12-28-87 agendaJ9- /
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 393
Agenda December 28, 1987
Issue Statement:
Award contract for computer system hardware maintenance.
Background:
On November 23 the Council authorized staff to request bids for
the 1988 contract for maintenance of the City's computer system.
Bids from three vendors were received and opened on December 14.
The bid tabulation is attached.
Vendors were asked to submit bids for four separate groups of
equipment, called "subsections" in the Request for Proposals
(RFP) specifications. Vendors were allowed to submit bids for
one or more subsections. The proposal subsections are based on
the equipment manufacturer. They are:
6-A. Unisys/Convergent Technoloaies Eauioment.
This subsection contains all of the disks, terminals,
keyboards and processors that make up the heart of the
computer system.
6-B. Epson Printers.
The City has three different types of printers
manufactured by Epson.
• 6-C. Canon Printer.
The City owns a laser printer manufactured by Canon.
6-D. Primages Printers.
The City uses two word processing printers
manufactured by Primages, Inc.
The proposals received were evaluated according to criteria
listed in the RFP. These criteria included performance record,
cost, response time, availability of loaner equipment, and range
of service available.
A brief analysis of each vendor's bid, based on these criteria,
is attached. A summary of the bids is as follows:
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Bid/Quote Analysis
FPC 1 MIT 2 NC TRW
6A 15 778 17,256 NR NB
6B5'1 NBA 1284/108/2521 - NB4
6B 1704/N97/NQ7 213¢/180/4206 - 3798/NQ7/10406
6C NB /NQ 2251;375 - NQ
6D NB4N/Q7 5041;8406 - NQ7
1. Bid
2. MTI bid was all or nothing bid which was an exception to
bid specifications.
3' NCR bid did not meet bid submission requirements.
6r-1- .2, 11
4. No bid submitted.
5. 12EPSON LQ1000 Printer/2EPSON Plotter Printers/2EPSON
6. Comrex printer.
7. Quoter
No quote submitted.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a resolution granting a contract for the maintenance of
the equipment specified in subsection 6-A of the City's Request
for Proposals dated November 30, 1987, to Financial Products
Corporation.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The total cos o o aining the maintenance services in the
recommended fashion is the lowest cost alternative available
to the City.
FPC (subsection 6-A).......... $ 15,778.00
FPC (Epson LQ100 printers) .... $ 1,704.00
MTI (remaining printers) ...... $ 1,815.00
TOTAL: $ 19,297.00
MTI Office Systems was the only vendor to submit a bid for all of
the equipment. Their bid total is $19,629.00, which is higher
than the total cost of the arrangement recommended by staff.
• Printer maintenance contracts would be awaraded to firms
submitting lowest quotes. Council action on these items is not
required.
2. The City has dealt with FPC during the past year and has found
them responsive and competent. Some of the equipment in the
Public Safety department has been maintained by FPC for most
of the past year. In addition, FPC was called in by the City
during the past few weeks to assist with resolving the
problems we were having with the central computer. Their
expertise and large inventory of parts allowed great
flexibility and timeliness in the troubleshooting efforts.
FPC services 3500 accounts nationwide, 85 of which are in the
Twin Cities area.
3. While it is convenient to contract with one service vendor for
basic computer equipment and printer service, it is not
essential. Our experience indicates minimal conflict between
basic computer equipment and printer maintenance. Therefore,
there is no reason to reject the low bid of FPC.
4. The total cost of this maintenance arrangement is
approximately $3,000 less that estimated in the 1988 budget.
5. The City Attorney's office has advised staff that the
recommended alternative is proper and defensible, based on the
• findings specified in the points above.
f-- 3
. Alternative Recommendations:
1. The Council could choose to award a contract for the
maintenance of the entire system to MTI Office Systems. Their
bid was complete and according to specifications. Although a
portion of their bid was higher than FPC, they were the only
vendor to submit a bid for all subsections, and therefore the
only vendor who could meet the single vendor preference.
2. The Council could reject all bids. It is possible, but not
likely, that by rebidding the contract, one more vendor,
Unisys, could be convinced to submit a bid. However, Unisys
declined to respond to this request for proposals even though
encouraged to by staff. NCR, whose bid did not conform, could
be encouraged to submit one that does comply. We do not
believe, however, that a better overall cost could be attained
by rebidding, especially when you add in the expenses relating
to reissuing a RFP and the cost of obtaining short-term
maintenance coverage during the interim.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action by the Council is requested at the December 28 meeting.
The current maintenance agreement expires on December 31 and
action is needed to insure continuous coverage.
Respect lly submitted,
James . Prosser
City M nager
6ep- y
•
EXHIBIT A
NCR Corporation
NCR's bid did not comply w
that they submitted bids f
listed in two subsections.
subsections of printers.
equipment they did include
two bidders.
ith the City's bidding requirements in
or only a portion of the equipment
No bid was submitted for two
Further, the prices bid for the
were higher than those of the other
Financial Products Corporation (FPC)
FPC submitted the lowest bid for the Unisys/Convergent equipment
subsection (6-A). FPC did not submit a bid for the other three
subsections. The FPC proposal complied with the bidding
requirements and the services offered conformed to the City's
specifications. FPC's bid for subsection 6-A is $15,778.00.
MTI Office Systems, Inc.
MTI submitted bids for each of the four subsections. The
proposal was complete and the services offered conformed to the
City's specifications. Although the City stated in the RFP
specifications that they reserved the right to purchase any, none
or all of the services offered, MTI took an exception to this
provision in their proposal. Their bid is to be treated as a
single package. MTI's bid for all subsections is $19,629.00.
(The amount for subsection 6-A accounts for $17,256.00 of this
total). MTI has been under contract with the City to provide
maintenance services for the majority of our computer equipment
since the system was purchased from them in February of 1986.
Subsequent to the bid opening, staff requested price quotes on
the individual printer models without the requirement that a
vendor cover all printers in a given subsection. MTI furnished a
separate quote to the City for the maintenance of the printers
(subsections 6-B, 6-C and 6-D). This quote indicated what MTI
would charge to maintain the printers if they are not awarded the
contract for all equipment. FPC furnished a quote for one model
of the Epson printers and TRW, who did not originally bid, quoted
prices for two of the printer models. FPC submitted the lowest
quote for the City's twelve Epson LQ1000 printers ($1,704.00) and
MTI quoted the lowest cost for the seven miscellaneous remaining
printers ($1,815.00).
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
• COMPUTER HARDWARE MAINTENANCE
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the
maintenance of the City's computer hardware, bids were received,
opened and tabulated according to law; and
WHEREAS, it appears that Financial Products Corporation of
Omaha, Nebraska is the lowest responsible bidder;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the proposal dated December 14, 1987, of Financial
Products Corporation for computer hardware maintenance is hereby
accepted for the services specified in subsection 6-A of the City's
request for proposals dated November 30, 1987;
2. That the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized and
directed to enter into a contract for the above mentioned computer
system maintenance services with Financial Products Corporation of
Omaha, Nebraska in the name of the City of Richfield for such
services through December 31, 1988, for an amount not to exceed
$15,778.00;
3. That, based on the proposals received, the City declines
• to award a contract for the services specified in subsections 6-B,
6-C, and 6-D of the City's request for proposals;
4. That the bids received from the NCR Corporation of
Minneapolis, Minnesota for subsections 6-A and 6-B of the request
for proposals are rejected as nonconforming; and
5. That the city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids,
except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next
lowest responsible bidder, MTI Office Systems of Bloomington,
Minnesota, shall be retained until a contract has been signed.
Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 28th day of December, 1987.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
,i/- ?7
?J
0
0
a
_ r
C+
O
tD
ID
sn
FPO I
?Q i
a t
i t
1
cz i
Q' 1
ti t
m i
7C' 1
pf 1
1
0 1
? W i
ID O+ 1
X, m•
?! 1
I a
I r
I M
I ti
I ?
I
I
I
? n 1
r SCI 1
W 1
• A 1
O 1
?'3 1
O 1
rf 1
C+ 1
W.
0 i
t7d
Z
g
I -- -- -- -- -- -- I
0 'H
x m ii tad
0 if n O
A "• 11 C H
DP' ID 11 e"O v
?! 11 1-1
m If
?
I =A I If
> n ai
? n w 1
l
O 11 N 1
11 • 1
O 11 O I
O It O 1
C7 tJ? I
1 I 1
I v ( o? 1
I
1
1
1
1
i 1
rr
y
010
O
O
m 1n I
? 1 ?+ 1 I
US I
lob
I
I o I
I I
I o 1
I O 1
I I
I I
L
co
Co
N
O
O
w
I•d
v
e
03
CA
t?
A
H
H
O
z
H
O
H
a
r
I -- -- --
H
O
H
a
r
H
•d
e+ (+0
C1
D O 0
c + ti
m
a
c
O( Dc
? a c
Mm
c
r w "• C+ h
O A < `Q
x 0 m
• 01-
Ho
? 9pi A.
O
O. m w 0
a
ro m
CD W.
"
ti 0
0
(DD
c+ t
+
0
v W
m ro a
" P 0
m z01-
%
9 0 <
• c
D O n :0 (DD
C+ 0 0 C wm
E+ C+ s Q. C+ w
>'• M r
ah to
ti me
m
I-
i ~ O W-
o m
, I
-
r0 < a 4 O
- 7P'0
cD m
00
v
?•+ O Z
a "-
O ID A o g
O
I- • >?
O
C 0
- ?S 0 w
G 0 c71
Q• via- c?DC
?saa
C+ 0
1- 0 C+
ro C+
`d 0D
O
r ? ?w
3K 9) 9p
0
C+ 0
4
ID "-
?
oa< xM
,
00 a
0
04 " >3s0
"• t+
P) 80 < m of
0
? 4 0 A
00
0
0 0 0
(D 0 A cD w
?! 0 0
e+ v O w
0) W.
C+ '!
>b R
"' 0
C+ "I
Oo =
fD C+ 0 cr
0 <a e
M tD m
ps m
C+ (+
?'• ?'• e+
OD 0 ¢I
A FA rh
a ?
0m>b
m
cdD H
a oro
? 0 C1
.• a0a ?
? o
•
r?
U
•
H
0
m
b,
I Ali
W
h'
o,
A
W
c+
A
F•?
W
N H -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11 -- -- -- 1
cD ii a
It N 'CS H u I
r+ A II ct N H 11 t
co?• 11 It Of 11
1
0o e+ 11 1 O 11
1
4..4 It C rb 11 1
If Ip 11 1
A A a C+ ?• n 1
Ir• N 11 m Q II I
e+ eD 11 ih tD 11 I
?Q pi 11 11 1
D5 11 CA 11 1
A n ?C n I
O SP II W 11 C f
C O 11 c+ 11 t?7 I
If
0 0 B If C
r C 11 rp 11 O 1
N ? 11 - 11 '.!7 I
17 II II I
3
c
D p. ii ? ii
cD u O it
1
e+ rh If
II
I
?• ? n ? 11 I
OD 11 11 I
04 R If
11
I
• t1 11 I
C+ It
-- -- -- -
- -- --
•- 11
-- -- -- I
;3" 11 N I
cD
If
sr 11 tD 11 CA I
W. If 11 m I
h ? ?
o
o It m 11 C
If A " If C I
?' 11 'Ti • W. 11
N I
O u A if P-3 I
c u 12. 11 .C I
if
n
I
?. It
u
11
u
(D 11 11
If
to
C7 It
C+ u t ?•+ I It
W
? 11 A ? ,'D 11 N ?
v 11 11 t? ?
C u N N 11 ?
r u N o u co
11 t71 11 C
e+ u u by ?
m II O O 11 CA
Q. 11 O O 11 trJ
tl 11 A
? u u H
Q. 11 II
11 O t7? II Z
11 I ?•? I II
O n C by u H
O 11 C7t C? 11 O
OD If O Bob 11 H
If & It >
p. 11 n r
fD II o o n W
?! II O O 11
c? If It
p. n u
n II
e+ II 11
u u
c+ If
?-?
It
r 11 CIS 11
m n - It
H
n M 11 O
d It N 11 H
f0 If m 11 a
O It It r
c? It o it
g II o n
CT II 11
c? a 11
? u n
n 11
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 392
Agenda December 28, 1987
Issue Statement:
Resolution authorizing execution of a contract with Hennepin
County for reimbursement of 60% of 1988 recycling expenses.
Background:
The total budget for the city's 1988 recycling program is
$116,600.80, and is dependent upon receiving financial assistance
from Hennepin County. Hennepin County's funding policy ranges
from 50-80% reimbursement for total net recycling expenditures,
depending on the percentage of solid waste recycled. Because
Richfield recycles between 5-10% of its waste stream, the city
qualifies for a 60% reimbursement of net program expenditures.
In 1988, it is anticipated that Hennepin County will reimburse
the city in the amount of $69,960.48.
In order to receive these funds, it is necessary for the city to
execute a contract with Hennepin County. The funds received from
Hennepin County are used to pay the curbside pickup contractors,
whose contracts extend through October, 1988. This contract is
similar to the contract the city has with Hennepin County for
1987.
Approval of this contract will not preclude investigation or
pursuit of alternative recycling technologies such as those used
by Reuter.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to
execute a contract with Hennepin County for reimbursement of 60%
of the city's 1988 recycling expenses.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The funding contract for recycling contains those costs
budgeted by the city and approved by the city council for
the 1988 recycling program.
2. The council previously extended the contract with recycling
contractors through October, 1988.
3. The city currently has a similar contract with Hennepin
County for 60% reimbursement of the recycling costs.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not approve execution of the contract. However, the city's
1988 recycling program budget is dependent upon receiving a
60% reimbursement from Hennepin County.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the December 28, 1987 city council
agenda so that execution of the contract may take place in early
January, 1988.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/eja
•
RESOLUTION NO.
EXECUTION OF RECYCLING CONTRACT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY
FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF RECYCLING EXPENSES
WHEREAS, the city is required by law to achieve a 16%
recycling goal by 1991, and
WHEREAS, the city provides curbside collection of
recyclables and has extended the contract for such services
through October 8, 1988 and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County Funding Policy reimburses
municipalities for recycling expenses based on the percentage of
solid waste recycled, and
WHEREAS, Richfield anticipates recycling between 8%-10% of
its solid waste stream, qualifying the city for 60% reimbursement
of recycling expenses. 60% reimbursement translates into
$69,960.48 out of the total $116,600.80 that will be expended for
recycling in 1988.
BE IT RESOLVED, THEREFORE by this Richfield City Council
that the Council approve Hennepin County Contract Number 80083
and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the contract
with Hennepin County for the 1988 recycling program.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
28th day of December, 1987.
Mayor John Hamilton
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber
•
L?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 389
Agenda December 28, 1987
Issue Statement:
Council adoption of a resolution authorizing county sale of tax
forfeited property at 6822 Penn Avenue South.
Background:
Each year the Hennepin County Assessing Division notifies the
City of Richfield of any pending tax forfeited property which
could come up for sale. The parcels that are listed annually are
those that are non-conservation land located within our
municipality and which have been forfeited to the State of
Minnesota for non-payment of property taxes. Under Minnesota
Statute 282, the county requests that the city either approve the
parcel for public auction, auction to adjacent property owners if
Minnesota Statute 282.01, Subd. 7A is applicable, or request a
conveyance to the City of Richfield for public use.
In this particular situation, Statute 282.01, Sub. 7A would not
be a driving consideration. That statute reference makes
provision for requesting that a piece of property be sold at a
non-public sale so that the respective property, which would not
conform to zoning ordinances, could be sold to adjoining property
owners for its highest and best property use. With respect to
conveyance to Richfield for public use, the property was
described to each of the city's department heads and insofar as
the property is a very small, thin, irregular piece of property,
there's no potential public use for the land. Therefore, the
best action to take is to pass a resolution to authorize the
county to sell the property at public auction.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolution authorizing Hennepin County to sell at public auction
the property at 6822 Penn Avenue South.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The city does not request conveyance of the tax forfeited
property for public use.
2. If the city has no intended use for the property, the county
has requested that we authorize sale of the property through
public auction.
Alternative Recommendation:
The city council could request that the property be conveyed to
the City of Richfield for public use. However, due to the size
and shape of this property, staff cannot find any good potential
use for the.property.
69
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
The resolution authorizing sale should be received by Hennepin
County no later than January 7, 1988, so that they may proceed
with the forfeited land sale. Action at the December 28 city
council meeting would allow adequate time to meet that deadline.
Respectf lly submitted,
Jame . Prosser
Cit anager
JDP/eja
•
?Z- 3
• RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLIC SALE OF
TAX FORFEITED PROPERTY AT
6822 PENN AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has been notified by Hennepin
County that property located at 6822 Penn Avenue South is non-
conservation land located in the City of Richfield which has been
forfeited to the State of Minnesota for non-payment of taxes, and
WHEREAS, as provided in Minnesota Statute 282, the city
council may either approve or disapprove the parcel for public
auction, and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield does not request a conveyance
of the property to the city for public use, and
WHEREAS, the county has requested that the city approve by
resolution the sale of tax forfeited land by public auction.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the tax forfeited land unit at
Hennepin County is authorized to sell the tax forfeited parcel of
land described as 6822 Penn Avenue South at a public auction.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this 28th day of December, 1987.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
P /7-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 388
Agenda December 28, 1987
Issue Statement:
Approval of Bids for the Sale of Used Voting Machines.
Background:
In December, 1986 the city council authorized the purchase of
Optech III-P voting equipment to replace the city's outdated
Shoup Lever voting machines. The Optech III-P equipment was
received in 1987 and used for the November 3, 1987 municipal
election. Therefore, the Shoup Lever voting machines became
excess equipment and the city advertised the sale of this
equipment in the State Register, Richfield Sun-Current, and
mailed bid proposal to various scrap dealers.
On December 17, 1987 bids were received for the sale of the
city's Shoup Lever Voting Machines. Two bids were received.
Klein's Scrap Iron and Metal Co. bid $116.00. Viet Lemker Scrap
Metal stated they would haul them away at no charge.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the sale of the city's Shoup Lever Voting machines to
Klein's Scrap Iron and Metal Co. of Minneapolis for $116.00.
• Basis of Recommendation:
1. The bid appears to be
of other jurisdictions
equipment.
2. Timely disposal of the
valuable space at the
3. There is no market for
except as scrap.
reasonable in light of the experience
who are disposing of similar
excess equipment will free up
municipal garage.
sale of this type of voting equipment
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Reject all bids and request that city staff readvertise for
bids.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled for the December 28, 1987 city
council meeting. It is recommended action be taken at this time
to provide for the timely disposition of this equipment.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
0 JDP/eja
I
'! ?" , ? I - .,?- ?
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
December 17, 1987
11:00 A.M.
Purchase of Used Voting Equipment
Bid No. 87--13
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 purchase of used voting equipment,
bid no. 87-13, as advertised in the official newspaper on
November 25, 1987.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
0
Veit-Lamker Scrap Metal
Golden Valley
Kleins Scrap Iron & Metal Co.
Minneapolis
$116.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the December 28, 1987 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber
TOTAL
Haul away at no charge
City Clerk
0
'3
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 387
Agenda December 28, 1987
Issue Statement:
Administration of the Oath of Office to Police Officer Patrick
Moriarty.
Background:
All new police officers hired by the Richfield Department of
Public Safety are administered the Oath of Office. Beginning in
1987, all new police officers were introduced to the council and
administered their Oath of Office by the City Clerk at regularly
scheduled council meetings.
Patrick Moriarty, who was appointed as a police officer on July
13, 1987, has completed the necessary police officer training.
Formal administration of the Oath of Office is scheduled for the
December 28, 1987 city council meeting.
Recommended Motion:
Have the City Clerk administer the Oath of Office to Police
Officer Patrick Moriarty.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This process will allow for the formal recording and
t notarizing procedures required of all new officers.
2. The public swearing in of new police officers is a necessary
and very important process and affords members of the City
Council the opportunity of meeting new officers.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Appoint officers without administering a formal Oath of
Office at a city council meeting.
2. Have all new officers report to the City Clerk on the date of
hire to receive their Oath of Office.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
This item is scheduled for the December 28, 1987 city council
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/eja
n
U
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 386
Agenda December 28, 1987
Issue Statement:
Presentation of U. S. Department of Energy's National Award for
Energy Innovations
Background:
Earlier this year, the City of Richfield received the State of
Minnesota's 11th Annual Award for Energy Excellence. Winners of
the Minnesota award then became eligible for the U.S. Department
of Energy's National Award for Energy Innovation. Applicants
for both awards were judged on innovation, energy savings,
transferability, and the economic impact of their programs.
In October, 1987 the Richfield Energy Program was awarded the
U.S. Department of Energy's National Award for Energy Innovation.
The award recognizes the Richfield Home Energy Checkup.
As a winner of this award, the City has received a certificate
signed by U.S. Secretary of Energy, John S. Herrington. The
certificate cites Richfield for "distinguished contribution to
our Nation's energy efficiency."
is Byron Wallace, Director of the Community Development Department,
will formally present the award to the Richfield City Council at
the December 28, 1987 city council meeting.
Since the City instituted its Home Energy Checkup Program in
1986, approximately 550 local homes have had checkups. The
standard Home Energy Checkup, designed by the Minnesota
Department of Public Service, consists of an inspection of
insulation levels, tests for furnace efficiency, distribution of
weatherization materials, calculation of projected paybacks,
presentation of recommendations, and an audit follow-up to assist
homeowners in completing the auditor's recommendations.
Richfield's Home Energy Checkup has been enhanced with
additional auditing time (4 to 6 labor hours versus 1.5 hours), a
blower door test to measure the airtightness of each home, an
electric consumption analysis, and special attention to low-
income households.
Based upon current conditions, a savings of $120,000 over the
next 10 years has been predicted for households that receive Home
Energy Checkups in Richfield. Further, households receiving the
Checkups routinely express a high degree of satisfaction in the
program.
Richfield's Home Energy Checkup Program is a highly successful
• program which is constantly being refined to keep pace with and
establish current standards in the energy field.
• Recommended Motion:
Receive the U. S. Department of Energy's Award for Energy
Innovation.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The city received the award for distinguished contribution to
our Nation's energy efficiency.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Schedule this presentation at another council meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Byron Wallace, Director of Community Development, will be present
at the December 28, 1987 city council meeting to present this
award to the city council.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
C Manager
JDP/eqa
CITY OF RICHFIELD
ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM
• HOME ENERGY CHECK-UP
1987
PROGRAM EVALUATION
To evaluate the effectiveness of the program we sent out
approximately 100 questionnaires. We received 52 replies on
which the following tally was computed. We asked for any
comments, either positive or negative. The survey will be used
to upgrade and improve the program wherever possible. The
respondent's name was not required to insure confidentiality and
honest replies.
AUDIT EVALUATION
excellent good fair poor
Auditor's knowledge of subject matter 74.5% 25.5% 0 0
Auditor's courteousness/helpfulness 78.4% 19.6% 2% 0
Usefulness of instruction 58.8% 35.3% 5.9% 0
• Usefulness of information left for you 52.9% 41.2% 5.9% 0
Information clear & easy to understand 51.0% 41.2% 5.9% 0
How did you first find out about that you could get an energy
audit?
52.9% Utility bill insert
25.5% Mailing
11.8% Newspaper
2.0% Poster or advertisement
7.8% Word of mouth
Did you have any reservations about having an audit when you
requested one?
84.6% No 15.4% Yes
About how long did it take from the time you requested an audit
until you were contacted to schedule the audit?
Average of 39 Days
About how long did it take from the time you scheduled an audit
until the audit was performed?
Average of 13 Days
• About how long did it take for the auditor to actually complete
the audit?
Average of 2.25 Hours
(round to nearest 1/4 hour)
Have you taken any conservation actions since the audit was done? 73% Yes 18% No
Do you plan on taking any additional action to conserve energy in
your home?
78% Yes 18% No
4% Don't Know
To what degree did the audit influence your intentions to take
conservation measures recommended in the audit?
71.2% A great deal
23.1% Somewhat
1.9% Not very much
3.8% Not at all
0 % (No opinion)
Do you feel that your natural gas consumption will be less as a
result of the HEC audit?
75% Yes 25% No
Do you feel that your electrical consumption will be less as a
result of the HEC audit?
29.5% Yes 70.5% No
Do you feel that your home will be more comfortable as a result
of the HEC audit?
•
88% Yes 12% No
Is there any additional service, information, or assistance you
feel you need to help control your energy costs?
85.4% Yes 14.6% No
What do you feel was most useful about the audit?
-Sophistication and thoroughness
-Useful materials and information without being
sold something
What suggestions do you have for improving the audit?
1) Develop a way to educate kids on the
importance of energy conservation.
2) Be careful not to hurry the audit
3) Provide more written information for homeowners
to refer to.
How strongly would y
76%
20%
2%
2%
3u recommend the audit to others?
Very Strongly
Strongly
Not Very Strongly
Not At All
HOUSEHOLD DATA _
Physically Han dicap 6.5% Yes 93.5% No
Single Parent 25.0% Yes 75.0% No
Age: 13.5% under age 30
(head of 32.7% age 30-40
household) 9.6% age 41-50
19.2% age 51-60
25-.0% over age 61
Income Bracket : 12.8% under $10,000 8.5% $10,000-$15,000
(household 10.6% $151000-$20,000 10.6% $20,000-$25,000
income) 10.6% $25,000-$30,000 8.5% $30,000435,000
19.2% $351000-$40,000 19.2% over $40,000
Number of Year s at present address: 10.63 average
Age of Home: 36.75 average
Style of Home: 46.9% one story
6.1% split level
24.5% expansion
22.5% two story
•
l
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 385
Agenda December 28, 1987
Issue Statement:
Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation to Sivert Hendrickson
for serving on the International Association of Plumbing and
Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) during 1987.
Background:
During 1987, Sivert Hendrickson, the city's chief building
inspector, served on one or more committees of the International
Association of Plumbing and Mechanical officials. Through his
service, a significant contribution was made to IAPMO's codes and
standards.
IAPMO has prepared a plaque to be presented to Mr. Hendrickson in
appreciation of his contribution to public health and safety.
This presentation has been scheduled for the December 28, 1987
city council meeting.
Recommendation:
Present the plaque of appreciation to Sivert Hendrickson.
• Basis for Recommendation:
1. IAPMO has prepared the plaque in appreciation of the
encouragement and time provided inspection personnel for
code development in a manner consistent with the highest
tradition of public service.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. This plaque could be presented informally.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the Presentation section of the
December 28, 1987 city council agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
Cit anager
JDP/eja
L?