3-25-91 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 65
Agenda March 25, ?991
Issue Statement:
The American Automobile Club Association (AAA) is presenting a
Pedestrian Citation Award to the City of Richfield.
Background•
Each year the AAA reviews achievements by communities in their
pedestrian safety programs. This is the fourth year Richfield
has received this recognition of being. pedestrian-fatality free.
Recommendation:
JoAnne Boche, Community Services Manager, AAA Foundation for
Safety, will make a presentation to Mayor Kirsch.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
Mayor Kirsch receive the award on behalf of the community.
ly submitted,
Jame
City
Prosser
JDP/JDE:lmv
~a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 66
Agenda March 25, 1991
Issue Statement:
Resolution approving a solid waste source reduction plan for
Richfield City offices, in compliance with 1991 Hennepin County
recycling grant guidelines.
Background•
Richfield currently participates in Hennepin County's recycling
grants program, which provides up to 80$ reimbursement for
eligible recycling expenses. Richfield residents pay into the
County recycling grants fund through waste disposal tipping fees
passed on to them by garbage haulers. The. City has chosen to
participate in the recycling grants program as long as Hennepin
County continues to subsidize municipal programs, and as long as
Richfield residents are paying into the County recycling fund.
In order to receive 1991 recycling funds from Hennepin County,
the City must adopt an in-house waste reduction plan for City
government offices. At its January 28 meeting, .the Council
granted staff the authority to prepare such a plan. .The plan
(see attached) analyzes current waste reduction efforts in City
offices. and makes recommendations for further waste reduction to
occur. Some of the major recommendations of the plan include the
following:
-- Replacing worn-out copiers with ones that can more easily
make dual-sided copies;
-- Actively encouraging employees to use personal coffee
.cups instead of disposable cups, print on both sides of
paper, and avoid throwing away items (such as file
folders) that can be used again;
-- Replacing disposable towels in bathrooms with cloth
towels or electric dryers, if costs for doing so are
comparable;
-- Where feasible, using reusable air filters in lieu of
disposable ones; and
-- Reducing number of excess magazine subscriptions and junk
mail by sending pre-printed postcards asking to be
removed from mailing lists.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution approving a solid waste source
reduction plan for the City of Richfield.
yA-i
Basis of Recommendation:
Hennepin County recycling funds will not be distributed to the
City until the City has submitted an in-house waste reduction
plan for City offices that has been approved by the Richfield
City Council.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City could choose not to adopt a waste reduction plan;
however, the City would not qualify for reimbursement from the
County for recycling expenses and Richfield residents would
consequently pay more for. trash collection service.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Adoption of the resolution is recommended at this time so that
the City can submit its waste reduction plan to Hennepin County
by the County's April l deadline.
Respectf submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eb-d
Attachments
~~-z
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1991 CITY OFFICE SOLID WASTE SOURCE
REDUCTION PLAN, PURSUANT TO HENNEPIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL RECYCLING
GRANT GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, Richfield will participate in Hennepin County's
recycling grants program as long as the County continues to
subsidize these programs and as long as Richfield residents must
pay into the recycling fund; and
WHEREAS, in order for the City to receive funds from the
County for costs associated with the recycling program, the City
must adopt a solid waste source reduction plan for City offices;
and
WHEREAS,. source reduction is the number one waste management..
priority on the state level.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED, that the City Council adopt
the 1991 solid waste source reduction plan, in accordance with
the 1991 Hennepin County municipal recycling. grant guidelines.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
25th day of March, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
~A-3
CITY OF -RICHFIELD
1991 Solid Waste Source Reduction Plan
Introduction
In accordance with Hennepin County. 1991 recycling grant
guidelines, the City of Richfield has prepared a plan for solid
waste source reduction within City offices. The following plan
analyzes current waste reduction activities and suggests areas
for further waste reduction to take place. The plan's focus
emphasizes individual employee participation, a critical element
in achieving program success.
I. Definition and Goals
in the 1980 Waste Management Act (Minn. Stat. 115A), waste
reduction is listed as the number one priority among waste
management goals for Minnesota. Waste reduction conserves energy
and resources, reduces the volumes of garbage that must be
incinerated or landfilled, requires no costly facilities to
implement, and reduces disposal costs for individuals,
communities and businesses.
Waste reduction is defined by the Minnesota Office of Waste
Management as "any activity that prevents waste." For the
purpose of .this plan, activities that qualify as waste reduction
techniques include the following:
-- Reuse of .products in their original form;
-- Reduction of waste that is thrown away;
-- Purchase of products with longer, more useful lives;
-- Creation of new uses for materials before they are
disposed of or recycled.
II. Existing Source Reduction Activities
The following is a list of waste reduction activities currently
engaged in by Richfield City offices and City projects:
-- Reusing or recycling toner cartridges from laser
printers;
-- Creating notepads from
-- Circulating some memos
disseminating multiple
-- Replacing mercury vapo
sodium lights;
-- Replacing incandescent
fluorescent lights.
scratch paper;
in lieu of producing and
copies;
r street lights with high pressure
bulbs with longer lasting
III. Planned Source Reduction Activities
The City is proposing to implement the following activities to
further waste reduction in City offices:
yA-y
-- Replacing worn-out copiers with ones that can easily make
dual sided copies.;
-- Actively encouraging employees to: (a) use personal
coffee cups in .place of disposable cups; (b) print on
both sides of paper; (c) buy products in bulk and/or
products that are not heavily packaged; (d) avoid
throwing away materials that can be used again (like file
folders.) or made into other products (such as scratch
paper into note pads);
-- Posting signs in copy areas asking employees to print on
both sides of paper;
-- Reducing number of .excess magazine subscriptions;
reducing dunk mail by sending pre-printed postcards
asking to be removed. from mailing lists;
-- Using bulletin boards more extensively. for announcement
purposes;
-- Replacing disposable towels in bathrooms with cloth
towels or electric dryers;
-- Where feasible, using reusable air filters in lieu of
disposable ones (such as at the City Garage);
-- Purchasing repairable instead of non-repairable products;
-- Reusing packing materials and containers, or donating
them to businesses that can use them again;
-- Other activities as determined by employee input and
periodic assessments.
Whenever it can be demonstrated that the costs for implementing
these, or other, waste reduction activities are comparable to the
costs of current activities, the methods that are the least
waste-intensive should be given priority. If the economics are
unclear, alternative activities could be implemented on a trial
basis to ascertain their financial impact. If needed,
Richfield's Solid Waste/Environmental Specialist will provide
administrative support to institute changes.
IV. Education and Promotion Plan
The City of Richfield's Solid Waste/Environmental Specialist will
be the primary coordinator of this project. The City's Employee
Advisory Committee has agreed to work with the Solid Waste
Specialist to implement and oversee the plan. One employee from
each City division serves as a representative on this committee.
City employees will receive a packet of information describing
waste reduction plans and activities on or before April 15.
There is a possibility of a workshop being held in conjunction
with the distribution of materials, although that has not yet
been determined. Employees will be updated on the program on a
regular basis throughout the year (bimonthly, or more frequently
if needed).
r'
V. Implementation Date and Plan
The anticipated starting date for this project is April 15.
Members of the Employee Advisory Committee, along with Department
Managers, will be responsible for encouraging waste reduction
within their departments. Richfield's Solid Waste Specialist
will track the progress of planned activities, and will discuss
the program's progress at Employee Advisory Committee meetings.
Individual employees will have the responsibility to follow the
majority of the activities listed under Section III.
VI. Reporting to the County
The City will provide information on source reduction activities
to the County on the semiannual-and annual recycling reports.
~ `[ U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.67
Agenda March 25, 1991
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a resolution of opposition to Double Pension Cost of
Living Mechanisms (13th Check).
Background:
In .1987, the Minnesota legislature adopted a statute which
provides for an additional inflation adjustment for Minneapolis
police and paid firefighter pension plans. Originally, the bill
was to affect all police and paid firefighter pension plans such
as Richfield's, but was adopted with the much narrower
applications.
while the law passed in 1987 did not directly affect local Police
and Fire Relief Associations such as Richfield's, it is likely
that a similar bill will be reintroduced in this legislative
session.. .Such a bill would most likely be targeted toward relief
associations like Richfield's and could have a very significant
adverse financial impact upon the resDectizre f,~nA~ i n f„~„~
The legislation passed in 1987 makes provision for retirees to
share directly in any investment income over a specified target
amount. This income from investment returns is then distributed
to eligible members in the form of a "13th Check." However,
members do not share the risk or consequences of below targeted
investment returns.
Most local relief associations already have a built-in provision
that escalates monthly retirement payments by the same percentage
an active member's top wage rate is increased each year. Thus,
if firefighters get a 4$ increase in pay, firefighter retirees
also receive a 4$ increase in retirement payments.
The proposed "13th Check" legislation would provide a double
escalator for retirement payments. It would delay the City's
progress toward having both the Police and Fire Relief
Association retirement plans fully funded by the year 2010 as
required by law. Ultimately, the City's taxpayers would have to
make cash contributions in the form of taxes to make up the
difference, if necessary.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt a resolution of opposition to Double Pension Cost of Living
Mechanisms (13th Check).
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Opposing the "13th Check" legislation would
with the City's mandated goal of attaining
the Police and Fire Relief Associations on
December 31, 2010..
be in keeping
full funding in
or before
y~-I
2. Both of the City's relief associations already provide for
annual monthly benefit adjustments equal to the wage
adjustment given to active police. and firefighter personnel
respectively.
3. A partner in the City's auditing firm of Deloitte & Touche
has reviewed the "13th Check" legislation and recommends
that the City oppose the legislation.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City could not take a position pro or con on the "13th
Check" legislation.
2. The City could support the "Thirteenth Check" legislation.
DiscussioJDecision Mode:
The resolution. is presented to the City Council at this time to
allow ample time to prepare for the next legislative session.
Respec ully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP;ff
~~- z
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO DOUBLE PENSION
COST OF LIVING MECHANISMS (13TH CHECK)
WHEREAS, H.F. No. 127/S.F. No. 370, have been introduced and
would authorize investment related post-retirement adjustments in
addition to annual existing cost of living adjustments for local
police and paid firefighter relief associations; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield Police Relief Association pension
fund is only funded 80.8$ and the Richfield Fire Relief
Association pension fund is only funded 56.1$; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is already contributing an
extraordinary amount of salary for the members of these two local
police and fire funds as compared to the amount contributed for
officers currently in the PERA Police and Fire Fund; and
WHEREAS, .claims that these and similar proposals, if passed,.
will reduce the City's costs, measure only short-term financial
demands .and do not compare short and long-term City contribution
rates for proposals to adopt alternative actuarial assumptions
with no benefit increase involved; and
WHEREAS, the current budgetary crisis of the State of
Minnesota demonstrates that the City of Richfield will be faced
with the. prospect of long-term revenue shortfalls; and thus
short-term expenditure shifts with later increases will only
exacerbate City financial problems.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by unanimous vote of its City
Council, the City of Richfield hereby expresses its opposition to
H.F. 127 and S.F. 370 and other similar proposals to provide
additional benefits to retirees of local funds based upon
investment performance of the fund's assets while escalation
remains in effect.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Senator Riveness and
Representatives Garcia and Henry are urged to convey the City's
position to the members of the Legislative Commission on Pensions
and Retirement and to the leadership of each House and to
vigorously resist all such local pension changes which will add
to the short-term or long-term costs of the City of Richfield.
y ~-3
The Clerk is instructed to -transmit a certified copy of this
r resolution to members of the City's legislative delegation and to
the League of Minnesota Cities.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 25th day of March, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
~C
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTd~I
Council Letter No. 6g
Agenda March 25, 1991
Issue Statement•
Approval of the•1991 Labor Agreement with the International Union
of Operating Engineers Local No. 49 and the City of Richfield.
Background:
City staff has completed negotiations on a labor agreement for
the year 1991 with the International Union of Operating Engineers
Local 49 unit, subject to Council approval. The bargaining unit
consists of approximately 40 City employees including Community
Service Workers, Mechanics-and Water Plant Operators.
The significant changes which have been negotiated for the year
1991 are as follows:
• An adjustment of 4$ over 1990_ wage rates for all
classifications.
• A $30.00 monthly increase in the City's contribution for
dependent health insurance for a maximum of $240.00/month.
This maximum contribution is identical to other City employee
groups for 1991.
• A new benefit of dental insurance. The City's contribution for
single dental insurance is a maximum of $18.00/month. This
maximum contribution is also identical to other City employee
groups for 1991.
• The maximum bank of compensatory time hours was increased from
60 to 80 hours..
• The implementation of a pay progression of five steps for
Comn-unity Services Worker I, where advancement is based on
performance.
• The elimination of Light Equipment Operations, Working Out of
Class pay. Eligible employees will no longer receive a premium
pay differential of between $.87 to $3.53 per hour for time
operating certain pieces of equipment.
• Implementation of a Drug and Alcohol resting policy for all
members of the bargaining unit.
The term of the Labor Agreement is from January 1 through
December 31, 1991.
Recommended Motion: .,
Adopt the attached resolution approving a Labor Agreement with
the International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 49 unit
for the year 1991..
~e-i
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The City has met and negotiated with Local 49 for the
settlement of the 1991 Labor Agreement and has .agreed upon a
tentative settlement as outlined in this Council letter.
2. Wage and benefit settlements are comparable to other City of
Richfield employee groups.
3. The package contains a mandatory Drug and Alcohol Testing
Program which is desirable for the City.
4. The Local 49 employees have voted on the issues and have
given their approval.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not approve the Labor Agreement, requiring further
negotiations and/or arbitration.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify
payroll records and enact the new pay rates retroactive to
January 1, 1991 as soon as possible, it is recommended that the
City Council act on March 25, 1991 to adopt the attached
resolution providing for the adoption of the 1991 Labor
Agreement, effective January 1, 1991.
Respectf lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP:ff
~ ~~z
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING ADDENDUM
TO LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
AND INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
LOCAL 49 AFL/CIO FOR THE YEAR 1991
WHEREAS, the City Manager has reached an agreement with the
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 for the year
1991; and
WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts
between the City and the exclusive representative of employees in
an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by Council
resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does
hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield
and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 for
the year 1991, and that the City Manager is hereby authorized to
execute the same of behalf of the City of Richfield.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 25th day of March, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
~I D
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 69
Agenda March 25, 1991
Issue Statement•
Resolutions relating to a proposed street lighting improvement.
Background•
The homeowners at 6705 First Avenue. no longer .wish to allow the
resident of 6709 use of their driveway. The resident at 6709
wants to construct a new driveway and has asked that the
streetlight in front of his house be relocated. The streetlight
would then be located on the boulevard in front of 6713 First
Avenue.
In July of 1990, staff advised the resident at 6709 First Avenue
that the cost of relocating the streetlight would be $1,140. He
has asked if it would be possible to assess the cost to his
property taxes.. The .City .Attorney's office has prepared all of
the necessary agreements and waivers, and the affected residents
have submitted the completed paperwork. One of the owners of
6713 First Avenue is not currently residing at the property. The
City is making every effort to contact this property owner to
inform him of the project.. Signature of this property owner is
not necessary for the project to proceed.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolutions relating to the street lighting
relocation.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The affected resident has requested the work be done.
2. The resident has signed all of the agreements and waivers
necessary to have the cost of the relocation assessed to his
taxes.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council could deny the petition to have the work done.
2. Council could delay action until such time as all signatures
are obtained. However, staff hopes to have all signatures by
March 25 and, in the event that is not the case, the project
may proceed without the signature of the 6713 First Avenue
property owner.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is asking for approval at this time in order to complete
the work as soon as frost leaves the ground.
Respectfully submitted,
JDP/reb
Ja D. Prosser
Ci y anager
y ~~-- l
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION
AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY. COUNCIL OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA:
1. A certain petition requesting the streetlight on the
boulevard abutting the property at 6709 First Avenue be relocated
to the boulevard abutting the property at 6713 First Avenue by
Leonard and DeeAnn Clark and James and Alice Murphy, filed with
the Council on March 25, 1991, is hereby declared to be signed by
all owners of property affected thereby.. This declaratioO is
made in conformity to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.035.
2. The petition is hereby referred to the Operations
Coordinator and he is instructed to report to the Council with
all convenient speed advising the Council as to whether the
proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best
be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement,
and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 25th
day of March, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
~i o--z
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT, ORDERING IMPROVEMENT
AND. ORDERING WORK DONE BY DAY LABOR
WHEREAS, a certain petition requesting the improvement
with reference to moving the streetlight on the boulevard
abutting the property at 6709 First Avenue to the .boulevard
abutting the property at 6713 First Avenue, was duly presented to
the Council on the 25th day of March, 1991; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the resolution of the Council adopted
March 25, 1991, a report has been prepared by the Operations
Coordinator with reference to moving the streetlight on the
boulevard abutting the property at 6709 First Avenue to the
boulevard abutting the property at 6713 First Avenue, and this
report was received by the Council on March 25, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the affected property owner has waived all rights
of notice of hearing on the proposed improvement in accordance
with the Agreement of Assessment and Waiver of Irregularity and
Appeal; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost of such improvement does not
exceed $5,000,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. The Council finds and determines that said petition was
signed by all affected owners of real property abutting upon the
street named as the location of the improvement.
2. The Council will consider such improvement in accordance
with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all
of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of $1140.
3. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the
Council resolution adopted March 25, 1991.
4. The Operations Coordinator shall proceed under the
direction of the Council, as given from time to time, to carry on
all work in connection with such improvement in accordance with
the resolutions herein approved.
Adopted by the Council this 25th day of March, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
yE
CITY-OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.~p
Agenda March 25, 1991
Issue Statement:
Award of contract to design, construct and install a single
tower, two flume, fiberglass water slide at the Richfield
Municipal Pool, 630 East 66th Street.
Background:
The traditional swimming pool continues to lose money. Earlier
pools were designed with the thinking that the people using the
pool were coming to actively swim. The fact is that most people
want to play, have fun, and relax in the water and not actively
swim. This change has caused existing pools to renovate to
leisure pools and/or add water attractions. The addition of the
water slide on the east side of the pool is a means to attract
additional people to the pool.
The adopted 1991 Capital Budget includes $250,000 for the water
slide project. Funding would be made available through the
Permanent Improvement Revolving account. The additional revenue
generated by the water slide should pay for the slide in five
years and eliminate the annual pool deficit. After five years,
the pool profits will be a source of additional revenues for
recreational improvements.
On March 12, 1991, bids were opened in accordance with legal
requirements. Three alternates were included in the bid package:
1) install a bridge for patron access around the .pool, to cross
over the two entry tubs; 2) the City would provide the
electrician for installation and 3) rather than a single pump for
both slides, two pumps and motors would be installed to operate
each slide individually. The results were as follows:
Base Bid
AllTech $198,700
Pro Slide $168,735
Miracle $224,438
Associated $258,800
Alternate #1
1 Bridge )
Alternate #2
1Electrician)
Alternate #3
ITwo Pumps)
+$ 5,000
+$ 3,800
+$ 9,520
+$18,600
+$ 4,000
-$ 500
-$10,870
-$ 4,900
+57, 200
+$6, 500
-$2,100
+$5,100
Recommended Motion:
Approve the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract,
including the base bid and alternates number one and number
three, to AllTech Engineering Corp., 815 East 79th Street,
Bloomington, MN, 55420 to design, construct, and install the
water slide for a net total contract award of $210,900.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The bid from Pro Slide was for slides with a total length of
only 323 feet rather than the bid specifications of
approximately 400 feet.
~F-i
2. The bid submitted by AllTech is the lowest of the bids
meeting specifications. Although not originally submitted
with the bid package, AllTech provided the design and layout
criteria immediately upon inquiry into the irregularity.
3. The slide is being designed and manufactured by Whitewater
Industries, a worldwide leader in .water slide manufacturing.
4. AllTech Engineering has a good work record. Five references
were checked.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council may choose to reject all bids and request staff to
re-bid the water slide for construction to begin in the fall
and completed next May. The bids may be slightly lower but
the City would lose slide revenue for this year.
2. Council may choose to award the contract to another vendor
submitting a bid on March 12, 1991.
3. Council may choose not to install any water slide.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
In order to .complete the project in this construction season,
staff is requesting the contract be awarded at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/akp
Attachment
~I~=z
o .
~~
~~
td
3~O
~ ~''~ O
W
OO
` ~
~ O ~O O N
'-' ~^~~
~ o ono H
a
aA •do
roo ado
roo ~o
roo roo .e
fA d-> •~ ~
Q m 3
td r•i
cC N
O r-I roO
c0 to v
{~
~ fA • H !n ~ ro N ~p ~
~
~ E Z `~
~ ~
o
a~i tea v° ° ° °
~
~ .
•
Nw o o ~
~ N .
F F •
~o •
roO v
•
~o oo
a +~
co
~
•~ o
~a ~ ~ o
~+
ro aAU
Qma roo
° roo
coo ro~
a~ao roo
• ~ ;
b
roo b~ aroi
Q a~
~ a~v N b
w o
c a~ iaio
a o° ° ° °
• •~ ~ v .-c w o o o
,~ e o ~' a~•~ o ~ aai cn Fro ro°o ~°o roN ° c°~
p O
~ p~C .p~~, ~a ~ QAa ~~ roO bcn bw ro
o
z
a
ti •,~
m
o ~
cn ~
o~ b ,
M
c00
2 O ~ ~ •° ro ri ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
z 3 +~ •~ .~ +~ a rn •~ ro a~ a~ 'd
F U +~+~ U•~rn x+~ om o O
~ ~~ ~ o ~•c~.
~
ro °i~~ a~ ~ °o °o °o °
~~~
• c a
i 7 A ~ ~ ~ o
Q ,
O ,~ O N
3 a U O On
t0 C O S N U O ~
E
•rl +~ U!
m O
•Q
W
~,,,~
N nj
a ,..~ O
O
O
E~
~
O O
~ O U ro Jr
~ C •~ -~ tC
~ •rl U O O
• •
b
W O
00 O
~; M
d; M
~ c
O
~
~,,, M + In O rl Sa •~ E r.7 O O U1 00 00 er Op O
(
o
m C- N
N ~
~, ~ ~ O ~ O •~ .C A f-r ~ O G O cd ~ ~ v
? ~ ro
Lti S H O
C a ro~
Z m
• 3
O ~
C
A.~GfaNO N
9 k
Gr..O~OO ~ E ~ ~ ~ N
H
w r-I
o ro
O H O .C
•~ a~ w ~ ~
A O O
v, ~ .c ~
ro
~
i-t
a a
O
aP m
O
a
O ~
d x N
ro
U
a
a•~
+~ ~ a~
~U ~+~ a
co a~ ~, ~ ro
~ ~ N+~a
co
H a
mU
cn p m
cn as m
cn •~ v
~~ •~
'°
o ~
•~+ •~+ ~ ro co ro
O ~, •~ a o a~ a~ a~
.~ +~ r~~ ro
a~ w
m ro
~ ro
•~ ro
•~ co U ~
~
~
~ ~Ab
E~c~UC9Q m m m U
c
0 3 ~ +~
~E fzU
~ ~ •~
Oro ro
w . ~ to ••
+~
~
U
• U ~
N
a
a
a U
H .C
~,
~ A cd ~ U ~ H
H W
.C
C O ro 3 •.i
fa
~
~ U ~ ro
O
~'~ ~~'a`oi~w a ~ O
~ ~ o ~
a
i a ~
U ,C ~ N ~ b~
C ~
~ ~ .
~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ U 'O ~ ~
, ~ C
O O w•~1
OH O ~ OZ C O ~ E cOC ~~
v°O '° ~
~~"°°~~ o O
ao ~ ~ vv
•ri
,~ +~ A ~ 8 U1 .c a~~ b C
w
O
O
• O
` O E ~ O cVO~ O•a •iU
•~~ c
nr
i
~
~ ~'~ NN
as ~O
am ~O Oo U
03
a v ~
~ ~ Ex as ~~
~ H
HU
a
c
L
a~
.~
w
a
ro
0
E
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.71
Agenda March 25, 1991
Issue Statement:
Rejection of bids for purchase of a skid steer loader.
Background:
A bid opening was held March 1, 1991 for the purchase of a skid
steer loader and trailer. The specifications asked for a base
bid, a trade-in price for a 1982 Waldon front-end loader, and a
total, and the results are listed below:
Vendor Base Bid Trade-In Total
Carlson Tractor $22,392 (7,800) 514,592.00
Carlson Tractor 21,492 (.7,800) 13,692.00
Scharber & Sons 19,731 (5,800) 13,931.00
L-Z Company 18,592 (5,500) 13,092.00
Nott Company 18,234 (2,500) 15,734.00
Long Lake Ford Trac. 17,983 (4,000) 13,953.00
Tri-State Machinery 15,997 (4,282) 11,715.00
Case Power & Equip. 15,920 (5,700) 10,220.00
Tri-State Bobcat 14,480 (3,500) 10,980.00
Case Power & Equipment was the low bidder with the trade-in and
Tri-State Bobcat would be the low bidder without the trade-in.
Staff believes we should buy the skid steer loader without
accepting the trade-in, and sell the used loader outright.
The specification was worded in such a way that the trade-in
cannot be rejected without rejecting the entire bid. Staff also
believes an informal bid procedure will result in a quotation for
the new skid steer loader under $15,000.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the .bid minutes/tabulation and reject all of the above
bids and request staff to solicit quotations for the new skid
steer loader in an informal process, and sell the used loader
outright.
Basis of Recommendation:
The trade-in prices, and skid steer loader prices, came in lower
than expected. Staff believes we can do better by selling the
loader outright, and negotiating on a new skid loader price.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could decide to accept the bids and direct staff to issue
a purchase order.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is asking for approval
Council meeting.
of this issue at the March 25, 1991
Re~se~t~fully submitted,
Ja ~ D. Prosser
Ci v anacrer
JDP/reb
a.i-rx Vr iilVrir 1r.LiJ, P111VlVr:SVTA
Bid Opening
March 1, 1.991 ~,~
.11:00 A.M.
One New Skid Steer Loader
Bid No. 91-2~
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015,, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for one new skid steer loader, bid no.
91-2, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 13,
1991.
Present: Steve Devich, Acting City Clerk
Roxi Braa, Community Services Director
Representative
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Marlys Solt, Community Services Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
Lano Equip. Inc.
Shakopee, MN
Scharber & Sons
Rogers, MN
Case Power & Equipment
Shakopee, MN
L-Z Company, Inc.
St. Paul, MN
Long Lake Ford
Tractor, Inc.
Long Lake, MN
Nott Company
Minneapolis, MN
Tri-State Bobcat, Inc.
Burnsville, MN
BID
SECURITY
5$ Bid Check
5$ Bid Bond
5$ Bid Bond
5$ Bid Bond
5$ Bid Bond
5$ Bid Bond
5$ Bid Bond
AMOUNT
Base 17,123.76
Trade (5,350.00)
TOTAL 11,773.76
Base 19,731.00
Trade (5,800.00)
TOTAL 13,931.00
Base 15,920.00
Trade (5,700.00)
TOTAL 10,220.00
Base 18,592.00
Trade (5,500.00)
TOTAL 13,092.00
Base 17,983.00
Trade (4,000.00)
TOTAL 13,983.00
Base 18,234.00
Trade (2,500.00)
TOTAL 15,734.00 ,
Base 14,480.00
Trade (3,500.00)
TOTAL 10,980.00
tsia rainuzes yl-~
3/1/91
Page 2
VENDOR
Carlson Tractor &
Equipment Co.
Rosemount, MN
Tri-State Machinery
Minneapolis, MN
The City Clerk announced 1
considered at the March 2°,
F-z
BID AMOUNT
SECURITY
#1
5$ Bid Bond Base 21,492.00
Trade (7,800.00)
TOTAL 13,692.00
#2
Base 22,392.00
Trade (7,800.00)
TOTAL 14,592.00
5$ Bid Bond Base 15,997.00
Trade (4,282.00)
TOTAL 11,715.00
;hat the bids would be tabulated and
~, 1991 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
y~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 72
Agenda March 25, 1991
Issue Statement:
Award of Contract for 1991 removal of diseased trees on private
property.
Background:
In the early 1970's, the City of Richfield began a shade tree
disease program to assist home owners in the removal of diseased
elm and oak trees on private property. When the City's Tree
Inspector marks a diseased tree on private .property for removal,
the home owner has three options:
- Removal of the tree by the home owner,
- Home owner hires a contractor perform-the work,
- Home owner authorizes the City's contractor to .perform
the work.
If the City .contractor performs the tree removal, the home owner
has the option to pay the removal costs immediately, or have the
cost assessed to the property taxes over a three-year period.
The City's bidding process for removal of diseased trees on
private property was revised and streamlined in 1985. A single
contractor is hired to remove the trees rather than bidding out
each tree individually.
Specifications for this work were sent to nine tree removal
companies in the metropolitan area. The companies were asked to
bid a per-inch cost based on the actual number and sizes of-trees
removed in 1990. Two bids were received and opened on Friday,
March 8, 1991 with the following results:
Ceres Tree Company $ 87,149
Arps Tree Service $ gg~984
The 1990 cost of trees removed was $51,102.50. Rising disposal
costs, along with an uncertain oil market, has contributed to the
higher bid in 1991.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the bid minutes/tabulation and award the 1991 contract
for removal of diseased trees on private property to Ceres Tree
Company in the total estimated amount of $87,149.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Ceres Tree Company was the lowest responsible bidder for this
work. .
2. Ceres Tree Company has a reputation in the industry for being
an efficient. and reliable contractor.
~-l ~ -1
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to
readvertise in an attempt to receive a lower bid. However, staff
believes the per-tree prices.-are low enough to provide Richfield
home owners with a reasonable removable cost should they decide
to have the City coordinate removal of their diseased tree(s).
Discussion/Decision Mode:
To assure sufficient time to process the necessary paperwork
before the first trees are marked for removal, this item is
scheduled for the City Council agenda of March 25, 1991.
Respect lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP/reb
Attachment
~~-z
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
March 8, 1991
11:00 A.M.
Removal and Disposal of Diseased Trees on Private Property
Bid No. 91-4
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 removal and disposal of diseased
trees on private property, bid no. 91-4, as advertised in the
official newspaper on February 20, 1991.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Randy Hughes, Operations. Coordinator
Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR BID TOTAL
SECURITY
Arps Tree Service Anoka, MN 5~ Cashiers $ 99,984.00
Check
Ceres St. Paul, MN 5$ Bid Bond $ 87,149.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the March 25, 1991 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
~N
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 73
Agenda March 25, 1991
Issue Statement•
Purchase of a lawn mower in excess of 55,00.0 for the Park
Maintenance Division.
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 approved central garage capital outlay buy
$13,000 for the purchase of a diesel operated
mower to replace an existing gas operated 72"
unit. Three vendors were contacted and asked
quotations for a Toro 322-D, the type of lawn
The results are listed below:
3get contains
72" riding lawn
fully depreciated
to submit
mower required.
Weekend Freedom $16,328
L.T.G. Power Equipment $13,605
M.T.I. Distributing Co. $11,470
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order to M.T.I. Distributing Company in the
sum of $11,470 for a Toro 322-D lawn mower.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. M.T.I. Distributing Company submitted the lowest quotation
for the specified equipment requested.
2. There is sufficient funding in the approved budget for this
purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could choose to reject all of the quotations, however,
staff does not believe we can obtain a better price from a
reputable dealer.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is asking for approval at the March 25, 1991 Council
meeting in order to facilitate timely delivery of this equipment
for the spring and summer mowing season.
Respec y submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP/reb
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.74
Agenda March 25, 1991
Issue Statement•
First reading consideration on an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance which relates to long-standing nonconforming uses and
structures.
Background:
A number of nonconforming uses and structures have been
discovered in the process of the City's Housing. Maintenance
Inspection Program. Many of these uses and structures have
existed for a number of years in harmony with surrounding
permitted uses, but without formal approval. Currently, there is
no provision to recognize or accommodate uses and structures
which are not permitted within the residential zoning district in
which they are located. The proposed amendment provides two
methods whereby, under proper circumstances, long-standing
nonconforming uses and structures may be recognized by the
issuance of a conditional activity permit or a nonconforming use
permit.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of this amendment,-and set a public hearing
and second reading for the April 22, 1991 meeting.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This proposed amendment would allow the continuance of
nonconforming uses and structures that have .harmoniously
coexisted with permitted uses for long periods of time.
2. A conditional activity permit maybe issued in situations
where the use could be permitted as a conditional use
permit. The conditional activity permit may be approved if
the use meets the following criteria:
- has existed for at least 15 years.
- no neighborhood complaints.
- established by prior owner.
- meets the standards for issuance of a conditional use
permit.
3. A nonconforming use permit may be issued in cases where the
use or structure is not permitted in the zoning district.
The nonconforming use permit may be issued if the following
criteria are met:
- use has existed for at least 15 years.
- no neighborhood complaints.
- established by prior owner.
- structure conforms or meets standards for variance.
- structure meets building code or will be brought
into conformance.
~J
4. The proposed amendment would grovide for an expeditious
review and permit process that provides appropriate checks
and balances with public hearings.
5. .The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
the amendment on February 26, 1991. However, the Commission
questioned the criteria which requires the use to be
established by a prior owner. The Commission stated that
the criteria requiring the use or structure to be in
existence for at least 15-years was sufficient, at least
when dealing with single family dwellings.
Alternative Recommendation;
1. The City Council could decide not to adopt this amendment.
2. The City Council could modify the amendment.
3. The City Council could refer the amendment back to the
Planning Commission with instructions.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
First reading is set for March 25, 1991. If approved, a public
hearing and second reading will be held on April 22, 1991.
Respect lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
5-2,
HILL NO. 1991-
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 515
OF APPENDIX B TO THE
ORDINANCE. CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 515 of Appendix 8 to the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield is hereby
amended by adding thereto the following new subsections.
515.69. Curing Non-permitted Uses and Structures. Statement of Policy The city
council has become aware that there exists a number of instances of uses and structures
which, for a variety of reasons, are not permitted within the residence district in which
they are located. The council is, however, mindful that many such uses and structures
have existed. for long periods of time in harmony with surrounding permitted uses The
council believes that with respect to menu such uses and structures, it is in the best
interest of the City and of the owners of the property on which such uses and structures
are located, that they be allowed to continue The council also believes that, in many
instances, requiring the owner of the property to pursue the other procedures contained in
this Code could result in an unnecessary hardship Therefore, the procedures contained in
Subsections 515.71 through 515.73 of this Code are intended to provide an expeditious and
reasonable. method whereby certain non-permitted uses and structures may be made
lawful and permitted.
515.71. Uses. Allowed in the District with Conditional Use Permit. Subd. 1.
Application. The owner of property containing a use which would be permitted as a
conditional use in the district may make application to the Community Development
Department C'Department") for a conditional activity permit i"CAP'S. Application must
be made on forms provided by the Department for that purpose The application shall be
accompanied by a fee in the amount established in Appendix D of this Code.
s- 3
Subd. 2. Department Review. Upon receipt of a complete application and required
fee, the Department shall conduct such investigation of the matter as it deems
appropriate. The Department ,may involve other departments of the City in its
investigation and may require other and further information from the applicant as may be
required to complete its investigation. Upon completion of its investigation, .the
Department shall make a written report and recommendation to the planning commission.
The report must contain an analysis of the criteria described in subdivision 3(g) of this
subsection.
Subd. 3. Planning Commission Review.
~ Public notice. Notice of the planning commission consideration of the
application .shall be made in the manner provided in Minnesota .Statutes Section
462.357, Subd. 3.
Public hearing. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on the
application. At the public hearing, the planning commission will consider the
report and recommendation of the Department, and any information which the
applicant or other interested parties wish to provide, and may consider such other
information as the planning commission believes will assist it in reaching its
decision.
~ Decision. Following the public hearing, the planning commission will make
its findings and recommendation regarding the application. Its recommendation
may also include conditions which it believes should be attached to the CAP or to
the _granting of the CAP. The findings of the planning commission must include an
analysis of the criteria contained in subdivision 3(g) of this subsection.
~ .Procedure following planning commission decision. The application will be
referred to the city council for decision in accordance with paragraph (e) of this
subdivision in the following instances:
5-y
the planning commission specificallv recommends such referral,
ii1 the planning commission recommends denial of the application;
i~ the planning commission is unable to adopt a recommendation as to
approval or denial; or
iv the. planning commission has recommended approval following a
recommendation of denial by the Department.
In all other instances, the application shall be referred to the Department
for a decision in accordance with paragraph (f) of this subdivision.
Referral to the council.
Public notice. The council mav, but is not required to, give public
notice of its consideration of the application. The council shall give
notice of the time and date of its consideration to the a licant.
ii Consideration. The council will consider the re ort and
recommendation of the Department, anv findings and
recommendations of the planning commission, anv information
offered by the applicant or other interested persons and anv other
information which the council believes will assist it in consideration
of the application. Following the receipt of all such information, the
council will make its decision concerning the application. The
decision must include- findings regarding the criteria contained in
paragraph (g) of this subdivision If the council approves issuance of
the CAP, it may place conditions on such approval or the CAP Upon
approval of the CAP and the satisfaction of anv pre conditions to
issuance, the Department shall issue the CAP
3
5-5
~f Referral to department. The Department shall notify the applicant of anv
preconditions to issuance of the CAP, and if none, or when satisfied, the
Department will issue the CAP subiect to anv conditions which the Department
deems appropriate.
~ Criteria. No CAP may be recommended or approved unless the following
criteria have been found to exist:
iZ the use meets all of the standards contained in this Code for the
issuance of a conditional use permit;
ii the use. has existed in substantially its present form for at least 15
ears•
iii during its existence no complaints of adverse neighborhood impacts
have been reported to the city;
iv the use was established by a prior owner; and
vZ if the _CAP relates to an existin¢ structure, the structure either
conforms to the current requirements of the building code, or the
requirements of the building code as of the effective date of the
CAP; or the building official and applicant have agreed upon a
compliance schedule which will bring the structure into compliance
with the applicable building code according to the terms of the
.schedule.
CAP -effective date. The CAP shall be deemed effective on the date of
issuance unless the issuing authorit determines that, for good cause shown by the
applicant, the CAP should be effective as of an earlier date
CAP; relationship to CUP. Once issued, a CAP shall be treated in all
respects as a conditional use permit and shall be subiect to all of the provisions of
this Code reeulating conditional use permits.
J'~
515.73. Use or Structure Not Permitted in the District. Subd. 1. A lication. The
owner of property which contains a use or structure which is not permitted ~n the district
in which it is located may make application for anon-eonformin~t use permit ("NUP").
Application must be made on forms provided by the Department for that purpose The
application shall be accompanied by a fee in the amount established in Appendix D of this
Code.
Subd. 2. Department review. Upon receipt of a complete application and required
fee, the Department shall .conduct such investigation of the matter as it deems
~propriate. The Department may involve other departments of the Citv in its
investigation and may require other and further information from the applicant as may be
required to complete its investigation Upon completion of its investigation, the
Department shall make a written report and recommendation to the planning commission
The report must contain an analysis of the criteria described in Subdivision 4(c) of this
subsection.
Subd. 3. Planning commission consideration
~ Public notice. The planning commission may, but is not required to, give
public notice of its- consideration of the application The planning commission shall
direct notice of its_ consideration to the applicant
Consideration and decision. The Tannin commission will consider the
report and recommendation of the Department, any information offered by the
applicant or other interested persons and any other information which the planning
commission believes will assist it in consideration of the a lication. Followin the
receipt of all such information, the planning commission will make its findings and
recommendation concernin the application. The decision must include findings
regarding the criteria contained in Subdivision 4(c) of this subsection The planning
-~
commission may recommend that the council place conditions on approval or on the
NUP.
Subd. 4. Council consideration and decision.
~ Public notice. Notice of council consideration of the application shall be
made in the manner provided in Minnesota Statutes Section. 462.357, Subd. 3.
Public hearing. At its public hearing, the council will consider the report
and recommendation of the Department, any findings and recommendations of the
planning commission, any information offered by the. applicant or other interested
persons .and any other information which the council believes will assist it in
consideration of the application. Following the receipt of all such information, the
council will make its decision concerning the application. The decision must
include findings regarding the criteria contained in paragraph (c) of this
subdivision. If the council .approves issuance of the NUP, it may. place conditions
on such approval or on the NUP. Upon approval of .the NUP and the. satisfaction of
anv pre-conditions to issuance, the Department shall issue the NUP.
~ Criteria. No NUP may. be recommended or approved unless the following
criteria have been found to exist:
anv structure meets all of the standards contained in this Code for
the issuance of a variance;
ii the use or structure has existed in substantially its present form for
at least 15 years;
iii during its existence no complaints of adverse neighborhood impacts
have been reported to the city;
iv and the use was established by a prior owner; and
5-8
1 the structure either . conforms to the current req uirements of the
building code, or the requirements of the buildin g code as of the
effective. date of the NUP; or the buildin¢ official and applicant have
agreed upon a compliance schedule which will. bring the structure into
compliance with the applicable building code according to the terms
of the schedule.
NUP -effective date. The NUP shall be deemed effective on the date of
issuance unless the council determines that, for good cause shown by the applicant,
the NUP should be effective as of an earlier date
~ NUP -effect on use or structure.. Upon issuance of a NUP, the use or
structure to_ which the permit relates shall be deemed anon-conforming uses or
structure and shall be subiect to all of the provisions of this Code regulating such
uses or structures.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
1991.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor-
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
RC160-005
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 75
Agenda March 25, 1991.
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on the Urban Hennepin County Year XVII Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Allocation.
Background:
The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on
March 25, 1991 to determine Richfield's use of the Year XVII
Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
Allocation of $182,807. Requests for $181,892 of Year XVII funds
have been submitted.
Information concerning Hennepin County's CDBG program objectives,
the project funding requests and the rationale for providing the
funds is attached. Richfield is realizing an increase of 8.5$ in
total funds allocated in Year XVII from. last year. This increase
in part resulted from a County process change of reallocating
unexpended County-wide funds from the previous year's allocation
to the next year.
Another tentative change is a 15$ limit on funding for public
services. Richfield has two public service agencies which are
funded through it's CDBG allocation - Greater Minneapolis Day
Care Association (G.M.D.C.A) and the Houshold and Outside
Maintenance for Elderly (H.O.M.E.) programs. The 15$ cap on the
funding of public services is applied for the first time to the
annual grant amount plus program income received through the
administration of the previous year's activities. Since the
amount of program income from year XVI will not be known until
after June 30, 1991, it is difficult to set a limit on public
service activities now. As a general guide, however, we have
been instructed to consider 20$ of our planning allocation. To
realize that, limit adjustments may have to be made when the sub-
recipient agreement is executed.
In recent years, the G.M.D.C.A. and H.O.M.E. programs have
received a combined total of approximately 19$ of Richfield's
allocation. The CDBG Year XVII application proposes a combined
total allocation of 19$. Both public service agencies have
requested lesser amounts as shown on the attachments. However,
since Richfield's total allocation was higher than last year, it
is recommended that all recipient programs should share equally
in the increase.
~,-1
The chart below summarizes CDBG Year XVII allocations as compared
to Year XVI funding:
Year XVI Year XVII Year XVII
Act
ivity Funded Requested Recom-
- Amount Funding mended
G.M.D.C.A. - Child Day Care $ 18,.093 $ 20,000 $ 20
110
H.O.M.E.
Rehab of Private Property $ 13,159
$ 68,236 $ 13,817
$ 75,865 ,
$ 14,622
$ 75
865
Scattered Site Housing $ 65,000 $ 72,210 ,
$ 2 2101
Totals $164,488 $181,892 5182,807
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolution which identifies allocation of
Year XVII CDBG funds as follows:
1. Housing Improvement:
a. Housing Rehabilitation $ 75,865
b. Scattered Site $ 72,210
2. Public Service:
a. H.O.M.E. $ 14,622
b. Child Day Care $ 20.110
Total $182,807
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The County's statement of objectives indicates that
communities should limit the number of projects funded to
three and that the minimum project budget be $7,500.
2. Housing Improvement funding be allocated for housing
rehabilitation, and scattered site acquisitions under the New
Home Program. The $72,210 allocated for scattered site is
the minimum required to complete a site project through the
Vo-Tech program. The $75,865 would be used for
rehabilitation of single family homes through the Deferred
Loan program.
3. Public service funding would be allocated for the H.O.M.E.
program to service approximately 160 households. The child
day care subsidy would be used to service approximately seven
families - a total of 10 children, as was also the case in
1990. The two programs are combined into one project
entitled public services.
4. Public service accounts should be closely maintained at near
the same per cent of total level of funding as proposed this
year. This will allow the County to stay within the 20~
overall limitation of public service funding.
~-z
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Change the amount of funds allocated to each project.
2. Fund other eligible projects which have not been identified
by staff .
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for March 25,
1991. The deadline for submitting the CDBG Year XVII application
to Hennepin County is April 18, 1991.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City ager
S
~` J
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR YEAR XVII
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, through execution of a Joint
Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is a cooperating unit
in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has developed a proposal for
the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it,
following a public hearing on March 25, 1991 to obtain the views
of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and
community development needs and the City's following proposed use
of $182,807 from the Year XVII Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant.
Projects Budget
1. Housing Improvement:
a. Housing Rehabilitation $ 75,865
b. Scattered Site $ 72,210
2. Public Service:
a. H.O.M.E. $ 14,622
b. Child Day Care $ 20.110
TOTAL $182,807
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota
approves the proposed use of Year XVII Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant funds and program related
income and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin
County for review by the Urban Hennepin County Citizens advisory
Committee and for inclusion in the Year XVII Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant Program Statement of
Objectives and Projected Use of Funds.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
(~-y
RATIONALE FOR FUNDING REHABILITATION DEFERRED LOAN PROJECT
Richfield's Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program provides a means
for low income homeowners to make needed repairs to maintain
their homes, and improves the general condition of Richfield's
housing stock. Improvements include code compliance
accessibility for the handicapped, and weatherization.
In 1991:
- 575,665 in CDBG Year XVI assistance is requested.
- 18 households have already applied for assistance.
- The high demand months, the spring/summer/:fall
construction season when new requests for assistance most
occur, are approaching.
- The deferred loan program is the only rehabilitation
program which serves the low income homeowner clientele.
- There are insufficient funds in this request to meet
waiting applicants and anticipated demand.
The 1991-92 HRA goals are to assist homeowners in making repairs
and maintaining the existing housing stock.
In 1990, 15 low income Richfield homeowners were assisted with
approximately 579,410 in deferred loans. Four of these were
(~~~' emergency loans which financed furnace replacement and plumbing
repairs where failure occurred. Emergency funds also help low
income homeowners to resolve other seemingly impossible
situations: .leaking roofs,. unexpected electrical problems, and
storm flooding not covered by insurance programs.
The continued demand for deferred loans reflects the increasing
financial commitment required for households to maintain a home.
Assistance to elderly homeowners allows them to continue to live
independently in the community. Assistance to families, often
single parent households, provides a measure of household
stability.
<RationaleRehab>
~-5
RATIONALE FOR FUNDING SCATTERED SITE PROJECT
The New Home Scattered Site program provides the.HRA the
opportunity to expand affordable housing opportunities and
maintain the existing housing stock for lower income persons.
The project makes long term improvements when:
- substandard housing is cleared
- vacant land suitable for development is .acquired
- buildings are acquired and rehabilitated to create
additional housing
- new housing is developed that increases the affordable
housing stock.
The New Home Program is the most active scattered site
acquisition and clearance program occurring in Richfield. During
the last 10 years, on many occasions, the Richfield HRA produced
the only new affordable housing opportunities for young families
in the city.
Funding this project:
1. Allows further removal of approximately 200 substandard homes
that currently exist.
Those properties .are difficult to sell in the market place.
The HRA continually receives offers throughout the year from
owners interested in selling. More than 50 property owners
have indicated interest in selling in 1991.
2. Allows blighted housing conditions or abandoned housing
problems to be resolved.
Foreclosures are occurring more often. Housing conditions
are such that HRA involvement through acquisition and
rehabilitation is appropriate. The housing stock,
particularly the garage homes and older cottages, 45 to 50
years old, are approaching replacement age.
3. Ensures reutilization of Richfield house structures within
.the City.
The HRA has reused seven Richfield house structures by
relocating and remodeling them on scattered sites throughout
the city. Structures were acquired from properties purchased
for park expansion and commercial and residential
developments.
4. Provides affordable first time home buying opportunities.
A household with the Richfield average income of 530,000
can't afford the average Richfield housing of 583,000. With
cost reductions by Vo-Tech, MHFA mortgages end HRA second
mortgages, purchasing families range in size from 3 to 6
~~b
5.
6.
7.
8.
members with incomes between 527,000 and 533,000. The
New Home program has provided a stable tenancy. Since
the Vo-Tech program started in 1978, of the eleven properties
developed, 10 have continued with the original owner.
Continues a cost effective construction relationship with the
Vo-Tech School.
Working with the Vo-Tech School, new homes can be built at a
cost of approximately S55,000 to 565,000 while existing homes
sell for 583,000 on the average. Recent private new
construction by contractors has cost in excess of $110,000.
Increase property tax revenue.
The increase in tax .revenues. from properties redeveloped by
the NRA approximates 51,000 per property annually.
Continues housing distribution on scattered sites.
Blighted housing conditions and HRA solutions occur on
scattered sites throughout the city as properties become
available. This achieves uniform upgrading of neighborhoods
throughout the city without concentrating assistance in one
location.
Provides housing stability in neighborhoods where blight has
continued for lengthy periods of time.
Most acquisitions are encouraged by surrounding neighbors
who seek a solution to a substandard house, which experiences
frequent changes in ownership and progressive deterioration.
9. Continues a process where one scattered site purchase each
year ensures that Vo-Tech will exclusively provide new homes
in a timely manner for sale to low and moderate first time
buyers.
CDBG funds expended in 1990, provide a completed home in
1992 at 7528 Colfax Ave. So. CDBG funds in 1991 also
provide the opportunity for a completed home in 1992 on
a site to be determined. Approximately two homes are built
each year if yearly CDBG allocations continue.
l0. Complements new program initiatives by enabling the HRA to
address a variety of housing needs.
In 1990, staff developed an Expanded New Home Program (ENHP)
to increase the rate at which substandard structures are
removed and new single family homes are built. The ENHP
is funded by an internal revenue source of approximately
S1 million. Given this new program, a question might be
raised as to the continued role of CDBG funds for
acquisition of one or two properties each year. CDBG
(p' 1
funds are important in enabling the HRA to meet specific
needs:
- New housing opportunities are provided. for low and
moderate income first time homebuying families, while
ENHP homes have above average values and will be sold
at market rates.
- CDBG funds provide a budget for tenant relocation. This
enables deteriorated single family rental. property to be
purchased and tenants relocated. The ENHP program does
not provide relocation funds to allow the purchase of
single-family, tenant occupied rental property. Those
properties are not .dealt with if CDBG funds are not
available.-
- CDBG funds provide a mechanism to ensure a continued.
relationship with Vo-Tech. ENHP would use private
developers, not Vo-Tech.
<Scattered/NewHome>
Elizabeth Morrison
City of Richfield
6700 Portland
Richfield,Mn.55423
February 6,1991.
Dear Ms. Morrison,
l0-8
~~
I am regesting that Richfield consider using $20,000.of
your Community Block Grant money for your child care
sliding fee program. This fund would continue your past
support for this needed program. During the current year,
you have helped 7 Richfield families move toward self-
sufficiency. There are now 159 families on the Richfield
waiting list. I have enclosed some information about the
families in your city who have used this program.
As you probably know,a federal child care bill was passed by
Congress .last fall. We estimate that 15 .million of that
money will come into Minnesota over the next 12 months.
2.6 million will come to Hennepin County to be used for the
subsidy program. This new money will help up to 1400
families-about half of those on the county waiting list.
Your program that is used only by your residents will still
be needed. I hope you will continue it.
Thank you for your past support of the subsidy program for
your residents. Your help has made a difference in people's
lives.
Please let me know if I can get any more information for
you. I will try to attend the Council or other, meeting
at which the CDBG priorities are discussed,so that I can
answer questions then or get the answers for you.
Sincerely,
~`"f~~
Grace Norris
Community .Liaison
341-1177
Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association
Dale Anderson, Executive Director • 1628 Elliot Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 • (612) 341-1177
ra,
++~. Cooptrating Fund Ikive
Member Orgnnizatan
DATE:
~EC1`I~ED JAN 3 1199
~ ~-9
RETURN T0: Maria Crandall
GMDCA
1628 Elliot Ave S
Mpls, MN 55404
Dear Mr. /Ms . ~iyl~ .
The City of ~ is interested in knowing how the
Sliding Fee rogram hey have been funding has helped you.
Please take a few minutes to answer the following questions. By .answering
them you will be providing the necessary information the City Council is in-
terested in knowing, and also you will be helping other parents in need of
day care assistance.
How is/was the funding helpful to you? 1 r /y?y,~~~ Qf, ~~/,~. ~f~-o~P~F
r
.S~ T ~4,~t ~4~~f' 7o f'o.C'FSt Sort= oTyf~ ~r~71 0~ ~~ riyiLO/'r~
/~GD ~/oUSFHc/D Iii/ cS , !v /Th'DuT H/~ U/v b
yG COLiST/~v7'G t Gc..i~ Cec~ .
Were you able to accomplish your goal? /(/~ Nom- ~. / /
~ ~~~ /~ if~E o
.L ,P~~,~~ ~,~ ~y l ~ ~~ THAT
/¢SS/STt}vLG" /~6~S l~if ~ ~~S S j /LL J~ ST/'C/E6C ~
7~ ~~~ ~Uc~y T1~/UF jai/.~6 ITN ~vL
~ ~y ~-~ta,~r
How has the program benefited your child?
.-STS G/U£x~ i Hc~/ ~ 6~ec~T L~r~,~GAr~E ih~gr
L wDG! L,p ,t~~+T-
y~U~ ~,~-~ /~~LE' To /¢r~/2~7 W ~TyogT- f1
EZ~'
If you have any questions please call me at (612) 341-0737.
cerely,
riG a ~~ dal l
Subsidy Program Coordinator
MC/kr
Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association
Dale Anderson, Executive Director • 1628 Elliot Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 • (612) 341•II77
~ ~ Coopentiny fund Driv
.+~,.,~~ Memoer p~ruueon
~ (~-lO
DATE: ~ 3 ~ ~ECEIf'ED FEB ~ 41991
RETURN T0:
Maria Crandall
GMOCA -
1628 Elliot Ave S
Mpls, MN 55404
Dear Mr./Ms.
~~
The City of -~-P is interested in.knowing how the
Sliding Fee rogra they have been funding has helped you.
Piease take a few minutes to answer the following .questions. By answering
them you will be providing the necessary information the City Council is in-
terested in knowing, and also you will be helping. other parents in-need of
day care assistance.
How is/was the funding helpful to you?
,,,t~.cz,a.oc..~-y c~.~,.e ,a~,~, ~o ~j~. ~ ~.~' ~F-t~. ~rc~-ra..-~-~ ~ ~--~ ~
Were ou able to accom sh ou lSai? ~~ ~
y p ~ g ~,v,,, c.-~-~
How has the program benefited your child? ~ ~,~
~`~~ ~~ c~
If you have any questions please call me at (612) 341-0737.
cerely,
~~~~ ~
ria Cran al
Subsidy Program Coordinator
MC/kr
Greater Minneapolis .Day Care Association
Dale Anderson, Executive Director • 1628 Elliot Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 • (612) 341-1177
~.~_ ~CooDe*~M+9 Fund Drive
t~'S Member Oryarusatwn
~-~i
SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
1600 South 2nd Street, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 933-9311
BOARD of DIRECTORS
John Blaser February 19, 1991
President
Alison Fuhr
1st Vice President Mr . William Weaver, City Planner
City of Richfield
t.lndastokss 6700 Portland Ave. South
2nd Vice President Richfield, MN 55423
Daniyn Pslfsr
Secrstery Dear Mr . Weaver
waiter L•vs:qus Senior Community Services is requesting
7roesuror $13, 817 for the 1991-92 fiscal year (July 1, 1991 -
June 30, 1992) from the City of Richfield to
Connie Mccullouph support the HOME Program .• This amount reflects a
P~stPresident 5~ cost-of-living-increase. The Cit is
513,159 for the current year throughyits sharedofg
Tom Ticsn County-wide Community Development Block Grant (CDBG
Memberat•Lerpe Year XVI) funds . While we are aware that CDBG
~~ ob Miller funds are tight this year,- we hope that the City
Aember•et•Lerpe will be able to fully fund our request .
Toni Anderson Total HOME Program services provided- to
KarlOansky Richfield residents in 1990 were as follows:
Councilperson Robert DeGhstto
Marty Guritz Households Served 155
Commissioner TadJuds Clients Served 186
Leonard Kopp Number of Jobs 1, 212
John Nelson Number of flours 3, 912
Senator Gen Olson
Carts Pavone I f ou have an
Steve Rood y y questions, or if the Mayor and
Ryan Schroeder City Cc;:.:cil would like to hate an infor:r:atioral
Russell Weinstein presentation, please don't hesitate to let me know.
On behalf of the seniors, who are the real
Benjamin F.withhart beneficiaries of your funds, many thanks for your
Executive Diroetor On-going support .
Sincerely,
~l~ ~ .
Ron Bloch
Program Administrator '
A United Way
t,pported Agency
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Council letter No. 76
Agenda March 25, 1991
Issue Statement•
Resolution declaring April 21, 1991 as Earth Day 1991. This day
will hold activities that educate all citizens on the importance
of acting in an environmentally sensitive fashion by conserving
energy, using efficient transportation, and adopting a more
ecologically sound life-style.
Background:
On April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated by over 20
million Americans who were concerned about the care of the
environment. Their collective action passed many new laws to
protect the air, water, and land. In the last decade, the
dangers have not been offset by the improvements. Earth Day 1991
will remember again the concerns of our planet.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached Earth Day resolution and promote the City's
celebration of this day.
Basis.of Recommendation:
Approving the Earth Day 1991 resolution will keep the City of
Richfield as a forward thinking community. Richfield has taken
(°"''° steps to keep abreast of some environmental issues. An Earth Day
1991 resolution would continue this natural progression.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The resolution declaring April 21 as Earth Day 1991 is scheduled
for the March 25, 1991 Council meeting. Action should be taken
at this time to approve Earth Day 1991 so Richfield can begin to
plan Earth Day activities.
Respect lly submitted,
James Prosser
City Hager
JDP/
Attachment
~7 -1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING APRIL 21, 1991 AS EARTH DAY 1991
WHEREAS, 20 years ago, more than 20 million Americans joined
together on Earth Day in a demonstration of concern for the
environment, and their collective action resulted in the passage of
sweeping new laws to protect our air, water, and land; and
WHEREAS, in the years since the first Earth Day, despite
environmental improvements, the environmental health of the planet is
increasingly endangered, threatened by global climate change, ozone
depletion, growing world population, tropical deforestation, ocean
pollution, toxic wastes, desertification, and nuclear waste,
requiring action. by all .sectors of society; and
WHEREAS, Earth Day 1991 activities and events will educate all
citizens on the importance of acting in an environmentally sensitive
fashion by conserving energy, using efficient transportation, and
adopting a more ecologically sound life-styles; and
WHEREAS, Earth Day 1991 activities and events will educate all
citizens on the importance of doing business only with companies that
are environmentally sensitive and responsible; and
WHEREAS, Earth Day 1991 activities and events will educate all
citizens on the importance of voting for those candidates who
demonstrate an abiding concern for the environment; and
WHEREAS, Earth Day 1991 activities and events will educate all
citizens on the importance of supporting legislation that will help
protect the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Richfield City Council
and the City of Richfield do hereby designate and proclaim April 21,
1991 as Earth Day 1991, and that day shall be set aside for public
activities promoting preservation of the global environment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this
25th day of March, 1991.
ATTEST:
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
8
CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 77
Agenda March 25, 1991
Issue Statement:
Resolution declaring May 5, 1991 as Wood Lake Nature Center Day.
This day will hold a celebration of "Twenty Years in the Marsh"
for all members of the community at Wood Lake Nature Center.
Background:
Wood Lake Nature Center held its grand opening in May, 1971.
Now, 20 years later, the Nature Center is continuing a legacy of
care for the environment and service to the community. Wood Lake
naturalist-led programs serve more than 22,000 people annually,
and many more people use the area on their own. Wood Lake is
known across the country as a leader in environmental education.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution dedicating May 5, 1991 as Wood Lake
Nature Center Day, and-promote this celebration to the community.
Basis of Recommendation:
The Nature Center is a homegrown Richfield facility that has
become a nationally known leader in environmental education.
Recognition of this fact is good for the community.
~°•• Alternative Recommendation:
An alternative would be to have this celebration stand on its own
without City Council support.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The Wood Lake .Nature Center Day resolution is scheduled for the
March 25, 1991 Council meeting. Action should be taken at that
date to approve the resolution so it can be covered by the media
before May 5, 1991.
Respectfy}lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP/pcm
Attachment
8-i
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION DECLARING MAY 5, 1991 AS WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER DAY
WHEREAS, 20 years ago the Wood Lake Nature Center opened its
doors for the first time as a resource site for school field
trips and for the public to enjoy; and
WHEREAS, Wood Lake Nature Center remains committed to
serving the schools, community groups and the public with
education and recreation programs dealing with the environment,
and does this at such a scale that more than 22,000 people
participate in guided programs annually; and
WHEREAS, Wood Lake Nature Center remains a place where aii
people are welcome to enjoy themselves and appreciate the natural
world around them; and
WHEREAS, Wood Lake Nature Center continues a legacy of care
and respect for the environment; and
WHEREAS, Wood Lake Nature Center preserves within its
boundaries examples of cattail marsh, deciduous forest and
prairie that serve as home for countless insects, birds and
mammals; and
WHEREAS, Wood Lake Nature Center serves as a demonstration
area for resource management techniques.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Richfield City
Council and the City of Richfield designate and proclaim May 5,
1991 as Wood Lake Nature Center Day, and that May 5 be set aside
for the community to celebrate "Twenty Years in the Marsh" at the
Wood Lake Nature Center.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this 25th day of March, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
1
'1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 7g
Agenda March 25, 1991
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution expressing support for Suburban
Hennepin Park legislation.
Background:
Legislation has recently been introduced which would establish a
Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District. The district would be
governed by an all elected seven member board with full autonomy
to formulate and implement annual budgets for the park district.
At the present .time, the Hennepin Parks Board of Commissions is a
seven member board with five Commissioners elected and two
Commissioners appointed by the Hennepin County Board. The
Hennepin County Board also has the authority to review and veto
the annual park district budget as formulated by the Hennepin
Parks Board.
Recommended Motion:
The Council should decide whether they wish. to take a position in
support or opposition to this legislation.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Attached is a letter from State Senator Gen Olson and State
Representative Bill Schreiber requesting municipal support
for the proposed legislation. The letter cites growing
dissatisfaction and controversy surrounding the appointments
of the Hennepin Parks Board.
2. Hennepin County Commissioner. Randy Johnson has been advised
that this matter will be placed on the agenda for the March
25 meeting and may provide additional information regarding
his position on this legislation.
3. Representative Garcia and Senator Riveness are co-sponsors of
this bill. .Metropolitan Council Member Gertrude Ulrich has
expressed support for this legislation.
Neither AMM or LMC have taken or will take an official position
regarding this matter. Hearings on the proposed legislation will
take place during the week of April 1. If the Council wishes to
take a position on this matter, it would be most impactful to
take a position prior to the hearings.
a-i
~~ Alternative Recommendation:
The Council may decide not to take any position regarding this
matter.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented for discussion at the Council
Meeting of March 25, 1991.
Respectfu submitted,
James D rosser
City Man ger
JDP:ds
q-~
.RESOLUTION NO.
MUNICIPAL SUPPORT FOR SUBURBAN IiENNEPIN PARKS LEGISLATION
WHEREAS, the Suburban Hennepin
unit of local government created to
the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park
levy taxes on the property owners o;
Regional Park District and plan for
tax revenues for the benefit of the
Park system; and
Regional Park District is a
develop, manage and maintain
system, and is empowered to
E the Suburban Hennepin
the expenditure of property
Suburban Hennepin Regional
WHEREAS, an independent and democratically elected Suburban
Hennepin Regional Park District Board of Commissioners is
essential to assure public confidence in the activities and
priorities of the Board of Commissioners..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Richfield, on this 25th day of March, 1991, expresses
unqualified .support for legislation before the Minnesota
Legislature in the 1991 legislative session that would establish
the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District Board of
Commissioners as an all-elected seven member Board, with
Commissioners representing equal size districts within the
Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District.
i., BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
~F ~ Richfield, on this 25th day of March, 1991, expresses unqualified
support for legislation before the Minnesota Legislature in the
1991 legislative session that allows the Suburban Hennepin
.Regional Park District Board of Commissioners to formulate and
implement annual budgets for the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park
District without review or veto of the Hennepin County Board.
ATTEST:
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
GE\ OLSON
tienator •3:3rd i)istrir•t
Kauttt lY:,
~tatr~ Office 13uildiny~
St. Paul. 11\ 551,,:,
~(i1_'I '?Slti-122+°_
March 13,.1991
James Prosser, City Manager
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear City Manager Prosser:
Senate Q 3
State of Minnesota
We are excited to announce the introduction of legislation in the
Minnesota House and Senate to establish the Suburban Hennepin
Regional Park District (Hennepin Parks) Board of Commissioners as
an all-elected seven-member board with full autonomy to .formulate
and implement annual budgets for the park district. We are
writing to ask you to give your city's formal support to this
legislation. We have enclosed a copy of the proposed legislation
and a sample resolution expressing municipal support for your
council's consideration.
Currently, the Hennepin Parks Board of Commissioners is 8 seven-
member board with five commissioners elected and two
commissioners appointed by the Hennepin County Board. The
Hennepin County board also has the authority to review and veto
the. annual park district budget as formulated by the Hennepin
Parks Board.
Since Hennepin Parks is a local unit of government empowered to
levy property taxes on the citizens of suburban Hennepin County,
we believe the Hennepin Parks Board should be fully accountable
to those citizens through the democratic electio.^. process. We
also believe that as an independent local unit of government,
Hennepin Parks should have the power to formulate and implement
annual budgets for the park district without review or veto by
the Hennepin County Board.
Furthermore., one cannot ignore growing public dissatisfaction
with controversies surrounding appointments to the Hennepin Parks.
Board. We believe an independent and democratically elected
Hennepin Parks Board is essential to restore and assure public
confidence in the board's activities and priorities.
~~, _
~~~
- 2 -
The bill has strong bi-partisan support in both the House and the
Senate with Senators Merriam, McGowan, Riveness and Traub and
Representatives Segal, Knickerbocker, Garcia, and Limmer joining
us as co-authors.
We encourage you to help secure passage of this legislation by
approving a supporting resolution at your next council meeting.
Dedicated citizens working with us will be in contact with your
council to assist in this effort and to assure your support is
reported to the Legislature.
Thank you for supporting an independent and democratic Suburban
Hennepin Regional Park District Board of Commissioners and for
your efforts to improve local government in Hennepin County.
Sincerely,
Gen Olson
.. State Senator
GO/ke
Bill Sch a er
State Representative
ttr~
J
Star Tribune
Established 1867
Roger Parkinson Publisher and President
Joel R. Kramer Executive Editor
Tim J. McGWn Managing Editor
Robert J. Whke Editorial Editor
Friday Fecr;:ary 2?. ? cc,
~~ ~~~-~~~~ta~ c~~r~~y pars ~oa~~
Tite Henne;,ir, Co~nt~ Board's decu,on to oeer•
ride last fait's e!ec;ion results and put David
Dombrowski back on the Suburban Hennepin
Parks Board was more than just a slap ir. the face
for voters. It was a slap in the Legislature's face as
well. .end legalators should not let their ! 991
stssion end without doing something about it.
That something should be to step the County
Board of its poµer to appoint two Parks Board
members to serve alongside the live members
directly elected. The Legislature gaee county com-
missioners the appointment authorrv as a com-
promise between their desire for full control of the
parks s~ stem and the public's desire to keep the
parks independent of county politics.
The unusual arangement was considered at the
time a reasonable way to balance the interests of
county eoeern.-ner:: with the interests of park
users..-end for several ~~ears it worsed reasonable
well. Elected and appointed board members genei--
ally pulsed together. e•:en on issues as bitterly
contro~ers,ai as thz acquisition of a new park on
Lake ~tin:ietonka.
Rece~tl~.. however. a split developed between
elected and appointed members. end when Dom-
browski -who had been appointed to the board
to fill a ~•acance -was defeated in his first try for
election. the split exploded into open wartare.
~ow~ the board can't even agree on who should
serve as permanent chairnan.
This is an intolerable situation that the Legislature
helped create and therefore has an obligation to
correct. But the Legislature has more to do here
than just repair its own mistakes. It also Has a duty
- higher than arv other - to uphold the demo-
cratic process and the right of the people to decide
who should represent them. and who should not.
That right has clearly been violated by the Henne-
pin Count} Board's•dectsion to put- Dombrowski
back into a job from which the voters had ousted
him. To make sure that never happens again. the
Legislature should :Hake the Suburban Hennepin
Parks Board what it oug^t to ha~•e been all along: a
bode consisting e^t:re:~ of members elected by
and representing the people of suburban Hennepin
County.
q-~
03/05/91 (REVISOR HMW/KS 91-:791
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
/~ 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
26
27
Senators Olson, McGowan, Ric=_r.ess, Merria;r. and Tra,:b introd~.:ced--
S. F. No. 692 Referred *_o the Com;r,ittee on Local Goy:eraT=n=
A bill for an act
relating to the suburban Hennepin regional park
district; setting the size of the board; removing
powers of the Hennepin county board to review and veto
reserve district budget; amending Minnesota Statutes
1990, sections 383B.68, subdivisions 1, 3, and 4, and
by adding a subdivision; and 383B.73, subdivision l;
repealing Minnesota Statutes 1990, sections 383B.68,
subdivision 2; and 3838.69.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 383B.68,
subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. Effective January 1, X993 1993, and
notwithstanding any provision of sections 398.02 to 398.04, or
any other law to the ccntrary, the board of park district
commissioners of the subu:ban Hennepin eetsrstr regional park
reserve district shall consist of seven commissioners appeizted
er elected as provided in this section.
Sec. Z. Minnesota Statutes"1990, section 3838.68,
subdivision 3, is amended to read:
Subd. 3. Pipe Seven park district commissioners shall be
elected as provided in this subdivision to represent those
portions of Hennepin county outside of the city of Minneapolis.
One park district commissioner shall be elected without party
designation from each of the districts established pursuant to
subdivision 4. Elections under this subdivision shall be held
at the same time and in the same manner as elections for the
' G~ ,
03/05/91 (REVISOR ] HMW/i(S 91-1791
1 office of county commissioner beginning at the }996 1992 general !S
2 election. Each park district commissioner elected pursuant to ;
3 this subdivision shall be a resident of the district represented
4 and shall serve for a term of four years and until a successor
5 is elected and qualifies, except that the .term of office o: each
6 park district commissioner elected at the general election held
7 in the year of a federal census shall be only two years and
8 until a successor is elected and qualifies. At the general
9 election following redistricting as required in subdivision 4,
10 the three °our commissioners from odd-numbered districts shall
11 be elected fer fouz-year terms and the tMe three commissioners
12 f:bm even-numbered districts shall be elected for two-year
13 terms. i'-s-vaear:eY-eeetrs-ia-ttse-effiee-ef-er7-eenunieaierser
14 e~eeted-pnrsnarst-te-thzs-eabdiviesettT-the-Beard-ef-perk-di~triet
15 eenunisaieeers-eha~l-appeiat-a-eeseeeaser-residing-in-t!~ae
16 dzetriet-te-fill-t!se-aszexpired-tern+r
17 Sec. 3. Minnesota 'Statutes 1990, section 3838.68, is
18 amended by adding a subdivision to read:
19 Subd. 3a. If a vacancy occurs in the office of any
20 commissioner elected ou:suant to subdivision 2, a commissioner
21 sha " be elected to fi'1 the unexpired term is the _°irst ge^.eral
22 elec-~on following the e:eation of the vacancy. unless the
23 vacancv occ••-s less than 20 davs before the general electior. in
24 which case the board of Dark district commissioners shall, not
25 earlie- t'^an February 1 following the general election, appoint
26 an interim commissioner to fill the unexpired term. If a
27 vacancv occurs `n she of" ce of a commissioner 180 davs or more
28 beFOre the first general election following the vacancy, the
29 boa-d of Dark diet-'c• commissioners may appoint an interim
30 commissioner to serve until a new commissioner is elected. Each
31 pa-k dist-ict commissioner elected or appointed pursuant to t!:is
32 subdivision shall be a resident of the district represented.
33 Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 383B.68r
34 subdivisior. 4, is amended to read:
35 Subd. 4. After September i, X985 199., and after at least
36 30 days' notice and public hearing, the board of park district
~~
03i05i91 (REVISOR ) HMW/KS 91-1;91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
~-- 1 B
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
.6
27
28
.'9
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
commissioners of the Hennepin county park reserve district shall
divide the territory of Hennepin county outside the city of
Minneapolis into five seven districts, which constitute the
suburban Hennepin eesnt7 regional park reserve district. Ea c!:
district shall be composed of contiguous territory as regular
and compact in form as practicable and as nearly equal ..
population as possible, provided that no district shall vary :.^.
population more than ten percent from .the average of all the
districts, unless compliance with this requirement requires
division of a voting precinct. After each federal census and by
not late: than 120 days before the next ensuing general
election, alts: at least 30 days .notice and public hearing, the
board of park district commissioners of the suburban Hennepin
eeent7 regional park reserve district shall redistrict the its
territory ef-the-Heznepia-eeesr:tr-park-reserve-distriet into new
commissioner districts as necessary to comply with the
provisions of this subdivision. The districts established
pursuant to this subdivision shall remain effective until new
districts are established. Any person aggrieved by a
districting plan established pursuant to this subdivision may
challenge the plan in the same manner as a county commissioner
districting plan may be challenged pursuant to section 375.025.
The district court in reviewing any challenge to a districting
plan under this subdivision shall proceed in the manner
presczibed by section 375.025. Each districting plan
established pursuant to this subdivision shall be filed in the
office of the director of finance of Hennepin county or any
successor office and shall be effective 31 days after its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county.
Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 383H.73,
subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. (LEVY.) To provide funds for the purposes
of the suburban Hennepin eeesr~tY regional park reserve d:.st:ict
as set forth in its annual budget, in lieu of the levies
authorized by any other special law for such purposes, the board
of park district commissioners may levy taxes on all the taxable
3
i ~-~
`` 03/05/91 (REVISOR J HMW/KS 91-1791
~'•' ! 1 property in the county and park district at a rate not exceeding
2 0.03224 percent of market value. Notwithstanding section
__ ~
3 398.16, on or before October 1 of each year, after public
~4 hearing, the board of park district commissioners shall adept a
5 budget for the ensuing year and shall determine the total amount
6 necessary to be raised from ad valorem tax levies to meet its
7 budget. m4se-beerd-ef-perk-diatr:et-eeauetiaaienera-eha:z-eeb~nte
8 t!~e-bedget-te-ehe-eenr~t7-beardz--the-ee~snt7-beerd-n-aY-rote-er
9 n+edif7-en-ite~e-eentair~ed-ia-the-bedget---zf-t::e-tetsrstp-bear3
10 deter~inee-te-veto-er-te-aedif7-ees-item-irs-toe-bedget-- a-mtetT
11 «it4i:s-ff-da7e-after-toe-besdget-«es-aesbn+itted-b7-the-diecr:tt
12 beardr-eeete-ire-«r.r:rg-t!se-epeei~ie-reeeer~a-for-its-e•e?eetie~
13 te-t4e-seem-reteea-er-rise-rea~ess-der-the-nsedifieat:er.---mho-parx
14 reeerve-dieeriet-beard:-after-eereieerat:err-ef-the-ee,s~t7
15 beardje-eb=eetiene-end-proposed-meeifieat:etsa:-~-aY-reapprese-a
16 vetoed-ites--er-the-original-rereien-of-ea-item-.-it?s-respect-te
•~ 17 «isiei-a-n+edifieatiers-isas-been-prepesedT-br-e-t«e-tlsirds
I
18 ma±erit7---ff-else-district-beare3-bees-:set-reappre~e-a-.creed
,,.,,.
• 19 ite~nrthe-ite:t-si~aff-be-deleted-front-the-badger---rf-t4e
i
20 district-beerd-does-sset-reeppre~e-rise-original-rersie:z-ef-a
i
21 nteditied-itentT-the-item-elsasf-be-irselsded-i:s-toe-bedget-as
i
22 ntedified-bY-the-tetsntr-beerd- After adoption of the final
23 budget and no later than October 1, the superintendent of the
24 park district shall certify to the office of the Hennepir. cot::ay
25 director of tax and public records exercising the functions of
~ 26 the county auditor the total amount to be raised from ad valorem
27 tax levies to meet its budget for the ensuing year. The
28 director of tax and public records shall add the amount of any
29 levy certified by the district to other tax levies on the
30 property of the county within the district for collection by the
31 director of tax and public records with other taxes. when
32 col'_ected, the director shall make settlement of such taxes with
33 the district in the same manner as other taxes are distributed
34 to the other political subdivisions in Hennepin county:
35 Sec. 6. (REVISOR iNSTRUCTION.J
36 *n the next editions of Minnesota Statutes and Minnesota
4
~..
. a--o
03/05%91 ;REV;SOR ) HMW/KS 9i-791
1 Rules, the revisor shall change the term "He.^.nepin ceur.ty aa:K
2 reserve district" to "subu:bare Hennepin regional park district
3 wherever it appears in sections 3838.68 to 3838.74, except :..
4 section 3838.703.
5 Sec. 7. (REPEALER.)
6 Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 3838.68, subdivision 2;
7 ar.d 3838.69, are resealed.
8 Sec. 8. (EFFECT.VE DATE.)
9 Sections l to 4, 6, and 7 take effect the day after the
10 suburban Hennepin regional park district board complies with
11 Mir.nescta Statutes, section 645.021, subdivision 3. :f the
i2 board does not file an approval before August 1, 1991, the
i3 matter shall be submitted for a vote of .the people who reside i
14 the ark district at a special elec~ion in 1991. The question
15 proposed shall be:
16 "Stall the suburban Hennepi.^. regional park district board
i7 be chanced from a partly appoi.^.ted to a wholly elected body?
18 Yes
19 No ~~
20 :f a maiority of those voting on the question vote ves. ~!:e
21 act shall be effective for the 1992 election and thereafter.
22 Section 5 takes effect the day after the suburban Hennepin
23 -ea~ora' Dark district board c=mnlies with Minnesota Statutes,
24 section 645.021, subdivision 3.
5
1~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.75
Agenda March 25, 1991
Issue Statement•
Consideration of a proposal to conduct a community City services
survey by Decision Resources in an amount not to exceed $10,000.
Backaround•
The City Council has previously approved a budget line item of
$10,000 to conduct a City services survey. A similar survey was
conducted by Decision Resources 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, 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 legislators as the legislature
continues to examine alternatives to addressing the state's
financial plight.
Additionally, there are a number of follow up issues which-need
to be followed up 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 also 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 also
attached.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement in an amount
not to exceed $10,000 with Decision Resources Ltd. for a
community survey.
Basis for 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 to
provide the best data at the lowest reasonable cost.
3. The Council has previously discussed this matter as part of
the budget deliberation. $10,000 was included in the budget
for a City survey.
10- i
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 very 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 March 25, 1991. If the proposal is approved, Decision
Resources will meet the City Council within the next thirty days
to seek Council input regarding questions to be included in the
survey. It is expected that the survey would be completed
approximately sixty day after the meeting with the Council.
Respec submitted,
James D rosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
~'. Decision '0-2
y~ Resources Ltd.
EXECUTIVE BUMMARY
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 guest 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 }n
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, >\9innesota 55416 • (612) 920-0337
~d-3
Richfield, in comparison with many other communities, faces
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 ad8ressed. 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 exceptironal. 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
1 ~-~
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
1'he 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.
to-~
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
f~`-`:' 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 fagt
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
~O--b
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 concern
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.
Io
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.
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
id -$
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 pepple reported being out of
the information loop; and in some cases, .this appeared to be
conscious "opting-out." 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
i n-9
residents stated it was their principal source of
information. Conversely,. though, there is some
improvement. About one-third of the .subscribers
irregular delivery and the papers ,reach into apartment
and among new-comers is somewhat lower.
~>.~
government
room f or
reported
complexes
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.
^ Decision °-~
7~ Resources Ltd.
March 8, 1991
Mr. James Prosser
City Manager
City of Richfield
City Hall
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear Jim:
Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to present this survey
research proposal to the City of Richfield. Much of this
proposal is based upon our earlier conversation with you and
members of your staff. This prospectus is organized in three
parts: a discussion of the goals of the research; a potential
design and schedule; and, estimated project costs. As you will
~~' see, I am certain that DRL can again provide- the City of
Richfield with the infonaation it seeks in both a cost-effective
and timely manner.
GOALS OF THE RESEARCH:
The survey would assess the attitudes and needs of Richfield
residents on four separate, but interrelated, issues:
1. EVALUATION OF CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS. How satisfied are
residents with current city services? Are there any services
which are rated as duplicative or unsatisfactory? .Are there any
services which residents feel should be newly offered or
augmented? How much would residents be willing to pay to cover
the cost of new and/or expanded services? •What types of cuts
would they be willing to see enacted in light of State
legislative actions? How do the present ratings compare with
those from the 1988 study of the City?
2. IMAGE OF THE CITY. How do residents view Richfield? Have
things changed for the better or the worse since 1988? What
types of policies should be pursued in order to keep the city
"special"? What alternative futures do residents most prefer in
light of these changes? Is there an existing consensus about the
future, or the possibility of crystallizing a consensus?
3. ISSUES FACING THE COMMUNITY. What are current residential
preferences on the further development of the park system? What
3128 Dean Court • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 • (612) 920-0337
~ ~-- ~ i
are their opinions about solid waste. management and related
environmental issues? How do they view the current debate on the
future of the Airport, Highway 494, light rail transit, and other
transportation issues? Are seniors being adequately served? Has
crime worsened in the minds of the citizenry? What actions are
residents willing to take consistent with property tax and
spending cut implications?
4. CHANGING CITY DEMOGRAPHICS. Does the current population
profile suggest policy strategies for city government? Does the
composition of the households in the city. suggest the need for
specific types of programs? .Are there ideas for cost-savings and
economy measures in providing city services to the. various
segments of the community?
The survey questionnaire would contain a series of items aimed at
exploring each of these topics, as well as any other concerns of
the Council and staff. In addition to providing an excellent
gauge of residential attitudes at the present time,. the responses
would. also provide a track on any repeated issues from the' 1988
survey.
One of the strengths of our company is the ability to
realistically and accurately project current attitudes and
opinions into the future. Because of the many different types of
cities we have worked with, and several Metropolitan Area-wide
~.,4} studies we have completed recently, we are able to derive
~'~-~~" implications about the shape of future decades fora community..
As you may know, suburbs follow a pronounced "life cycle" -- DRL
has worked with municipalities at all stages of this- cycle.
Consequently, we are able to anticipate probable change, and its
effect on residential needs and perceptions, based upon the
present.
OIITLINE AND SCHEDIILE OF THE RESEARCH:
Decision Resources, Ltd., proposes to conduct a telephone survey
of 400 randomly selected households in Richfield. A sample of
this size would provide results projectable to the entire city
within + 5.0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. .The sample is also
of sufficient size to permit the city to be divided into a
maximum of four zones for more detailed analysis.
To insure the integrity of the sample, DRL places the. most
exacting. sampling standards in the industry on our procedures.
Before an alternate household is substituted for a designated
target, .numerous tries are made to contact the initial household.
The calls take place during various times on weekday evenings and
during the weekend. Our phoneys are also instructed to seek
convenient appointments with interviewees, cutting our in-proce"ss
refusal rate to less than four percent on average. An unbiased
selection process is also used to identify the adult member of
the household to be interviewed. To validate the completed
sample, the latest census population characteristics are utilized
2
io-~ 2
as a standard of comparison.
The questionnaire would be administered by DRL trained and
supervised personnel. The Company is proud of the fact that the
average length of employment of the DRL, interviewers is four
years; the employment stability of our phoneys is unique in the
industry and provides our clients with the most sophisticated and
proven interviewers available in the region.
The computer analysis will be obtained from the DRL remote job
entry facility to the University of Minnesota CYBER system,
insuring both access to the most current statistical analysis
programs and confidentiality of the data set.
The City of Richfield will be presented with two bound copies of
the final report highlighting all the major findings. of the
study. DRL will make all relevant comparisons with the 1988 study
undertaken for the City. DRL will also speak to any major
differences from and similarities with ether recently completed
suburban residential .attitudes .studies undertaken for inner-ring
areas. such as Roseville, Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Maplewood, New
Brighton, and Arden Hills, as well as twenty-one other suburbs
within the second- and third-rings. A volume of all computer
generated cross tabulations and other multivariate statistical
techniques will also be included to provide the "raw" data
required for further secondary analyses. In addition, the
findings will be presented by me at any meetings or work sessions
specified by the City.
The components of the project and the proposed time schedule is
outlined below:
1. Planning meetings with Council, staff, and/or relevant
citizens committees,. to establish the topics to be covered in the
survey. Based on these topic concepts, DRL would word specific,
neutral questions. This activity to be completed within three
weeks of the initiation of the contract.
2. Structuring of questions and final approval of the survey
instrument. These activities to be completed within four weeks
of the initiation of the contract.
3. Final determination of the field dates for interviewing.
4. Pre-testing and, if needed, approval of resulting revisions.
This activity to be completed by the second day of field work.
5. Completion of all fieldwork within a two week period.
6. Computer analysis and preparation of written report. All
analytical analysis and commentary will be available within SIX
WEEKS after completion of the field work.
7. Meetings with the City. Council, staff and/or citizen
committees in either a work session or formal presentation to
3
10- ~3
explain and discuss the
discussion and strategy
convenient .for the City
delivery of the report.
results of the study.
session can be arranged
Council members and/or
The final
at a time
staff after
DRL personnel are also willing to attend a reasonable number of
additional meetings for dissemination of the data to the public,
city boards, or other organizations. On-going telephone
consultation about any part of the study, analysis, or
implications is also included.
PROJECT COSTSS
A sixty question unit 400 household random sample of the City of
Richfield would cost $5,800.00. Each additional question unit
beyond the initial sixty would be $90.00. Recent city studies
have cost between $5,980 and $12,100, depending on the goals of
the project and the breadth of the research.
Included in this cost are two bound copies of the written
analysis, one volume of crosstabs and related statistical tests,
an executive summary of the highlights of .the study,, and a
reasonable number of presentations and work sessions.
The cost of any study is driven by the number of question units
___ contained on the survey instrument. DRL counts each question as
l one or less "units." For example, a series of ten queries
soliciting respondents to evaluate various school programs would
not count as "ten" units. More likely, it would be counted as
two or three, depending upon the response required of the
interviewee. Similarly, open-ended questions, or unaided
response questions requiring top-of-the-mind reactions, also
count as one unit. Hence, the final number of questions is
usually considerably greater than the number of question units.
As company policy, DRL requires one-half of the cost prior to the
commencement of field work; the remainder is due upon delivery of
the final written report. Unless otherwise arranged, DRL
invoices clients at the time of the approval of the survey
instrument.
I hope this proposal sufficiently covers all the information you
require. For your possible interest, I have enclosed some
information about Decisions Resources, Ltd., and several recent
newspaper accounts of our activities. If you have any further
questions, please feel free to contact either Diane Trailer or
me. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you again.
Sincerely,
1
William D.
President
Morris, Ph.D.
4
^ Decision '° 4
~~ Resources Ltd.
PROFE88IONAL RESZJME
WILLIAM D. MORRIS
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
1983-Present, President, Decision Resources, Ltd.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
1987-Present, Lecturer, Department of Political
Science, Augsburg College, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
1985-1988, Adjunct Instructor, Department of
Political Science, College of Saint Thomas, Saint Paul,
Minnesota.
1981-1983., State Chairman, Independent-Republicans of
Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota.
/~- 1974-1981, Assistant Professor of Political Science,
Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
1973-1974, Instructor of Political Science and Management
Systems, Department of Political Science and School of
Economics. and Management, Oakland University, Rochester,
Michigan.
EDIICATION
B.A. (Magna Cum Laude), Political Science and Mathematics,
Oakland University, (Rochester, Michigan), August, 1970.
Ph.D., Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie-Mellon University,
(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), June, 1975.
AWARDS
Ford Motor Company Fund Scholar.
Woodrow Wilson National Fellow.
3128 Dean Court • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 • (612) 920-0337
1b--IS
SELECTED PIIBLICATIONS
Thomas W. Casstevens and William D. Morris, "The Cube Law
and the Decomposed Electoral System," Canadian Journal of
Political Science, (December, 1972).
William D. Morris, "The Plight of the Ethnic Candidate: A
Spatial Analysis," Anthropology and the Public Interest,
edited by Peggy R. Sanday, (1976).
Roger Benjamin, William Morris, and Kan Ori, "A Model of
Factions in the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party," ualit
and Quantity, (Winter, _1978).
William D. Morris and Roger H. Marz, "Treadmill to Oblivion:
The Fate of Appointed Senators," Publius, (Winter, 1981).
.Jeffrey W. Stempel and William D.•Morris, "Electoral Folk-
lore: An Empirical Examination of the Abortion Issue,"
Yale Law and Policy Review, (Fall, 1982).
William D. Morris, "The BEST of Times, The WORST of Times,"
Minnesota Business News, (November, 1986)
RESEARCH INTERESTS
Electoral Behavior: Voting Behavior, Mathematical/
Rational Choice Models, Socio-Demographics, Survey Research.
Comparative Politics: State Governments and Politics,
Western European Politics, Power Structures, Japanese
Politics.
Public Policy Analysis: Health Care Delivery Systems,
Housing, Urban-Suburban Policy, Election Reform.
.Business and Public Policy: Issues Management Systems,
Corporate Image, Policy Marketing.
Organizational Behavior: Communications, Structure and
Function, Organizational Culture, Leadership.
Methodology: Statistics, Mathematical Programming, Game
Theory, Econometrics. ~,
^ Decision ° "
7~ Resources Ltd.
CAPABILITIES STATEMENT
The Firm
Decision Resources, Ltd. is a full-service market and research
firm. DRL was incorporated in 1983, and has served clients
across the nation in the private, public, and political sectors.
The firm's main offices are located in Minneapolis, Minnesota,.
and Divisional Personnel reside in Miami, Florida.
As a full-service firm, all word processing, duplication, print-
ing, sample selection, interview tabulation, and computer analy-
sis are undertaken on-site. All telephone surveys .are conducted
at the DRL phonebank located in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Local in-
home and elite/specialized interviews are administered by company
personnel. In addition to internal IBM computer facilities, the
firm also has a remote entry access to the CYBER system at the
University of Minnesota.
The company is composed of sixty full-time and part-time em-
~•~~ ployees. The main principals of the firm possess extensive
backgrounds in marketing, public affairs, survey research, and
statistical methods. This cross-disciplinary background allows
DAL to approach research problems from many different perspec-
tives, and to evaluate potential strategies from a myriad of
theoretical bases.
Recent and Current Clients
Private and Public sector Clients:
Municipalities and State Government
City of Plymouth, Park Referendum Analysis, Plymouth, Minnesota
City of Plymouth, City Services Assessment, Plymouth, Minnesota
City of Plymouth, Quality of Life Study, Plymouth, Minnesota
City of Plymouth, Quality of Life Tracking Study, Plymouth,
Minnesota
City of Bloomington, Quality of Life Study, Bloomington,
Minnesota
City of Inver Grove Heights, Solid and Harzardous Waste Disposal
Study, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota
City of Inver Grove Heights., Parks. and Recreational Facilities
Needs Analysis, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota
3128 Dean Court • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 •..(612) 920-0337
io-~~
City of Roseville, Quality of Life Study, Roseville, Minnesota
City of Roseville, Quality of Life Tracking Study, Roseville,
.Minnesota
City of Shoreview, Quality of Life Study, Shoreview, Minnesota
City of Shoreview, Quality of Life Tracking Study, Shoreview,
Minnesota
City of Cottage Grove, Economic Development Study, Cottage Grove,
Minnesota
City of Eagan, Parks and Recreational Facilities Needs Analysis,
Eagan., Minnesota
City of Chaska, Quality of Life Study, Chaska, Minnesota
City of Chaska, Community Center Needs Study, Chaska, Minnesota
City of Woodbury, Referendum Planning for the Administrative
Facilities Proposal, Woodbury, Minnesota
City of Little Canada, Parks and Recreational Facilities Needs
Analysis, Little Canada, Minnesota
City of Mounds View, Quality of Life Study, Mounds View,
Minnesota
City of Hopkins, Residential Needs Analysis, Hopkins, Minnesota
City of Lakeville, Quality of Life Study, Lakeville, Minnesota
City of Burnsville, Vision: 2010 Project, Burnsville, Minnesota
City of Richfield, Municipal Services/Economic Development Study,
Richfield, Minnesota
City of Richfield Marketing Task Force, City Image and Population
Mobility Study, Richfield, Minnesota
City of Oakdale, Parks and Recreational Facilities Needs
Analysis, Oakdale, Minnesota
City of New Brighton, Residential Needs Analysis, New Brighton,
Minnesota
City of New Brighton,' Community Center Analysis, New Brighton,
Minnesota
City of Minnetonka, Employee Census, Minnetonka, Minnesota
City of Minnetonka, Quality of Life Study, Minnetonka, Minnesota
City of Rosemount, 2010 Project, Rosemount, Minnesota
City of Arden Hills, Community Needs Analysis, Arden Hills,
Minnesota
City of Crystal, Quality of Life Study, Crystal, Minnesota
City of Elk River, Park and Recreation Needs Analysis, Elk River,
Minnesota
Washington County, Residential Attitudes Survey, Stillwater,
Minnesota
Washington County, Communications Study, Stillwater, Minnesota
Dakota County, Household Hazardous Waste Program Evaluation, West
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Dakota County, Residential Attitudes Study, Hastings, Minnesota
Minnesota World Trade Center, Regional Feasibility Study, Saint
Paul, Minnesota
Government Training Services, Study for the Energy Division of
the State Department of Administration, Saint Paul,
Minnesota
I~-18
Corporations
Cowles Communications, Inc., Theatre Market Segmentation Analy-
sis, Minneapolis, Minnesota
3M, Public Relations Department, Corporate Culture Analysis,
Saint Paul, Minnesota.
3M, Issues Management Task Force, Image and Issues Analysis,
Saint Paul, Minnesota
3M, Public Relations Department, Group Facilitation Methods,
Saint Paul, Minnesota
3M, Public Relations Department, Internal Communications Study,
Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Public Relations Department,
3M, Public Relations Department, External Communications Study,
Saint Paul, Minnesota
3M, Public Relations Department,'Market Analysis of Local Pub-
lications, Saint Paul, Minnesota
3M, Public Relations Department, Course on Public Relations
Strategy, Saint Paul, Minnesota
3M, Public Relations Department, Practicum on Public Relations
Strategy, Saint Paul, Minnesota
3M, Executive Offices, Crisis Management Team/Product Failure,
Saint Paul, Minnesota
3M, Leisure Time Products Division, Packaging Analysis, Saint
Paul, Minnesota
3M, Leisure Time Products Division, Direct Response Customer
Profile, Saint Paul, Minnesota
3M, Leisure Time Products Division, Direct Response Prediction
Model, Saint Paul, Minnesota
3M, Leisure Time Products Division, Retail Store Buyer Analysis,
Saint Paul, Minnesota
3M, Leisure Time Products Division, Point-of-Purchase Effective-
ness Study, Saint Paul, Minnesota
CFS-Minnesota, Inc., Planning and Communications Focus Group
Sessions, Golden Valley, Minnesota
CFS-Minnesota, Inc., Sexual Harassment and Appropriate Behavior
Focus Group Sessions, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Continental Cablevision Sierra Region, Fresno City Utility Tax
Referendum, Continental Cablevision, Stockton, California
Northern States Power Company, Economic Development Study,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Financial Institutions and Realtors
Franklin State Bank, Rural Viability Study, Franklin, Minnesota
Twin City Federal Savings and Loan, Market Study, Minneapolis,
Minnesota
James Hoffman and Associates, Rural Housing Study, Willmar,
Minnesota
First Bank Minneapolis, Metropolitan Area Quality of Life Study
First Banks System, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Northeast State Bake, Community Reinvestment Act Compliance
Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota
~o -~q
Business Organizations
Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, Major League Baseball
Task Force, Twins Market Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, Convention Center
Preference Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Minnesota Project on Corporate Responsibility, Leadership in
Transition Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry, Membership Survey
Series, Saint Paul, Minnesota
School Districts
Bloomington School District, Communications Audit, Bloomington,
Minnesota
Mounds View School District, Referendum, Planning Study,
Roseville, Minnesota
Mounds View School District, Boundary Changes Study,. Roseville,
Minnesota
West Saint Paul School District, Referendum Planning Study, West
Saint Paul., Minnesota
Anoka-Hennepin School District, Referendum Planning Study, Coon
Rapids, Minnesota
Hopkins-Minnetonka School District, Referendum Planning Study,
Hopkins, Minnesota
Minneapolis School District, Referendum Planning Study,
~. Minneapolis, Minnesota
South Washington County School District, Prior Referendum
Analysis, Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Minnetonka School District, Prior Referendum Analysis, Excelsior,
Minnesota
Robbinsdale School District, Referendum Planning Study, New Hope,
Minnesota
Saint Anthony-New Brighton School District, Communications Study,
Saint Anthony, Minnesota
Saint Louis Park School District, Referendum Planning Study,
Saint Louis Park, Minnesota
Education District 2001 Community Education Programs Study (Elk
River, Delano, Maple Lake, Howard Lake-Waverly, and Rockford
School Districts), Cokato, Minnesota
Diocese of Saint Augustine, Catholic Education in the
Jacksonville Area Study, Jacksonville, Florida
Diocese of Saint Augustine, Catholic Education in the Saint
Augustine Area Study, Saint Augustine, Florida
All Souls Catholic School, Market Segmentation Study, Sanford,
Florida
Toting-Grace High School, Market Segmentation Study, Fridley,
Minnesota
Bethlehem Academy, School Feasibility Study, Faribault, Minnesota
Holy Angels High School, Perceptions Study, Richfield, Minnesota
Saint Matthews Elementary School, Parish Family Preference and
Future Policies Analysis, Saint Paul, Minnesota
Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Dakota County School
Feasibility Study, Saint Paul, Minnesota
~o-~za
Religious Organizations
Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Development Office,
Annual Catholic Appeal Market Segmentation Analysis, Saint
Paul, Minnesota
School Sisters of Notre Dame, Community and Ministry Satisfaction
Study, Mankato, Minnesota
Non-Profit and .Cultural/Arts Organizations
Ramsey County Historical Society, Membership Survey and New
Member Drive, Saint Paul, Minnesota
O'Shaughnessy Dance Series, Market Segmentation Analysis, College
of Saint Catherine,. Saint Paul, Minnesota
The Minnesota Opera, Potential Audience Study, Development
Office, Saint Paul, Minnesota
The League of Minnesota Cities, Membership Survey, Saint Paul,
Minnesota
Northwest Community Television, Cable Subscribers Satisfaction
Study, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.
Northwest Community Television, Subscriber Tracking Study,
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Northwest Community Television - King Cablevision, .Subscriber
Tracking Study, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
'; Northern Dakota County Cable Commission, Subscriber Needs
Analysis, West Saint Paul, Minnesota
Southwest Community Television, Programming Study, Eden Prairie,
Minnesota
The Nature Conservancy, Attitudes toward Conservation in the
Cannon River Valley, Minneapolis, Minnesota
The Saint Paul YWCA, Needs Analysis of Summit Hill Area, Saint
Paul, Minnesota
~o-~ i
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD.
3128 Dean Court
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
Richfield Marketing Study
CURRENT RESIDENTS
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 IQdOW/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 IQdOW/REFUSED .....~$
1
i ~-~a
~.-,.
8. What type of home did you live in
now? Is it a...(READ CATEGORIES)
Other:
SINGLE FAMILY HOME ....80$
DUPLEX ............
CONDOMINILTM......,
TOWNHOUSE .........
APARTMENT BUILDING .....6$
.....0$
.....0$
....14$
OTHER .............
DON'T IQdOW/REFUSED .....0$
.....0$
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:
12.
VERY SATISFIED........64%
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED....25%
NEUTRAL (VOL)..........7%
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED..S%
VERY DISSATISFIED......0%
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 #2-#6), ASK:
11. 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$; COST LIVI:
BETTER, 19$; LARGER, 27$;
4$; MORE SPACE, 14$; WANT
Would you consider remodel-
ing your current residence
to better meet those future
needs?
NG, 3$; DETERIORATION, 5%;
JOB RELATED, 6%; SCHOOLS,
TO MOVE, 7$
YES ...................19%
NO ....................60%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....21%
IF "NO," ASK:
13. Why not?
NO ANSWER, 5$; DON'T WISH, 28$; TOO 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- NO ....................71$
deuce if financial incen- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....12$
tives were available?
2
~ O-~3
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
16. Have
17. Have
18. Have
19. Have
20. Have
21. Have
22. Have
23. Have
24. Have
25. Have
26. Have
27. Have
28. Have
29. Have
30. Have
more than one bathroom ..............24$.38%..21%.14%.3%
a two-car or three-car garage.......17%.35%..27%.18%.2%
a fourth bedroom .....................?%.17$..26%.48%.3%
a driveway rather than using an
alley ...............................21%.38%..20%.16%.5%
a large, roomy home .................17%.44%..20%.17%.2%
a large yard.. ......... .........12%.37%..28%.19%.3%
an older style home with individual
character .and charm ..................5%.24$..27%.39%.6%
a fairly small yard that is easy to
take care of .........................6%.21%..18%.50%.5%
a home with new/updated roof, plumbing
heating, and electrical system......29%.43%..15%..9%.4%
established landscaping with mature
trees ................................9%.27%..36%.24%.3%
an attached garage ...................6%.25%..28%.39%.2%
a sidewalk.. ........ .........7%.20%..26%.43%.4%
a home that's different in design
from other homes on the street.......5%.29%..30%.33%.3%
a family room .......................18%.31%..24%.21%.5%
an older home that can be remodeled
attractively ... .....................4$.25%..31%.35%.5%
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.....26%
.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
IC~-a~~
Lets talk about your neighborhood in Richfield....
34. Do you think that in the past few MORE DESIRABLE........21$
years your neighborhood has become LESS DESIRABLE........17$
more desirable as a place to live, NOT MUCH CHANGE.......51$
less desirable, or has there not DON'T IaJOW/REFUSED....11$
been much change?
35. .Why do you feel that way? .(PROBE CAREFULLY)
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$..7$..1$
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$..61$..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 ..................42$..43$..9$..4$..3$
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 DONT
EQUALLY BUY
52. Groceries? 36$ 52$ 12$ 0$
53. Furniture? 16$ 67$ 3$ 14$
54. Liquor? 64$ 16$ 3$ 17$
55. Gasoline? 83$ 8$ 6$ 4$
56. Hardware? 63$ 21$ 11$ 4$
4
r o -zs
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$ 1%
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?
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. ....6%
schools, non-public schools, both BOTH .............. 4%
types, or are you not sure? .
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. .. .
...51%
R`-~"'~- IF " PUBLIC SCHOOLS" OR "BOTH
" ASK:
,
68. Now, I want to ask you about the EXCELLENT .......... .
64%
Richfield Public Schools. Would GOOD ............ ..
28%
you say on the whole the Richfield ......
ONLY FAIR ..........
3%
Public Schools are excellent, ....
POOR .............
0%
good, only fair, or poor? ......
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5%
69. From what you have seen or heard,
do you think the Richfield Public
Schools have generally been get-
ting better in recent years, been
getting worse, or had they stayed
about the same?
GETTING BETTER........51$
GETTING WORSE..........3$
ABOUT THE SAME........31$
DON'T IQJOW/REFUSED....15$
70. Would you say that Richfield YES...................91%
Public Schools are good enough NO .....................5%
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
~o-~ ~
. EX GD OF PR DK
72. Class size....... ........................ .24$.42$.18$..1$.15$
73. 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$.4
4$..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%..l$..0%.15%
82. Responsiveness of teachers and other
.school personnel..... ....... .33$.40~..5~..0%.23~
83. Provision of programs for students
with special needs ................. .27$.38$..2$..0$.33%
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 s ay on the whole the .. .
ONLY FAIR ............. .0%
non-public schools are excellent, POOR .................. 11%
good, only fair, or poor? DON'T MOW/REFLISED.... .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/REFLTSED....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
l0-2~
92.
93 Discipline ..............................
Number and ran
e
f ..57$.43$..0$..0$..0$
. g
o
course.offered..... ..22$.78$..0$..0$..0%
94. Availability of art, music, and per-
95. formance arts courses .............
Quality of teaching
. ...0$.100$.0$..0$..0$
96. ..............
.....
Learning environment in the schools.... ..44$.56$..0$..0$..0$
..44$.56$..0$..0$..0$
97. Extra-curricular activities and team
98. sports ..............................40$.60$..0$..0$..0$
The distance children have to travel to
99. .get to school .......................60$.40$..0$..0$..0$
Preparation of students for college......13$.88$..0$..0%..0%
100. The upkeep of school buildings...........30$.70$..0$..0$..0$
101. Responsiveness of teachers and other
102. school personnel .....................70$.30$..0%..0%..0%
Provision of programs for students
103. with special needs ...................0$.100$.0.$..0$..0%
Student's interest
in learnin
50$
104. .
g..........
Students learning the basic skills...... .
.50$..0$..0%..0%
.50.50$..0$..0$
0%
105. Personal safety of students............. ..
.80$.20$..0$..0$
0$
106. Moral and spiritual environment......... ...
.50$.50$..0$..0$...0%
ASK EVERYONE:
107. In general, which of the following SAME BACKGROUNDS......17%
statements do you agree with most? DIFFE RENT BACKGROUNDS
57%
A. Children are better off attending BOTH .
(VOL)........
11%
schools where students have sim- NEITH ....
ER (VOL).......
4%
filar social and economic back- DON'T ...
KNOW/REF'LTSED....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, 22$; NONE, 35$; MORE SHOPPING, 3$; AIRPORT, 18$;
MORE HOUSING, 7$; IMPROVE SCHOOLS, 3$; LOWER TAXES, 1$;
QUAL LIFE, 6$; REDUCE CRIME, 2$; MORE PARKS, 2$ SCATTERED,
2$
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 DK
109. It's a clean, well kept-up neighborhood..41$.50$..8$..0$..1$
110. It's a reasonably safe area ..............44$.51$..4$..1$..1$
111. The resale value of homes in the area....30$..55$.11$...2$..3$
7
~ ~-2 S
ES VI SI NI DK
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 YES ...................66$
is taking decisive action on NO ....................16$
managing issues that affect the DON'T IQJOW/REFUSED....18$
community now and in the future?
132. Do you feel that the current YES ...................90$
park and recreational facilities NO .....................6$
in-the city meet the needs of DON'T IQdOW/REFUSED.....5$
your household?
133. As your family matures, do you YES ...................88$
feel that the current offerings NO .....................7$
in the city's parks and recrea- DON'T I~TOW/REFUSED.....5$
tion system will continue to meet _
their needs in the future, assum-
ing they are well maintained and
updated?
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
i o-zg
FAV OPP DK/R
134. Earlier completion of the community
park facilities at Veterans Memorial
Park? 55$ 11$ 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..S$
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE..24$
VO-TECH SCHOOL........12$
SOME COLLEGE..........18$
COLLEGE GRADUATE......31$
POST-GRADUATE.........10~
DON'T K110W/REFUSED.....0$
SINGLE ................23$
MARRIED ...............69$
DIVORCED ...............7$
WIDOWED ................0$
REFUSED ................2$
OWN ...................74$
RENT ..................26$
DON'T KNOW/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, l$; SCATTERED, 5$
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/RE~SED.....9$
IF "YES," ASK;
9
~~C~-3o
143. How many arelin grades Kindergarten 0: 31$ 1: 47$
through three? ~
2: 21$, 3: 1$ ~
144. In grades four through six? Os 68$, 1: 28$, 3: 1$
6: 3$
145. In grades seven and eight? 0: 75$, 1: 13$ 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.......
ren in this household attend non- " " " " " " .5~
public schools in Richfield? NO.••• "'' " " " " " ••77$
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
household? YES ...................19$
NO ................. ..81$
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0$
153. Are there any current members of YES
the American Le " '•••••••••••••••.10$
gion, VFW, or their NO ....................90$
auxiliaries in this household? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0$
154. .Which of the following categories UNDER $12,500.......
includes your total pre-tax house- $12,500-$25,000.......10$
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.
MALE ..................50$
FEMALE/AT HOME.........6$
FEMALE/WORKS OUTSIDE..44$
3
10
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.80
Agenda March 25, 1991
~..._.
Issue Statement:
Appointment of City Council Member to Friends of Wood Lake Board
of Directors.
Background:
On February 25, 1991, the Council approved Resolution No. 7723
which created the Friends of Wood Lake. That resolution
specifies that "the governing body of the Friends of Wood Lake
shall be a Board of Directors.. One member of the Board of
Directors shall be a member of the Richfield City Council
appointed by the City Council. The member from the City Council
shall be appointed for a three year term."
Recommended Motion:
Appoint a City Council Member to serve a three year term on the
Board of Directors for the Friends of Wood Lake.
Basis of Recommendation:
The resolution creating the Friends of Wood Lake requires that
one member of the Board of Directors shall be a member of the
Richfield City Council appointed by the City Council.
Alternative Recoma-endatfon:
Defer the appointment to a later Council meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is placed on the March 25, 1991 Council agenda for
Council consideration.
Respec f ly submitted,
James Prosser
City nager
JDP/e~ a
12
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council .Letter No. g~
Agenda March 25, 1991
l
Issue Statement•
Consideration of an appointment to the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC.) part 150 Committee.
Background:
MAC is required by FAA to establish a Part 150 Noise Abatement
program. The program examines alternatives to reduce the impact
of airport noise on properties outside of the airport boundaries.
A plan has been prepared which basically describes the scope and
general alternatives for noise abatement on off airport site
areas, including the City of Richfield. That plan has been
approved by the FAA. MAC is now is the process of developing
program elements which will determine specific applications. for
noise abatement programs within each community.. Examples of
noise abatement programs would include land clearance, sound
insulation and redevelopment.
MAC is establishing a committee .composed of representatives from
the noise impacted communities. MAC has formally requested that
the City of Richfield designate an individual to serve on .that
committee. The member may be an elected person, a staff person
or a member of the general public.
Recommended Motion:
The Council should appoint a designee to the Part 150 committee.
Basis for Recommendation:
Request from MAC to make an appointment. MAC has asked that the
appointment be made a soon as possible after April 1.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council may decide to defer discussion on this item until a
later date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented at the Council meeting of March 25,
1991.
Respectf y submitted,
James Prosser
City ager
JDP:ds
~.. ... i .
~ . 1 ly ~'
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION ~ 2- ~
°°"5 54-ti, Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
r`
" ~ 6040 - 28th Avenue Srntth• Minneapolis, MN 55450
;" ~~A ~ Phlme ~(il2j 7'16-870(1• Fax (6]2) 72fi-5296
~a ti
a.v. n
March 13, 1991
Mayor Martin Kirsch
City Hall
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfield, MN. 55423
Dear Mayor Kirsch:
t~ -
~, r ... ,
~, t: /~
a,_ ..
In April 1990, the FAA approved the MSP Airport Noise Compatibility grogram
(NCP-Part 15.0) submitted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC)
outlining proposed operational and land-use measures. The MSP Land Use
Management Plan within the Part 150 document included several land use
compatibility progrars for surrounding airport.communities within the LDN 65,
70 and 75 noise contours. The programs include residential soundproofing
program, school/public building soundproofing program, zoning and land use
changes, land acquisition/demolition/redevelopment program, purchase guarantee
program, and building code changes.
~ In February, 1991, MAC selected the consulting team of Aviation Plannin
Laboratories to develop with. MAC Staff and Center for Energy and the gUrban
Environment (CEDE) the design implementation plan for MSP's Part 150 Land Use
program. When completed, this plan will define the yearly schedule and
priorities of the Part 150 Land Use program implementation at MSP, reflecting
the multi-jurisdictional. interests of communities within the LDN 65-75 noise
contours. Some of the tasks that the design implementation plan will include
are land use program development with corresponding .financial options, public
input program development, administrative program development, city-specific
program priority development, and public input from all communities within the
LDN 65-75 noise contours (Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota
Heights).
To ensure proper oversight throughout the entire implementation design
process,. given multi-jurisdictional interest, MAC is forming the MSP Land Use
Policy Advisory Comm;rroo to work with the MAC staff/Aviation Planning/Wyle
.Labs/CEDE team. The Land Use Policy Advisory Committee will meet with MAC's
consultant team during key intervals throughout the design process to monitor
and make recommendations on the development of the land use implementation
plan. The Land Use Policy Advisory Committee will consist of 11 members
representing: MAC (1), MASAC Chair & Vice Chair (2), Metropolitan Council
(1), FAA-Airport District Office (1), City of Minneapolis (1), City of
Richfield (1), City of Bloomington (1), City of Eagan (1), City of Mendota
Heights (1), City of St. Paul (1). Due to the prior involvement of MASAC ink'
the formulation of the MSP Part 150 Study, the Chair and Vice-Chair of MASAC
have been designated the Chair and Vice-Chair of this Policy Advisory
Committee.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer.
Krlircer Airports: Ap21.AKE ~ ANOKA COUNTyiBLAINE ~ CRYSTgI. ~ FLytN(; CLOUD ~ LAKF. ELA70 ~ SAINT PAl1L DON'NT01A'N
12- ~
Page 2
The Metropolitan Airports Commission has approved this committee structure and
now requests that the city appoint an individual using an approved appointment
process to act as the Land Use Policy Advisory Committee representative for
the City of Richfield. The candidate should possess the ability to make
recommendations on behalf of the city while serving on the committee, as well
as, serve as the chief liason to the city offices and community. The City of
Richfield committee representative will also act as the leader of a special
"City Core Team" selected by the city that could include technical, planning,
community relations and administration representatives. The "City Core Team"
will be formed at a later date to assist in the coordination of public
meetings, workshops, demonstrations and implementation priorities within .the
city.
MAC would like to move ahead quickly on the design implementation process and,
if possible, would like to have an appointment for your city representative
by April 1, 1991. A letter of appointment should be submitted to Mr. Steven
Vecchi, Metropolitan Airports Commission. All representatives will be
notified by mail of the first meeting date tentatively scheduled for early
April.
Thank you for your time and consideration concerning MAC's Part 150 Land Use
Implementation Plan design. MAC looks forward to working with the City of
~- .
___ Richfield throughout this important process.
Sincerely,.
Steven J. Vecchi, Project Manager
Land Use Implementation Design Project
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN. 55450