR and CONTRACT'OR's agents or employees. This clause shall not be construed to bar any legal remedies CONTRACTOR may have for the CITY's failure to fulfill its obligations pursuant to this Contract. 18.1 Any and all employees of the CONTRACTOR or other person while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by, the CONTRACTOR under the Agreement shall not be considered employees of the CITY, and any and all claims that may or might arise uncles the worker Compensation Act of Minnesota on behalf of said employees or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the CONTRACTOR's employees or other person while so engaged on any of the work or services to be rendered shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the CITY. 18.2 In accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, 1990, Section 176.182, the CITY affirms that CONTRACTOR has provided acceptable evidence of compliance with the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirement of Minnesota Statutes, 1990, Section 176.181, Subdivision 2. Section 19.0 AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS When applicable, CONTRACTOR certifies that it has received a certificate of compliance from the Commissioner of Human Rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 1990, Section 363.073. Section 20.0 COM'lIANCE TO LAWS AND R©(AIIATIONS CONTRACTOR shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws, together with all crdi wins and regulations applicable to the work. CONTRACTOR shall procure all licenses, permits, or other rights necessary for the fulfillment of his obligations under this Agreement. Section 21.0 AUDITS AND IlVSPF7CPIOi�S 21.1 The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the CONTRACTOR relevant to this Contract shall be subject to examination by the CITY, Mn /DOT and legislative auditors. 21.2 Duly authorized representatives of the CITY, Mn /DOT and Federal Highway Administration shall have the right to inspect, during regular working hours, the work of the CONTRACTOR under the Agreement issued thereunder whenever they deem it necessary. a•;zi • p:#• is 22.1 Any reports, studies, photographs, negatives, or other documents prepared by CONTRACTOR in the performance of its obligations under this Contract shall be the exclusive properly of the CITY and all such materials shall be remitted to the CITY by the CONTRACTOR upon completion, termination or cancellation of this Contract. CONTRACTOR shall not use, willingly allow or cause to have such materials used for any purpose other than performance of CONTRACTOR 's obligations under this Contract without prior written consent of the CITY. 22.2 The originals of all reports, drawings, worksheets, plans, field notes, computations and other project data shall be,turned to the CITY as follows: - Upon written notiee.of termination of the Agreement. - Prior to final settlement of a dispute arising out of this Agreement. - Prior to final payment of the ultimate gross amount earned. 1 �.�i• « 23.1 CONTRACTOR shall furnish satisfactory evidence of insurance from loss by any means of all data furnished to the CONTRACTOR by the CITY and for partially completed data for which the CITY has made payment. 23.2 For work on railroad property, the CONTRACTOR must obtain Railroad Protective Liability Insurance in accordance with Mn /DOT Specification 1708.2 (1988 Edition) or its successor. U Section 24.0 DELIVE t BLE ' Si N ARDS 24.1 CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the accuracy of the work under this Agreement and shall promptly make necessary revisions or corrections thereto resulting from errors and amissions on the part of the CONTRACTOR without additional compensation. Acceptance of the work by the CITY will not relieve the CONTRACTOR of the responsibility for subsequent correction of any such errors and the clarification of any ambiguities. 24.2 The CONTRACTOR agrees that the plans and specifications provided to the CITY for this work shall be adequate and sufficient for the proper construction of the work and their intended purposes, and shall be consistent with standards of care applicable to CONI'RACTOR's profession. Section 25.0 ANTITRUST CONTRACTOR hereby assigns to the City of Richfield any and all claims for overcharges as to good and /or services provided in connection with this Contract resulting from antitrust violations which arise under the antitrust laws of the United States and the antitrust laws of the State of Minnesota. Section 26.0 OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT 26.1 CONTRACTOR shall not engage, on a full or part-time or other basis during the period of the Contract, any professional or technical personnel who are or have been at any time during the period of the Contract in the employ of the CITY, except regularly retired employees, without written consent from the CITY. 26.2 The CONTRACTOR warrants that the CONTRACTOR has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONTRACTOR, to solicit or secure this Contract, and that the CONTRACTOR has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide. employee working for the CONTRACTOR, any fee, commissions, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of the Agreement. Section 27.0 TERM OF AGREEMENT 27.1 This Agreement shall be effective an the date defined by Special Conditions, and shall remain in effect until date defined in Special Conditions, or until all obligations set forth in this Agreement have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. 27.2 The CITY may extend the aforesaid time completion period upon written request from the CONTRACTOR for delays encountered that are beyond control. The amount of such time extension shall be determined by the Consultant Agreement Engineer of the CITY who is authorized to grant such extension.. Section 28.0 CCLATION 28.1 This Contract may be cancelled by the CITY at any time, with or without cause, upon five days' written notice to the other party. In the event of such cancellation, CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to payment, determined on pro rata basis, for work or services satisfactorily performed. 28.2 The total payment will be determined by mutual agreement between the CITY and CONTRACTOR. The payment to the CONTRACTOR shall not exceed the total payment as set forth in the original Agreement or succeeding supplements of work orders. A Supplemental Agreement shall be executed setting forth the reduced amount of compensation the CONTRACTOR shall receive. Section 29.0 CON TRACT COIPLEM 29.1 The work to be done in connection with this Agreement may be changed by the request of the CITY, with the mutual concurrenoe of the CONTRACTOR; any such change shall be clearly and fully defined in writing, approved by both parties and total payment covering such change shall be negotiated under a separate Supplemental Agreement. 29.2 This Agreement, including all items incorporated hereunto by reference or attachment, contains all agreements and covenants between the CONTRACTOR and the CITY. No other understanding, provisions, or materials, whether written, oral, or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Basic Agreement, shall be deemed to exist or to bind either or both of the parties hereto. 30.1 To the extent of any inconsistencies. between the Special Conditions and the General Conditions, the Special Conditions shall control. 30.2 Any and all provisions of the General Conditions remain in force until they are specially and deliberately cancelled by the Special Conditions of this Agreement. • • 11 Consultant Services Reimbursement Rates for Travel Expenses as per State Travel Regulations - 1992 Rates will change as regulations change Subject Conditions Rate Mileage Company Car (1) $0.27 /mile Personal Car (1) $0.27 /mile Commercial Aircraft (2) Actual Cost Personal Aircraft (1) $0.43 /mile Rental Car (2) Actual Cost Taxi (3) Actual Cost Meals Breakfast (1) (5) $6.00 /person Lunch (1) (5) $8.50 /person Supper (1) (5) $14.50 /person Lodging Motel, Hotel, etc. (4) (2) Actual Cost Laundry /Dry Cleaning (1) $16.00 /week (After 7 continuous days in Travel Status) Telephone, Personal (1) (6) $2.00 /day Definition Travel Status: - Over 35 miles from Home Station and /or stay over night at commercial lodging (motel, etc.). - Leave home in travel status before 6:00 a.m. for breakfast expense that day. - In travel status after 7:00 p.m. for supper expense that day. - In travel status and /or more than 35 miles from Home Station for lunch expense that day. Restrictions (1) Maximum rate shown or lesser rate per actual reimbursement to employee. (2) Include receipt or copy of receipt when invoicing. (Coach Class for aircraft, standard car size, and standard room.) (3) Include receipt or copy of. receipt when over $10.00. (4) Reasonable for area of stay. (5) Gratuity is included in maximum cost. (6) To be in Travel Status and at commercial lodging. Consultant Services Invoicing Standards Format Use attached format as cover or lead sheet when invoicing. See attached sample. Control Information City Agreement Number City Work Order Number when required Invoice Number, sequential Signature request on each invoice attesting to services and costs as new and no previous payment received. Employee Wage Rates Maintain current classification rates per project; include with first invoice and submit for approval updates relative to changes as needed. Direct Expenses Per diem and Travel expenses - See attachment. • Mailings - Standard mailing services to be used unless written approval by a City representative is included for use of any special mailings such as Express mail services, Courier services, Facsimiles, etc., per project and /or Work Order. Equipment As per Agreement. All other Direct Expenses to have a receipt for said item when invoicing. Rental. Equipment rentals to have approval by a City representative prior to use on the project. Said approval(s) to be in writing with a City representative's signature as support documentation when invoicing for such. Retainasie As per Agreement. • Exhibit "A" Budget Estimate for Construction Engineering Services Based upon a three month period plus final documentation needed to meet Mn /Dot and FHWA requirements. Any construction delays that extend this anticipated construction period will require additional hours over and above those listed below. LABOR COSTS General Employee Classification Hours Ag.Hourly Rate Amount Inspector 400 $24.00 9,600.00 Project Manager 60 $32.00 1,920.00 3- Person Survey Crew 150 $40.00 6,000.00 LABOR COST 17,520.00 OVERHEAD @ 159.74 27,986.00 SUBTOTAL: Labor & Overhead 45,506.00 • FEE @ 12.5$ 5,688.00 SUBTOTAL: Labor & Overhead 51,194.00 Other Direct Expenses (Travel Expenses, Outside Vendors) 1,000.00 TOTAL 52,194.00 • 51q CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 49 . Agenda February 22, 1993 Issue Statement: Adoption of a resolution approving expenditure of $15,000 from Richfield's Municipal State Aid (MSA) construction account. Background: The Richfield engineering staff were informed that with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1991, all existing crosswalks are required to have curb cuts or ramps by January 26, 1995. Upon investigation, staff found approximately 30 Richfield locations, all on 66th Street, not in compliance with the law. About one -third of the ramps were completed in 1992 as part of the annual sidewalk, curb and gutter contract. Prior to this time, state aid funds could not be used for this purpose. In September 1992, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) granted an administrative variance, allowing municipalities to use state aid dollars to fund construction of ramps. Because the ramps are an "off- system" improvement (not part of the City's MSA system), the State will not allow the City to receive funds from the City construction account without City Council authorization. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing expenditure of $15,000 • from Richfield's MSA construction account for the proposed improvement. Any funds that are approved but not spent will remain in Richfield's MSA construction account. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Ramp construction is necessary to comply with State and Federal directives. 2. Providing ramps will improve accessibility. 3. The cost will be paid by MSA for general improvements. 4. Council approval is necessary to obtain the MSA funding required for this project. Alternative Recommendation: Council could choose not to approve MSA funding for this work; however, the general maintenance funding is available. This is necessary to comply with State and Federal directives. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item appears on the February 22, 1993 Council agenda. Staff is requesting approval at this time. Resp tf ly submitted, Jame Tager rosser City JDP:ds Attachment 5fi- I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF $15,000 OF RICHFIELD'S MUNICIPAL STATE AID CONSTRUCTION MONIES OFF - SYSTEM FUND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PEDESTRIAN RAMPS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT WHEREAS, it has been mandated that Richfield construct pedestrian ramps, by Federal and State regulations; and WHEREAS, the Municipal State Aid (MSA) division of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has granted an administrative waiver allowing the expenditure of MSA construction account funds for the purpose of constructing the ramps; and WHEREAS, the cost of such improvement is estimated to be approximately $15,000; and WHEREAS, City Council approval is needed to expend Municipal State Aid funds for off - system improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield does hereby appropriate from its Municipal State Aid Construction Account the sum of $15,000 to apply toward the said off - system' improvement, and request the Commissioner of Transportation to approve this authorization. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of February , 1993. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 Martin J. Kirsch Mayor