Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05-29-84 agenda
I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 203 Agenda May 29, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Supporting the Formation of a South Suburban Not-for-Profit Community Action Agency Council Members: At the May 14, 1984 city council meeting, John Nelson, a member of the South Hennepin Human Services Couneil (SHHSC), appeared before the city council to make a status report on the possible creation of a suburban CAA for the South Hennepin Area by the Hennepin County Board. The county board is considering either a county board operated CAA or a CAA administered by a not-for-profit organization. The city council approved of the concept that a suburban CAA be established, and that it be a private, non-profit agency working in cooperation with the SHHSC. At that time, the city council also requested that a resolution in support of a South Hennepin Community Action Agency be prepared for the May 29, 1984 city council meeting.. What type of service programs does a CAA perform for low income persons? The Anoka County Community Action Program administers: (1) home rehabilitation; (2) weatherization; (3) head start preschool program; (4) fuel assistance; (5) senior home maintenance service; (6) senior outreach; (7) bus transportation for those not served by Metro Mobility; (8) befriender (peer counseling) program; (9) well senior clinic; (10) volunteer (to support the CAA staff efforts) program; and (11) assistance to autonomous community programs (food shelf, emergency aid, housing resources, etc.) Council Letter No. 203 -2- COUNCIL ACTION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution on the agenda which supports a not-for-profit suburban CAA. Respect~ly submitted, John G . C rtw~ight City Manager • • Resolution in Support of a South Hennepin Suburban Not-For-Profit Community Action Agency WHEREAS, a task force of members of the South Hennepin Human Services Council has examined the need for, and issues involved in creating a coordinated public health system in the South Hennepin Area; and WHEREAS, the members of the South Hennepin Human Services Council feel there is a need for a Community Action Agency to serve suburban and rural Hennepin County, and WHEREAS, this program will aid lower income citizens in the South Hennepin area; and WHEREAS, the task force has recommended that such a CAA be a private, non-profit organization with a Board of Directors consisting of 1/3 of the members being public officials, 1/3 of the members representative of the poor selected through a democratic process, and 1/3 of the members representative of the private sector organizations; and WHEREAS, funds are available for the formation of this CAA from Hennepin County for fiscal year 1985• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the • City of Richfield does support the formation of CAA for the South Hennepin area, and do designate the Task Force of the South Hennepin Human Service Council to write the by-laws, apply for funding and organize the Board of Directors. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 29th day of May, 1984. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 202 Agenda May 29, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: May 30, 1984 Board of Review Meeting Council Members: The 1984 Richfield Board of Review is sheduled for Wednesday evening, May 30, 184, at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers of city hall. As provided by city charter, the Board of Review consists of the Mayor and Council Members, and two citizens appointed by the City manager with confirmation by the City Council. Mr. Lawrence Emond and Mr. John Janski were recently appointed to serve on the 1984 Board of Review. The duties and responsibilities of the Board of Review are established by state law as outlined in the attached section of the Minnesota Statutes. In general, it is the Board's responsiblity to hear appeals by property owners of the Estimated Market Value established by the city assessor, and to decide if, and by what amount the estimated market value should be adjusted. It is appropriate for the Board to focus on market value cnsiderations rather than tax levels or other concerns which property owners may bring up to the Board. All property has had an estimated market value set as of January 1, 1984. Overall, residential property values increased by approximately 1.2~ over 1883 values. Properties which were physically reappraised received reductions and increases, with no overall trend. Properties which were not physically reappraised received statistical adjustments based on the characteristics of the property. For the third year, the Richfield property assessment has been conducted through a contract with Hennepin County which is supervised by the Administrative Services Department. Staff closely monitors the conduct of the local assessment, as it remains a direct responsibility of the City of Richfield. For 1984, statistical measures show an excellent level of assessment when compared to those of other cities and statutory requirements. • Council Letter No. 202 -2- In late April, property valuation notices were mailed to all property owners showing the 1984 Estimated Market Value. The notices requested property owners to contact the city assessor's office regarding any questions, or to schedule an appearance before the Board of Review. About 50-60 inquiries have been received to date (approximately the same as last year) and several resulted in adjustments by the city assessor. Attached is a list of property owners who have requested appearances with the Board, as of Friday, May 25. Accompanying this list are information sheets prepared by the assessor's office concernig those properties. Also attached for the Board's information are: 1. A list of average selling prices for various types of residential property; 2. A list of repeat sales which have occurred within the last 1-2 years. These provide an idea of the increase in property values as demonstrated in the housing market. 3. A booklet containing information about a sampling of properties which sold during 1983• This informa- tion may assist the Board in considering the appeals of proeprty owners. Any adjustments made by the Richfield Board of Review will be recorded on the property assessment rolls. After appearing at the local Board, property owners may subsequently appeal to the Hennepin County Board of Review, and then to the State Board of review and/or the State Tax Court. Respectfully submitted, John G. art fight City Manager JGC/eja cc: Director Administrative Services City Assessor • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 201 Agenda May 29, 198 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Presentation of an Actuarial Valuation Report On the Richfield Fire Division Relief Association for December 31, 1983 Council Members: The Mayor and Members of the City Council are invited to join with the Richfield Fire Division Relief Association members on Tuesday, May 29, 198, at 5:30 p.m. for a ch"icken dinner and to hear a presentation on the report of an actuarial evaluation dated December 31 1983 for the Richfield Fire Division Relief Association. Mr. Dick Nordland, the investment counselor to the Fire Division Relief Association, will give a brief presentation on the financial status of the relief association prior to the informal dinner. The Mayor and members of the council may wish to come to the 'public safety lobby at 5:30 p.m. where we will then proceed to the public safety employee lunchroom for the presentation and chicken dinner. The officers of the Richfield Fire Division Relief Association are: President Case; Treasurer McGinty; Vice- President Long; Trustees Reagen and Kebler; and Secretary Sutter. ectful u rr tted , 1 J / ohn G. C rt right City Manager JGC/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 200 Agenda May 29, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolutions Implementing the Installation of a Fire Suppression System by Special Assessment for Richfield Shoppes North (A DuFresene/Lincoln Properties Development Project on Nicollet Avenue Between 65th and 66th Streets) Council Members: The city attorney's office is preparing resolutions to implement a special assessment project which will enable the Richfield Shoppes North project to finance a fire suppression system (sprinkler system in the buildings) for the Richfield Shoppes North. • Recent legislation adopted by the Minnesota Legislature makes it possible to special assess the cost of installation of a fire suppression system in a private building and finance that cost through special assessment just as a city would do for road improvements, alley improvements, or water and sewer improvements. Chuck and Tom DuFresne, developers of Richfield Shoppes North, have requested the city attorney's office to prepare the necessary resolutions to proceed with a special assessment project for the fire suppression system. At the time of issuing industrial development revenue bonds for the Richfield Shoppes North project, Chuck and Tom DuFresne say they were not aware of the need to sprinkle both the existing building as well as the new addition on the south end of the project. Tom and Chuck DuFresne thought they would only have to sprinkle the new addition. However, Pat Coughlin and Sievert Hendrickson, along with the city manager, have met with Chuck and Tom DuFresne and reviewed the city code requirements and have negotiated a plan to sprinkle the existing building as well. The agreement worked out will cover a five-year time period to completely sprinkle the existing building. The first phase will call for bringing in a water line to - the old building and then extending feeder lines through the • older building and to the new wing that is being added on the south side. Then, as the existing building is upgraded over the next five years, the sprinkler system will be extended off the main feeder lines into the various offices that are being Council Letter No. 200 -2- remodeled and improved. Because Chuck and Tom DuFresne did not take into account the need to sprinkle the existing building, which will probably cost between $100,000 and $150,000, when the industrial revenue bond issue was approved, it is necessary to find a financing approach that Chuck and Tom DuFresne can handle. The special assessment approach will permit Lincoln Properties (Richfield Shoppes North) to pass some of the cost on to the tenants as leases are renegotiated. The city and the developers have two choices under the special assessment financing plan on how to provide the upfront monies to pay the contractor for the installation of the fire suppression system. The first phase is estimated to cost about $~0-60,000. One option would be for the city to issue industrial development revenue bonds through a negotiated sale. The bond issue would cover a time period of seven to nine years and it would be hoped that the interest rate would fall somewhere around $ to 9~. This approach would probably require a public hearing. Also, an industrial development revenue bond issue would probably count against the city quota if there is going to be a statewide cap imposed upon Minnesota by Congress. This may be a significant reason not to use industrial development revenue bonds if there is an alternative way to go. Another alternative would be to loan money from the Perman- ent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR Fund) to a special assess- ment project set up for the fire sprinkling system. The PIR Fund would recoup the temporary loan when permanent financing is arranged for this and other special assessment projects. It is expected that the first phase of the sprinkler installa- tion would cost $40-$60,000. Subsequent installation phases could be financed in a similar way. Minnesota Law provides that cities may charge interest on the unpaid balance of special assessments. Since this project would be specially assessed, the City would establish an interest rate approximately the same as the rate expected to be charged for the bonds when they are issued (perhaps 8~ to 9~). Interest would also be charged on the temporary loan from the PIR Fund, as is done for other city projects. This rate has not yet been determined, but would problably be greater than 9~. For Tuesday night's council meeting, we should have a petition from the property owners seeking the special assessment. Also, the city will seek an agreement from Tom and Chuck DuFresne to provide an easement to enter upon the property to install, maintain, or check on the fire suppression system. Also, the city will seek a hold harmless clause so that • Council Letter No. 200 -3- • the city would not be held liable in the event there was a fail- ure to the fire suppression system and there was damage caused to the building. The city would want to be protected against any claims from the owners or tenants. Also, the city would seek from Tom and Chuck DuFresne a maintenance agreement on the fire suppression system. Finally, the city would also want a provision which would provide that Tom and Chuck DuFresne would purchase the sprinkler system, say for $10, in order to remove city responsibility at some future date once it is installed and paid for. The city does not want to own private sprinkler system in private buildings and by selling the system to the DuFresnes this would keep the city out of the sprinkler system ownership business and avoid the cost to maintain the system. According to Sievert Hendrickson, building official, a new six inch water line will be brought into the existing building and then be extended to the new addition which will be constructed at the south end of the existing building. A water meter will be placed on this line because the new wing at the south end of the building will use this line for domestic water purposes as well as using the line for a fire suppression system. There is also a check meter placed on this line in the event the water suppression system is used so that the city will know if the water suppression line is used for any purpose. PERMANENT_IMPROVEMENT FUND • Resources Available 4/30/84 $603,000 Less Committments: (1) Alley Construction CP 793 $202,000 (2) Alley Maintenance 30,000 (3) 1984 Sidewalk Estimate $200,000 (4) Proposed Water Suppression System Richfield Shoppes North 60,000 $492,000 Uncommitted Resources $111,000 At the time of dictating this report to the council, the resolutions were not available to the city manager. This memorandum has been dictated on the basis of telephone conversations with the city attorney's office. Respectl~,~+ submitted, / G ohn CartwY`i ht J G g City Manager JGC/eja ~a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 199 Agenda May 29, 198 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Consideration of League of Minnesota Cities Report on LMC Local Government Aid Policy Council Members: The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) appointed a task force earlier this spring to develop a policy on local government aid (LGA). The task force has completed its work, and a copy of the proposed policy is attached for council review. Cities are invited to comment on this policy, which will be the subject of a hearing by the LMC Board of Directors at the annual conference in Duluth. The proposed policy recommends that an LGA formula be adopted by the Legislature Cwhih~distributes aid based on: 1. Cities' revenue-raising capacity as measured by taxable assessed value, and 2. Need, as measured by population and/or households and expenditures for basic municipal services. Staff has reviewed the proposed policy. It is clear that any LGA formula will have to take into account cities' revenue- raising capacity. In the metro area, this is intended to include fiscal disparity distributions. However, it is not known whether the value of tax-increment districts would be exempted. Staff believes they should be, since this value is not available to finance general services. Need is more difficult to explain. The proposed policy uses expenditures for "basic municipal services", which includes services such as sanitation and libraries. Richfield does not provide general sanitation services, and libraries are paid for through a county tax levy. Richfield citizens are paying for these services, but the city would not get credit for them in the proposed LGA policy. Other cities, including Minneapolis and St. Paul, would get credit for these expenditures. Council Letter No. 199 -2- • Also of concern is how a new LGA formula mi ht be based in g P with regard to revenue increases or decreases that might result for Richfield and other cities. As well, further study is needed to know the effects of any floors or ceilings which might be included in the formula. The City Council should also be aware that the Legislature ~ is in the process of appointing a special joint study commission to review LGA prior to the next legislative session. This commission includes the Chairmen of the House and Senate Tax Committees, and its work is likely to be given substantial weight in any new LGA formula. Further, staff has had informal discussions with representatives from other first-ring suburban cities having LGA interests similar to those of Richfield. It may be that these cities will establish a more formal link to monitor and comment on proposed revisions to the LGA formula. Based on the foregoing information, it is recommended that the city council take the following actions: 1. Direct the staff to prepare written comments to the • LMC for signature by the Mayor, which supports an LGA policy based on revenue-raising capacity and need. Such comments should include an expression of concern about the inclusion of sanitation and library expendi- tures in "basic municipal services". Further, the comments should note the need to determine the impact of phasing in any changes in LGA distributions, and whether tax increment districts would be included in the assessed value calculation. 2. Direct the staff to monitor the work of the joint legislative commission and to maintain communications with cities having LGA interests similar to those of Richfield. As additional information becomes available concerning the development of a revised LGA formula, the City Council will be kept advised. ~S~pectf,~a y mitted, l/ ~ C ~ , ~G~'~~ ~ ,~2L ohn G. Ca twright City Manag e • JGC/eja cc: Administrative Services Director Finance Coordinator a -,?s~ ~a «q~ , ~ ~ ~ l~a~ };a g~t May 17, 1984 T0: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks FROM: Peter Tritz and Don Slater RE: Report of the LMC Local Government Aid Policy Task Force The Procedure Enclosed is a copy of the proposed policy statement on local government aid which has been approved by the League's local government aid policy task force. The LMC Board of Directors invites all city officials to submit written comments on this proposed statement. The Board will also conduct a hearing on this policy statement at the League's annual conference in Duluth. The Board will then take action to approve, amend, or disapprove the statement following. that hearing. If it is approved, the League's Revenue Sources legislative committee will then begin work to develop a formula embodying the policy. Both the policy and the formula would then be presented for adoption as formal League policy at the LMC.Legislative Conference next January. The Policy The type of formula contemplated by this policy would differ from the current formula in several ways: First, the policy proposes that population and/or households should be a significant formula element. Second, the golicy proposes a floor or minimum distribution which all cities would receive, unlike the current formula under which some cities would eventuall receive no y aid. And third, the policy proposes to measure "need" by the city's expenditures for a specified list of basic municipal services. By contrast, the current formula's "need" measure is the sum of the city's current LGA plus its levy limit. There was considerable controversy within the task force on the issue of "need," and how any measure of expenditures or revenues should fit into the formula if at all. The task force ultimately concluded that the formula should reflect a city's expenditures for "basic municipal services." Defining which expenditures would count as a "basic municipal service" proved to be _ very difficult, and involved extensive discussion. The list included in the policy is a compromise between members who preferred a very narrow definition i of "basic municipal services, and those who argued for a more inclusive list. -over- university avenue east, st paui, minnesata -~~Q -2- The Task Force The LGA policy task force consisted of the following elected officials: Sig Steve, Lindstrom, Chairman; Meg Bye, Duluth; Steve Cramer, Minneapolis; June Demos, Roseville; Kelly Ferber, Fergus Falls; Doc Hall, Waseca; Duane Knutson, Fertile; Connie Morrison, Burnsville; Bruce Nawrocki, Columbia Heights; Dean Nyquist, Brooklyn Center; and Al Ringsmuth, Waite Park. Of the task force members, June Demos has declined to support this statement, because it does not include a per capita cap on the amount of expenditures which would be permitted to affect the formula. PT:DS:rmm i 9~!'e I ~ . 3~~~ ~ . ~~egue of minnes©~e cities LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID POLICY (Proposed) SYNOPSI S A Local Government Aid formula should be a simple expression of the Legislature's intent. Local government aid (LGA).. should be distributed according to 1) the city's revenue raising capacity, as measured by its taxable assessed value; and 2) the city's need, as measured by its population and/or households and its expenditures for basic municipal services. STATEMENT AND RATIONALE Local Government Aid is a major municipal revenue source which complements cities' other major revenue source, the property tax. As such, LGA must be distributed among cities in a way which alleviates the problems inherent in reliance on the property tax as the major revenue source cities II control. Cities vary markedly in their ability to raise money from property taxes. There are also wide variations among cities in their citizens' need I, for services and the costs of providing those services. A complementary li revenue source for cities is necessary precisely because a city's ability to raise revenue from the property tax does not necessarily coincide with the cost of the services which that city must provide to its citizens. An LGA formula must reflect both the individual city's need and its local revenue raising capacity. A city's capacity to raise revenues from the property tax is easily measured by the city's equalized assessed value. (For metro-area cities, the assessed value after fiscal disparities distributions is the appropriate figure.) An acceptable aid formula should provide proportionally more aid to cities with less taxable assessed value, other things being equal. Need is more difficult to define and to measure. There is no single data item which measures need equitably; rather, we must rely on a combination of factors to approximate need. Need is clearly related to some extent to the city's number of inhabitants. Cities provide services to people. Because some services relate more closely to households than to individuals, the formula should reflect both the population and the number of households. Every city should receive a basic LGA distribution based on its population and/or number of households. However, neither population nor the number of households completely reflects need. Cities with similar populations and numbers of households may be faced with quite different service needs. (Factors such as age, - OVER - ~::J uni~~iersity avenue east, st. paul, minnesota SS'1 O'I [0 'I 2) 22~-5000 Local Government Aid Policy (Proposed) Page 2 construction and density of buildings, crime rates, elderly population, school age population, climate, geographic size, population density, poverty levels, crime rates, seasonal or daily influx of people, need to construct or replace capital facilities, and a myriad of other factors may cause similar sized cities' needs to differ.) Clearly, a formula cannot attempt to incorporate measures of all of these factors; the result would necessarily be complicated and to some extant arbi~rary. Rather, tre formula should rely on the judgment made by the persons in the best position to evaluate a city's need: that city's council. The local city council's judgment as to the expenditures required in order to provide the type and level of service needed by its citizens should be reflected in the formula. The formula should reflect all expenditures for basic municipal services. "Basic municipal services" include public safety, streets, sanitation, libraries, redevelopment, and general government. and related purposes. This definition is intended as a limit, to assure that a city will not receive additional local government aid as a result of its discretionary spending cn aor.-essential services. So far as possible, the formula should not be affected by the city's choice among tax levies, special assessments, or user fees to finance basic municipal services. To the attempt to measure need by ,the tax levy, or by past LGA, or by a combination of those factors is not acceptable. The past LGA distribution is the result of several formula change~.:~~ccompanied by grandfather provisions, minimum increase guarantees, etc. .Tl~ resulting distribution pattern is at least somewhat arbitrary. And to focus on past aids and levies or levy limits ignores the other revenues which cities' citizens contribute so that the city can meet their service needs.. A formula developed in accordance with this policy would likely result in a substantially different distribution of funds. The transition must be handled in an orderly fashion, avoiding drastic year-to-year increases or decreases in aid. Increases and decreases should be phased in, to avoid the need for sudden "shock" property tax increases on one hand, and the temptation to view increased aid as a windfall on the other. 1This explanatory sentence was added after the task force's last meeting, at the suggestion of a member who was unable to attend that meeting because of • illness; the addition of this sentence was approved by an overwhelming majority of the task farce and by the LMC Board. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ / Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 198 Agenda May 29, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Authorization to Negotiate for Park Land Acquisition - 6333 Portland Avenue South Council Members: Mr. and Mrs. Barsness, owners of 6333 Portland Avenue South, contacted the city recently indicating a desire to sell their property and inquiring whether the city had interest in purchase of the property. Over the years the city has purchased properties along Portland Avenue as they became available. The purchases are made for park purposes related to Legion Lake. Staff indicated the city may be interested in the purchase and would proceed with the necessary steps toward purchase. An • appraisal of the property has been done. Although the appraisal set a value of $82,000, it is expected the property could be bought by the city for through a cash purchase less. This is expected because the appraisal considered a typical sale through a real estate agent with some assistance by the seller in financing. The Community Services Advisory Commission reviewed the potential purchase and has recommended continuation of the process. The Planning Commission reviewed the item at their meeting of Tuesday, May 22, 1984, and found it in accordance with the comprehensive plan. It is recommended the city council authorize negotiation for purchase of 6333 Portland Avenue South for park purposes. The source of funding for such purchases is a capital improvement appropriation from either the special revenue fund or revenue sharing. It takes about three years, more or less, to acquire sufficient funding for purchase of parcels for park purposes. The current project balance is $126,000, thus there is currently sufficient funding for the purchase of this parcel. If and when satisfactory terms are reached, the city council would need to authorize the purchase. Respectfu-~ly.; submitted, John G. Cartwr ght City Manager JGC/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 197 • Agenda May 29, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Authorizing Temporary Funding for CP793, 1984 Alley Improvements. Council Members: On February 13, 1984, the City Council approved a resolution ordering the paving of alleys, and preparation of plans in 1984 for City Project 793. The estimated cost of this improvement is $276,974• On April 23, 1984, the City Council accepted bids and awarded the contract for 1984 alley paving and appurtenant work to Standard Sidewalk Inc. of Minneapolis, for $202,284.25. The cost of this project will be financed in large part by special assessments which will be levied in 1985 for property tax collections beginning in May of 1986. In order to pay for the costs. of this project prior to its special assessment, it is recommended that the City Council authorize the temporary transfer of funds, as necessary, at the end of each month, from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund at an interest rate of 9~ per annum. This interest rate is comparable to the rate that would be paid if permanent financing were arranged immediately. The attached resolution authorizes the temporary transfer of funds from the PIR Fund to CP793 to provide interim financing until permanent financing is available. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing the temporary transfer of funds from the PIR Fund. ;sect ul ubmitted, ~ t . lt~n~ ~ ~ . John G. Ca twright City Manager I JGC/eja • ec: Administrative Services Director a'` Community Services Director , City Engineer Finance Coordinator RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVING FUND TO CP793, ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE INTERIM FINANCING OF SAID PROJECT WHEREAS, the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that a Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund to be used for the purpose of financing local improvements; and WHEREAS, the ordinance states that the proceeds of said fund may be used to provide interim financing of capital expenditures for projects of the city by resolution of the city council; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to transfer funds to provide interim financing for CP793, Alley Improvements; and WHEREAS, the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund has sufficient cash available to transfer necessary funds at the end of each month to CP793 for work completed. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by resolution of the city a 9~ per annum interest rate will be charged the project each month based on the accumulative cash transferred at the end of each month, for the purpose of providing interim financing. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 29th day of May, 1984. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 196 Agenda May 29, 198 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Planned Unit Development Plan, Special Use Permit, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat Approval and Variances by Market Plaza Corp. Council Members: Market Plaza Corp. has requested that the city approve a rezoning, preliminary plat, a revised Planned Unit Development Plan, and variances to allow construction of a mixed multiple • residence and commercial development to occur on the block bounded by 65th Street, 66th Street, Lyndale Avenue and Graham Avenue. The following is a brief overview of the previous and current development proposals for the block in question: PREVIOUS PROPOSAL In April of 1982 the city approved a Planned Unit Development Plan, Preliminary Plat, Special Use Permit and Variances for a $0,000,000 dollar, 87,000 square foot, mixed use development on the site, submitted by Derrick Land Company. Also, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance to rezone the site from "C-2" general commercial to "PC-2" planned general commercial. Second reading of the ordinance has not been given. The development approved included the following: 1. 191,000 gross square feet of office/commercial space on three levels on the south and eastern portion of the site. 2. 357,316 gross square feet of multiple family residential development in three towers providing 288 • semi-luxury condominium dwelling units on twelve floors on the north and western portions of the site. Council Letter No. 196 -2- 3. A five level 590 car public parking ramp adjacent to 65th Street. 4. A separate two level residential parking ramp to accom- date 300 cars under the residential towers. 5. Exterior plazas, walkways and park areas along the streets. The variances required were: 1. An increase in the maximum percentage of gross floor area occupied by multiple-family uses in a "PC-2" district from 33~ to 69.6 2. To increase the maximum allowable floor area from 259,954 square feet to 431,000 square feet. The City Council also passed a preliminary resolution approving the issuance of just over $9.5 million dollars of Industrial Revenue Bonds to support the project. The development did not proceed because of economic reasons. CURRENT PROPOSAL Market Plaza Corp. revised their development plan for the site in question. The new proposal varies substantially from the previously approved proposal. The current proposal includes the following: 1. A thirteen story, 147 unit condominium structure on the west end of the site. There will be two to three levels of parking underneath the structure which will accomodate 127 - 187 cars. There will be surface parking for an additional 8 cars. The third level of parking will be constructed if 50~ of the spaces can be sold. The condominium structure will be for people 55 years and older. 2. 70,000 gross square feet of commercial space on one level with an interior mall. The commercial space is intended to be a neighborhood service center. Types of stores and offices which could be located in the service center include: restaurant, delicatessen/snack bar, sporting goods, hair stylist, health and sports club, jewelry, electronics, clothing, computer, professional offices (doctor, dentist, insurance, legal and financial), printing, instant photo, drug store/variety store, pharmacy, travel service, shoes, optical, ice cream, and card and specialty stores. The • commercial structure will be on the north side of the site. On grade parking for 290 cars will be provided in the southeast corner of the site. Council Letter No. 196 -3- • 3. 162 units of rental housing will be provided above a portion of the commercial space. The rental housing structure will be eight stories in height. The apartment units will be marketed to a targeted adult community and not families with children. This would include seniors, empty nesters, young professional couples and singles. Parking for 222 cars will be provided for the rental housing. 209 of these spaces will be located in a parking garage located underneath the commercial space. 4. The existing Wendy's restaurant on the corner of 65th Street and Lyndale will remain. The following zoning related actions will be necessary at this time: 1. Approval of a planned unit development plan. 2. Approval of variances. a. To increase the maximum allowable floor area from 269,462 square feet to 385,170 square feet. b. To reduce the minimum amount of livability space provided from 154,863.2 square feet to 58,326 • square feet. c. To reduce the minimum of recreation space provided from 27,101.06 square feet to 16,410 square feet. (Subsequent to the Planning Commission action). The applicant has been able to meet this requirement, so this variance is no longer necessary. 3. Rezoning of the property from "C-2" general commercial to "PMR" Planned Multiple Residence. 4. Approval of the proposed preliminary plat. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.31A sets standards for multiple family residential developments in multiple residence zoning districts. 2. Section 3.32 and 3.33 set standards for commercial developments in commercial zoning districts. 3. Section 3.34A sets standards for planned unit development districts. • 4. Section 3.40 sets conditions which must be met to grant variances. Council Letter No. 196 -4- 5. Section 3.41 establishes criteria for issuing special use permits. 6. Section 3.42 establishes procedures for zoning district changes. 7. Section 4.05 sets standards for offstreet parking areas. STAFF FINDINGS 1. Relationship to Ordinance and Plans The PUD ordinance requires that a PUD project be compared with zoning ordinance requirements otherwise applicable to this type of development. Shown below is a comparison of the city standards and what is proposed in this development. Required Proposed 1. Parking 659 647 or 707 2. Maximum Floor Area 238,141.23 385,170 sq. feet sq. feet • 3. Setbacks Front: 40' Front: 66th St.: Condo Parking Garage: 30' Commercial Building: 50' Condo Bldg: 30' Front: Lyndale 120' Front: Graham Ave: 18' Front 65th St.: Condo Parking Garage: 5' Condo Bldg: 48' Commercial Building: 0' 4. Building Height 3 stories - 13 stories 40' The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this site should be developed as medium to high density central businss district development including multiple dwellings and retail commercial and office establishments. The site is within the boundaries of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment project. The L/H/N redevelopment plan calls for the development of commercial • and/or multi-family development on this site. The project would meet the following objectives of the LHN redevelopment plan: Council Letter No. 196 -5- • 1. Reduce underutilization of land by intensively developing the block in a unified and integrated manner; 2. Provide a compatible environment for living and shopping; 3. Provide for "one-stop" shopping opportunities in a planned and organized manner; 4. Provide for pedestrian amenities; 5. Provide additional housing choices which will relate to the amenities of Richfield Lake; 6. Reduce the number of curb cuts on major streets to provide improved traffic flow; 7. Provide employment opportunities and tax revenue. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposed project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and 'the L/H/N Redevelopment Plan. The proposal does depart from the general commercial zoning district requirements in terms of setbacks and building height. It also departs from the PUD ordinance requirements for maximum floor area, the minimum amount of livability space, and recreation space. The reduced setback along 65th Street is a negative aspect of the project. There will be a two story structure, 420 feet long, within 10 feet of the street. On top of about one half of this length will be 8 additional stories of apartments. This will create a massive wall along 65th Street which could have a negative aesthetic affect. However, this impact is softened by the permanent open space on the north side of b5th Street. The lack of setback minimizes the amount of landscaping that can be done to soften the appearance of the building. No sidewalk will be provided on the south side of 65th Street. There is inadequate space to provide sidewalk, snow storage space, and landscaping within the right-of-way of 65th Street adjacent to the commercial building. A sidewalk presently exists on the north side of 65th Street. A sidewalk will be provided adjacent to the condominium building and to the apartment entrance on the northwest corner of the building. There will be no traffic visibility problems created by the reduced setbacks because of the design of streets with medians and traffic signals. The fifty foot visibility triangle would be maintained at all intersections. • Council Letter No. 196 -6- • The proposed building would become the tallest building in Richfield, approximately 2 stories taller than Lake Shore Drive Condominium. The proposed location would not affect any existing views from single family residential property to Richfield Lake. The views from some of the units of the Lake Shore Drive Condominium to the east half of Richfield Lake will be restricted. However, The proposed condominium and apartment buildings have been angled to reduce this effect. The project would block late afternoon sun from the adjacent multiple family residence on the north side of 65th Street. It is staff's opinion that because the site is located in a commercial area in the LHN project at the "main" intersection, the additional height is appropriate. Because of its location adjacent to Richfield Lake the effect of the building's height on adjacent uses would be minimal. Provisions for Public Service There are adequate public water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer capacity in existing lines in 65th Street' and in 66th Street to adequately serve the site and surrounding area. Traffic and Parking The proposed uses on the site would generate a total of 5,920 Average Daily Trips (ADT). The existing traffic volumes and capacities on surrounding streets are shown in the following table. Design Existing Volumes Capacity Lyndale Avenue 13,206 28,000 Graham Avenue 1,717 7,500 66th Street 15,977 28,000 65th Street 3,852 17,500 There is sufficient capacity on surrounding streets to handle the traffic generated by the proposed development. As indicated in the attached report, the proposal would not present peak hour traffic problems. The projected traffic generation of the proposed uses are 4,380 trips per day less than the previously approved proposal. • Council L°tter No. 196 -7- • Access to the residential parking will be from 65th Street. Access to the commercial parking will be from 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. There will be a break in the existing median on 66th Street to allow westbound traffic to enter the site from 66th Street. Traffic leaving the site will not be able to make a left turn onto 66th Street, because of the design of the exit from the site. A protected left turn lane will be provided for the median break. Staff has some concern about the effect of this median break on the traffic flow of 66th Street. However, because of the design of the median break and entrance and the importance of the entrance to the project, staff believes the median break should be allowed. Parking will be provided for at least 6~7 cars. The proposal provides 135 to 195 parking spaces for the condominium. If the third level of parking is not constructed, there would be 12 spaces less than is required by the PUD ordinance. 222 spaces will be provided for the apartments which is 60 more than is required by the PUD ordinance. 290 spaces will be provided for the commercial uses which is 60 spaces shor"t of what is required by city parking guidelines. It is staff's opinion that because of the mixed uses on the site that an adequate number of parking spaces are provided in the project proposal. Light Exposure, Air Circulation, and Open Space • There will be adequate light .exposure and air circulation on the site. There will be adequate space between the proposed buildings and adjacent buildings which will insure sufficient light and air circulation to all buildings. The shadow effect on surrounding properties will be limited because of the location of the towers adjacent to Richfield Lake. There will be some late afternoon shadow effect on the adjacent multi- family residences on the north side of 65th Street west of Lyndale Avenue. Landscaped open space will be minimal because of the intense use of the site. There will be landscaping provided on the end islands in the commercial parking area to break up the large expanse of asphalt. The plans do not indicate whether or not these and other landscaped areas on the site will be irrigated. Staff believes irrigation is important to insure proper maintenance. Under the terms of the developers' agreement, the city will be responsible for providing the landsca in sidewalks and oth r d trian am niti s a c p g, , e pe es e e d~a ent to the streets. To insure that sufficient area is available to do this, a 20 foot easement will be necessary along 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Council Letter No. 196 -8- Impact of Project on the Neighborhood The project should have no detrimental affect on the surrounding neighborhood. No single family residences will have to be removed to allow for the proposed development. No undue increase in traffic will occur in surrounding residential areas because access to the site will be from Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street and 65th Street. The primary building materials to be used will comply with the Urban Design Guidelines and relate well with surrounding buildings. Preliminary Plat All required information has been shown except a subdivision title, existing buildings, and surrounding subdivision names. VARIANCE REVIEW Staff has reviewed the request for two variances against the three conditions for granting variances and found the following: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting this land not common to other properties or similar districts. • It is the opinion of staff that there are special circumstances present on this site. The type and amount of development on this site required to insure that the project supports itself is high. This requires a higher intensity of development and higher total floor areas than is permitted allowed by the PUD ordinance. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. The redevelopment plan goals and HRA policies which require that the development on the block be self-sufficient do place constraints on the use of the property. However, because the site is being acquired by the HRA and the sale to a private developer would be contingent upon developing within these constraints, reasonable property rights would be proteced. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to improvements in the neighborhood. • Council Letter No. 196 -9- The proposed project would not be detrimental to the general public welfare. The project would, in fact, be beneficial because it meets or exceeds city and HRA goals for development on the block and will result in substantial long term tax benefits to the city. Existing land use problems will be corrected and a well planned development will be constructed which will meet an important goal of the comprehensive plan and redevelopment plan will be completed. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Premliminary PUD Plan, Special Use Permit, and Rezoning: It is staff's opinion that the proposal is in substantial compliance with applicable city plans and policies. The project fulfills the goals of the city's comprehensive plan and the LHN Redevlopment Plan. The site is located in a commercial area and will have minimal impact on residential neighborhoods. Traffic generated can be handled by surrounding streets. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council approve the PUD plan subject to the following stipulations: 1. That all landscaped areas be irrigated. 2. That a 20 foot easement be provided for landscape purposes adjacent to 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. 3. That a final utility and drainage plan be approved by staff. 4. That a fire protection system be approved by the Public Safety Department. 2. Rezoning It is recommended that the City Council give first reading to the attached zoning ordinance amendment and schedule the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance amendment for June 11, 19$4. 2. Preliminary Plat It is recommended that the preliminary plat be approved subject to provision of a subdivision title, and information on existing buildings and surrounding subdivision names. Council Letter No. 196 -10- 3. Variances The proposed development would be beneficial to the community and necessary to complete the LHN project. While the variance request does not meet the three conditions for granting a variance, staff believes that because of unique nature of the proposal and benefit to the community, the project should be approved. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning of the site from C-2 general commercial to PMR planned multiple residence, and approve of the preliminary plat with the possible addition of Graham Avenue to the site, should it be vacated. The commission further recommended that the planned unit development plan and special use permit be approved with the following stipulations: 1. All landscaped areas be irrigated. 2. A 20 foot easement be provided for landscape purposes adjacent to 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. . 3. That a final utility and drainage plan be approved by city staff. 4. That a fire protection system be approved by the Public Safety Department. 5. That the possibility of re-orienting the condominium structure on the site to provide more open space and the possibility of vacating Graham Avenue to accomplish this end be re-submitted for approval. 6. That the proposal include prohibition of parking on the south side of 65th Street. 7. That moving van access off of 65th Street be provided. That the zero foot setback of the commercial building adjacent to 65th Street be eliminated. ~et submitted, John G. C[\art fight City Manager • JGC/eja j WESTNOOD PLANNING & EiVG1NE-SING COP~IPANY j tiarch 6, 1984 i•tr. Richard Krier Cerrick land Company 1650 Sheiard Tower Minneapolis, MN .55426 Subj: Market Plaza Estimated Traffic Generation Dear Mr. Krier: At your request, we have evaluated the potential traffic generation and trip distribution parameters of the. Market Plaza development. l•Je have based this analysis an the following assumptions for development an the " block between West 65th Street and 4Jest 66th Street, frcro Graham Avenue to Lyndale Avenue South. Your proposed developrt~nt for. .this site will provide approximately 70,000 square feet of mixed .use commercial area plus 160 apartments and 140 condominium units. The following traffic movements are anticipated for this•develop~r~ent: MARKET PLAZA ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC GENERATION Camrr~rcial Area Apartments Condominiums Total Size of development 70,000 s.f. 160 units 140 units Estimated daily trips 4,230 980 7I0 5,920 Morning peak hour Outbound 55 65 70 Inbound 90 15 IS Total ~ 145 ~ 80 . 85 3I0 Evening peak hour Outbound 205 30 30 Inbound 180 65 55 Total 385 95 85 565 TRAFFIC OiSTRI8t1TION Anticipated traffic patterns for vehicles approaching or leaving the site - are shown on the attached drawings. These diagrams also depict the anti- . cipated distribution of these trips. Note that a traffic movement imbalance occurs for home-based work trips generated from the condominium and apart- ment units. Because of incomplete interchange access at Lyndale Avenue 'I and I-351.1/CSAH 62, a number of home-to-work trips during the morning peak _ hour will use 66th Street to reach the' freeway system, although their j return movement can be made via Lyndale Avenue. I 7JtS WAY:.ATA 80UlEVAAO• MINNEAPOUS, MINNESOTA 5516 X671) 560135 Mr. Richard Krier March 6, 1984 Page 2 • The anticipatad traffic patterns are based on the assumption that existing medians in fleet 66th Street and on Lyndale Avenue South will remain in their present configuration, thereby preventing left turn access to or from the site along these streets. These median blocks will, primarily, affect the following movements: • Commercial trios from the west - Without a median cut, this traffic must either anticipate an entrance from 65t<'~ Street and make their left turn at Graham Avenue or, make a left turn to the north an Lyndale Avenue and a second. left turn to 65th Street before entering the site. Unless tt~e median on either 66th Street or Lyndale Avenue South is opened for this movement, traffic will be encouraged to make U-turns to approach shopping center driveway entrances. • Commercial traffic departing to the east - This movement grill not be greatly inconvenienced since a right turn exit to Lyndale Avenue will allow access to the southbound Left turn lane for 66th Street. How- ever, traffic must cross two thru-traffic lanes, plus entering the southbound turn lane to make this manuever. Again, a break in the 66th Street median would facilitate this movement to the east with • less difficulty. • Commercial traffic exiting the parking lot to ao north on Lvndale - Although good access is provided from the parking lot to 65th Street, a break in the Lyndale Avenue median would facilitate direct lef t turns for -this traffic. Note that a break in .the median on Lyndale • Avenue would also alloy direct left turn ac~sss to the parking lot from northbound Lyndale Avenue. Although this movement can be readily made as a left turn at 66th Street and a right turn entrance to the parking lot, the efficiency of operation at Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street would be improved if the number of turning vehicles in this busy intersection is kept to a minimum. TRAFFIC UOLUh1ES The attached diagrams depict the estimated daily vehicle trips to and from this development and the anticipated peak hour turning movements at points of egress. Daily traffic volumes on streets surrounding the site 'are also shown for comparison purposes. Note that the traffic volumes are well within the parameters for efficient operation of a four lane divided urban arterial street with channelized Left turn lanes. Graham Avenue and West 65th Street also provide adequate capacity for the anti- cipated increase in traffic movements. Estimated peak hour turning movements at entrance and exit locations do not indicate any significant delays or points of congestion. Increased peak hour movements on 66th Street at the Lyndale Avenue intersection . P1r. Richard Krier March 6, 1984 Page 3 can be readily accommodated by the signal at this location. 41ith no median cut on 66th Street, the left turn from eastbound 66th Street to Graham Avenue will show a significant increase during the p.m. peak hour. An additional .left turn opportunity midway between Graham Avenue and Lyndale Avenue would disburse this movement between two intersections. The left turn from southbound Lyndale Avenue to eastbound 66th Street is also anti- cipated to increase because of traffic leaving the shopping. center with destinations south and east of the site. RECfl~fiMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing analysis, we offer the following recommendations regarding traffic services for this site: • From the standpoint of servicing commercial traffic approaching this site, a median island break should be provided, either on 66th or on Lyndale Avenue. • In the euertt that a median island break is not feasible, extraordinary attention should be given to signing for traffic approaching from the west and traffic from the commercial area departing to 65th Street. • Traffic movements for the residential developments are adequately provided far and, therefore, should not require any special treatment. Yours truly, WESTWflOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY ~ ' ~ ~ ~ . Kenneth W. Anderson, P.E. KWA/dg • • • 22~. ~ 1: „ Commercial Tra##ic i r"`/ • ss. ~u~~u ! ~sf sod. ~ !?~u! ~0 t ~ tErkoer»xnlras:: 1 rdr•w 0 ,N , ; 1 z.:I e~ w eTV coo ~ ~ ~ MCI s~Y. 7 / W! ,Ov4/ :.t ~f i; , ~ 114C!! tTYC. CEO OGa Or~? ~ ~1111N 1N11• 01112 7 A ~ 29~0111~ ~ ~ . 22~ 22~ ; s~ti;'~~ Residential Tra##ic ~ ~,.•1`'M , . .;...V ~ ; . l..~!! ~x s ~.q p ilo.n.,rans~'~ 1.,. ~i5 y~x s ~`!c..<~ ax..^K a7 xlaY X11 1 : c~ ca vo vo III 'N ~w" <s~ ~ ' v~ ,+t j ~'<'e<: Z:~r e!~ 1 k ~a m oea ass acs A 1 111111~N0/N11N/1/ N0~lNN • 1 w, 66th ST. J! 0~1~ ~ , 1 2s~ 22~ With Median Cu~~) abed i"ra#f ~c Patterns APPF~~A~~ Antlc~p Marked Plaza Roet:~ ~ ~ aRCH~css - . . ncOS2trX I'1~V~Lt~PMENTrnecno~~nt1}~ 22~ • Camn~ercial Tra##ic ~ ~ ~ . v'- , ~ , #~~k~u .y.~ `~yf f t ~ . ~a ~ ~ v~M ~ J! , y~. ~ l 3 1N ~N•w ~ KY~~yS:. Q Q Q Q ~www+i~e i ' ~ - 2O u, ~{Ul\i v y ~ ~i y~ - ~s re `V d~ 0G m~ 04 ~4 . Ss •wwww• •wwwwi wwww 2 7 °'o ~ w, eea? sr. ~ i • j~ . ~ w w 29 ~ : ~ • ~ 22~ - • 2 2 ~ ~ a w „ ~ w•~ s9 ~o Residential Tra##ic a'~a~~~`~ w w ~ t11UY _ ~ •w.en wwAaww ~ ` e ,w~a. •~w~w ~ ~ ~ K-„~ q CO p Nsi Q vo .fa Fa+~ ~ < gas s~ ~ ~ ~ ~'a ^ • w, l6Uf 3T. . i • i ~ ~ 22~ - (No Median Cvts~ An ~icd~a~ed $ra~~ic Pa~~erns APP~4AC~ . Marked Plaza - ,wr.p?! aw RCZ__°RTS ARCI-IiTEC:TS . nacstlcu ncvc! nati~F~-.^^_c;._,~,,~M1~ . _ i . - ~ ~ ~Q ' - ? 7 n n ~ ~ C U G G f~ p Q n~{ ~ to a _ " ~ h `l~ r ~ ~ ~ Valion ,z , _ mss:. - ~ ~ ~ ~-,,7T'r` .t ~ .i ~ t. qt • q~ AC.` . • ~ n~ARKE~ ~-~Z ~mn~?CN~ YD AT?oN • A ~ ~ mew.. D A _ C WW wowt'~0""j0D O°~• ~ A A 8 . ~,a E~ C ~ A A A d 1 cw~+' ~ ' A i _ _ - • E A Morq F g ,a w ~ ~~~ttt ~~((~~QQ o ~ e e ~TM~ ~y It18~'1'O r~~~ • ~ ? ~ ~ ~ • ~ MARKET Fa pEyF1.OPM~ CORQpRATIOt'1 ~e,,1 wylasota . • _ • - ~ I f - -,----T- I I - i - 1 ~ l~ 1 ~ I i ~ ~ - ~ ! ~ ~ j I • 1 ! ~ ~ i I ~ ~ j , .L ~ ~ ; i I _ .1 r ~ . _ ~ LOWER LEVEL GARAGE ~ UPPER LEVEL GARAGE _ _ ~ 0 /8 IB 32 M • - Scale 1/IB' I9• MARKET PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I Fa DERRICK LAND COMPANY ane - - I 1 Tif ARKELL DEVrIOPMENT CORPORATION • • • • • • fDdllieW. Mtrnesota • « . . . . ~ • 1~ s g, 3 $ ~ s~ ~ ii} 1 N { !L ~1`~ 'w+~~'~~ ~ ' O • iii ~ 3 ~ L f t I ~"tom ~ t l t \ \ ~ A 111 f(t ~ 5 a ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ` ~ ~ \ .ice i t ~ 1 t-i .GL 1 ~ y ~y, ~ ~ ~ • \ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ , C ~ ' ~ \ ,~s;, ~t ~i~ l i _ . t ~.t r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ti ~ ~ ,w~ , , w„F, ~ , , % ~ ~ i ~ - . p~~w ~ I - - ~ _ i .o Ka-o ~ ~DppM 790 S4 F'r• T~-~~'~ ~ i ~ ..37~`? ate-ow , , sir .::`y t''" ~ s - ~ 1 ia~,l' ~j K.p~IPlN' { 1 • • _ - _ ra ~ t~ANT C RpppAT10N T41E pRK'~- ~VE'L'OP. F4uiaie~d.~,5ix,~sola 1 ~ ~r II 1 ~ I F I t ~ - I O~•~I? _ ~ t I' l ~ r I ~ t ` t~ r. (L--------- ~1- ` ~ aern st. wESS ji'-• `EV~ ERC1A - MARKET PLAZA ~ - R{C{~{R~'9 r1gNNES07A D COµpANY DEVEttWRR~ DFpRICK _ ~ ~ .,t,~ ^ ~ Utz }^`~r~" o R~ ~ o r ` ~ E~EypT14N r yo o ~ SO,V,CNWEST .b~: YYp~CA 0 u ~ ~ ,t. ~ _ ~ _ - ~1 _ _ ~ _ . .e r----~ - - E~EV pTIDN ` Mme' ~ ~....~~d p ~ ~,~W~ MpNKETµ Nµ~so A pl{CH'~IEI.p 4EFtH~CK 1.ANp CO ptiVE40PEa' `~f ~ ` / / . "j. - ~.f! 1 yNa'r'~ 1' ~ ~ MASS MII. ~ 1~ 1( 3 r r~ ~.uMK p1Yr'^' ~w ~ar(MW ~1M^r twM b ~ ~.ru" 1F.~a+~ r - I W V ~ ~ ~ ~~..N n F r 1 Mri ~ . r ~ ~ ~pGA\WH MAI L` 8$+~~{ SY. WEST ~ , _ ~ ~ ~ SITE p~A ~f/f~` / /rrN Her `rNnr.• ~~W"up ~ar~ r~ M~ ~ . . l V ~ ~ ~ u~AN ~'>w'~ ,M~.~CY~r~ wew yr 'tiyrN p~AZA ~~x~~ MARK MINNE50?A Y ~p AN FHCHf1ELD ANU GbM~' pEVEt-OFER: DERRICK ~ ~ ; l ~ ~ ~ C~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f . ~ ~ r_ ~ .r---~- ~ aoa wo.rw • ~ LEVEL GARAGE eN'A KET PLAZA ~~.~s , . M~~~+~w'µ~NN~soYA COy,APANY OEVE40PE~t: OEfZii1CK LAND t~totterlJO~a001N3rrdGi3A~3a [3a NY'1d r u 3. ~ ~ t i _ _ ~ .2 s G S3 ' b , . pN~'~ ~ ~ .^.r % ~v t + ~ /i~~~ ~ ~x ~ ~ O ~I ~i p o _ m ~ S m rr~~ ',tea ~ VJ lei r ~ ~ O ~~~v _ ` j ' 4 ~ oc 1. _ ~ j ~ ~ 0.. L " ~ ~ ~ Y~dHd~~ OS 3^d , 1 1 PREVIOUS PROPOSAL • - rr ta~xvd rN - r¦ tma¦ :C rr rr uotzr~ rr ¦r trrc[.rt rr rr t[axr 1 rr = rN naa41 rr rr [tort t¦ rM rtnr[c r¦ ¦M ~ y. Nr 1 r¦ [wl¦ ) rr MM unit. ~ rr ¦r [nr:aNr~ Ar j rr ttrat¦ 1 MM = NY ~i' l 1r ~ Mr [,~ntt~ Mr fi • r/ rrrt¦ ~ Mr N¦ ¦rY ¦r = ¦r ~ rlr rr rr - nntaf~ rr ~ rM [=~rr j ¦r rM ttw[ r MA! r(- t _ _ _ _ , eatrtter~ aannu[ ~ " un r-~ rn an ~_Rt~ ~ ~ 1 nn u:tat.:~ n[ an tract r nn ul nn p~-=ate - nU a'aT nl ~ Ilp tr-no nn t~-T- ur nn t[-nr nn ~ ~ ul nu p..A = nn Q3 ~ nl nn = no ~r nr nn nn a-~- ~ n[ IIC` ~t rz~rr tU_ l~ ~ ~ r..l;~t ~ s. - _ ( ..t.__.-_J _ _ N . ea>Mwe~T LtiF/art[ l ~ . I 1 i ~ r ' ' 1 ' I i ~ l j ; i , 1 I l a- - ~ N t r - ~__t r_~ n F i; 9 • ~1 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~r~~~ ESTINlAT~17 PSAK HOUR V4LU~itES •-3/i i x/26 oo t oo i 5/s-~ P. M: PEAK HOUR 7 2/s a.M. P~,x HouR 4/2 ~ ~ /3 'i-1, ,r8/34 ~ f ~ cS c~' O ~ r /24 ~*~'CON ~M et v gtt e G d 35/72 ~•6~~h. ~ ?~7/ f 00 C 4 a; ~r ~ a ~m n ~ ca ~ O ~ n ~ ~ t' ~ , f ~j N W 66th. tre~t ~ 0/70 ~ 1 . ~ 12/45 s/s i5/5~ ~ ~ $4/24 't-6/22 ~ 44/88 et m ~ N 9/i2Q~ X27 i00 ~ ~ s/52 2fi/52 `{With Median Cut)' - . - ' ~ ENGi EERING CDM ANY 1yiARK~T PLAZA 7115 WAYZATA COU~EVAAO. MINNEAAOUS, MN. SSlS! (612 5160135 S~T~ ~~~~~A ~ ~ ~A~~~~ 6/2 ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR VOi.U1U3ES~ 3 t .---s /zs 00 / 00 ~ 27/5i " P.BA. PEAR HOUR t2/ 5 -r A.M. PEAK HOUR 54/ 24 ~r 7/31 8 ! 34 ~ cfl a~ N M tA0 NCB N`p/ 54124 ~ ~ ~ ~ t r'~ 'n ~~eet ~ , 35/ 7z ~r. 5 x,65 \1/ ~w~~.W ~ 'r`' ~ z ~ ~20l40 N ~ 27/ !00 d 4 ~ ~ ~ ca O ~ C ~ ~ T L W: 66 ih, dtreet ~ 30!70 ' " ~ _ 1 ~ ~-6/22 16/60-~~44188 0 54 /24 ~ 35~/ 172 ~ ~ ~ {No Median Cuts - 7 ..:r1~.a`~i3~: ~_..L~. i_ WESrv000 PIANNiNG & MARKET PLAZA `7 ENGINEERING COMPANY 7413 WAYL1iA 80ULEYAitO. MINNEAPOLIS. 14N. 55446 (611) 54641SS - 3 • 22~ l': Camr~erc~al Trafific • N 1' ~ . ~r ~ 1 • `~yt• Ut31f1 Sarre!! ~ . ~ ~Eo?~ tRgo~fiC~rsiar i-x i r ~.:,F<: 3 y ~A ewe, / ~ o t..~ 111 31 O///+ s = (~I y~, i7~i~ G7.p1 aA 0~ C~Ci •V i%u~t ~ 3~>i ~ i/ ~ w. esu s~i~~~~~~iiti~IO~N~~~7~ • - 2 2 ~'o Residential Traf#ic ~ ~ I ~ „333 y la, _ . _._~-._Y _ _ _ -a - _ - CO ^.1J ~ f ;v-~- . ~ ~ ~ • io ; 3111 ~ North on f-35 ~ ~ m ~t{m m m 3r'. ~1111V ~ w. era sr• ; i ~ 1 ~ 2 2°Xo ~ 2 9 ,o ~ ~ _ (With Median Cu#~ Anfici~ated Traffic Patterns D~~ARTU~~ Marke# Pfaza ~ ~ R; ~ .LA ~ AOBERTS AACHITECTS _ _ OERRICX DEVELOPtNENTCORPORATION { »~~~~M-~^•~^~^ - • BILL N0. ORDINANCE N0. AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the city enumerated in Chapter III, Part N, Section 3.28, Subdivision 2 of such code is~hereby amended in the following respects: 1. Appendix C, Section 3 is amended by repealing the following paragraphs ` 19 and 20: [(19) That area 1 'ng easterl of a line distant 256.6 feet easterl and parallel to the west lineyof Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,y southeasterly of 65th Street, northerly of 66th Street and westerly of Lyndale Avenue. (20) That area lying south of 65th Street extended and north of 66th Street between Graham-Avenue extended and a line rlanning parallel with the easterly line of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, distant 256.6 feet easterly thereof.] 2. Appendix C, Section 8, is amended by adding the following new paragraphs (3): TRACT 1: All that part of the following described premises lying Easterly. of the center line of Graham Avenue as deeded to the Village. of Richfield in Deed recorded in Book 2052 of Deeds, page 639; That part of Government Lot 2 described as beginning at the intersection of the center line of West 66th Street with the Westerl line of Government Y Lot 2 which is the Old Militar Reservation line• thence ~ Y , Northwesterly 114.6 feet along the said Military Reservation line to Judicial Landmark No. 11 set pursuant to Torrens Case Na. A-2547; thence North along a line extended to Judicial Landmark No. 9 set pursuant to Torrens Case No. A-2547 to the intersection of said line with the Southerly line of West 65th Street, which is the Southerly line of premises conveyed to the Village of Richfield in Deed recorded in Book 2053 of Deeds, page 131; thence Northeasterly along the Southerly line of West 65th Street, which is the Southerly line of the premises conveyed to the Village of Richfield in said deed, to the _ East line of Government Lot 2; thence South along the East line of Government Lot 2 to the cener line of West 66th Street• thence Westerly along the center line of West 66th Street to the place of beginning; all in Section 28, Township 28, Range 24., according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. -2- TRACT 2: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, described.. as beginning at the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 1; thence East along the South line of said Government Lot 1 a distance of 64.8 feet; thence North, parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 1 and its extension North, to the Southerly line of Registered Land Survey Number 1318, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin; thence Southwesterly along the Southerly line of said Registered Land Survey Number 131$ to the West line of said Government Lot 1; thence South along said West line to the point of beginning, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. TRACT 3: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, described as beginning at a point on the South line of said Government Lot 2 distant 64.8 feet East from the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 1; thence East along said South line~a distance of 88 feet; thence North, parallel with the West line of -said Government Lot. 1 and its extension North, to the Southerly line of Registered Land Survey Number 1318, Files of the Registrar of titles, County of Hennepin; thence Southwesterly along the Southerly line of said Registered Land Survey Number 1318 to its intersection with a line drawn North, parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 1 and its extension North, from the point of beginning; thence South along the last described parallel line to the point of beginning. That thee.. East boundary line of said tract has been judicially determined and Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17641, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. TRACT 4: Parcel 1: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, commencing at a point, which point is marked by Judicial Landmark, and is located 256.6 feet East and 33 feet North of the Southwest corner of Government Lot 1; thence North parallel with West line of said Lot 90.7 feet to a point marked by Judicial Landmark; thence at right angles East 229.2 feet to the point. of intersection with the Westerly line of Lyndale Avenue, which point is marked by Judicial Landmark; thence Southwesterly along said line of Lyndale Avenue 95.5 feet to the point of intersection with the North line of West Sixty-sixth Street, which point is marked by Judicial Landmark; thence West along said line 195.7 feet to the point of beginning. f - - - J I .3_ Parcel 2: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24; described as beginning at a point in the South line of said Government Lot 1; distant 152.80 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Gov„~uent Lot 1; thence Easterly along the South line of said Government Lot 1 a distance of 103.80 feet; thence Northerly parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 1, a distance of 229.60 feet; thence at a right angle Westerly 2.20 feet; thence Northerly deflecting to the right 89 degrees 38 minutes a distance of 104.07 feet to the Southerly line of Registered Land Survey Number 1318; Files of Registrar of Titles; County of Hennepin; thence Westerly along last said Southerly line to an intersection with a line drawn Northerly from the point of beginning and parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 1; thence Southerly along last-said parallel line to the point of beginning. That the East line of said tract has been judicially determined and marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case Nos. 10017 and 17641 and the West line of said tract has been judicially determined and Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17641, according to the Government Survey thereof . Parcel 3: All that part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the Fourth Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing on a line. parallel to and 256.6 feet East of the West line of said Section 27 at a point therein which is 123.7 feet North along said line from the South line of said Government Lot 1, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence North along said parallel line a distance of 105.9 feet; thence East a distance of 306.5 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the Westerly line of Lyndale Avenue, which point of intersection is determined by returning to the point of beginning of said line and continuing North along said parallel line a distance of 103 feet; thence South 82 degrees 56 minutes East 141.7 feet; thence North 82 degrees, 34 minutes East to the West line of Lyndale Avenue; thence Southerly along said latter line, 115 feet to said point of termination of the North line of the land now being described; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly line of said Avenue a distance of 113.4 feet, more or less, to a Judicial Landmark located in said line at a distance of 95.5 feet Northeasterly along said line from a Judicial Landmark placed at the intersection of the Westerly line of said Avenue and the North line of West 66th Street; thence West 229.2 feet to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof. Parcel 4: Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. TRACT 5: That part of Government Lot One (1), Section Twenty-seven (27), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-four (24) described as follows: Commencing Two Hundred Twenty-nine and 6/10 (229.b) feet North and Two Hundred Fifty-six and 6/10 (256.6) feet East from the Southwest corner of Lot One (1),.,thence North One Hundred Three (103) feet; thence South Eighty-two (82) degrees Fifty-six (56) minutes East One Hundred Forty One and 7.10 (141.7) feet; thence North Eighty-two (82) degrees, Thirty-four (34) minutes East to center line of Lyndale Avenue, thence Southerly along the center line of Lyndale Avenue One Hundred Fifteen (115) feet, thence West Three Hundred Six and 5/10 (306.5) feet to beginning, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. TRACT 6: Tract A, Registered Land Survey Number 1318, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. TRACT 7: ' Tracts B and C, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. TRACT 8: Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. TRACT 9: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, described as beginning at a point in the South line of said Government Lot 1, distance 256.6 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 1; thence Northerly parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 1, a distance of 229.60 feet to the point of beginning; . thence at a right angle Westerly 2.20 feet; thence Northerly deflecting to the right 89 degrees 38 minutes, a distance of 104.7 feet to the Southerly line of Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin; thence Easterly along said Southerly line of Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, to its intersection with a line drawn Northerly from the point of begining and parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 1, thence Southerly along said last parallel line to the point of beginning, according to the. Government Survey thereof. The West line of said tract has been judicially determined and marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17641, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. -5- Passed by the City Council of the.City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST Sylvia K. Bergh, City Cler4c CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 195 Agenda May 29, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Illuminated Sign, Richfield Shoppes North, 66th and Nicollet Avenue Council Members: An advertising permit has been requested by Nordquist Sign Company for a sign for Richfield Shoppes North, located at 66th and Nicollet Avenue. It is to be a double-faced, pylon ground sign in cream and dark bronze to match the roof material of the remodeled storefronts. The proposed size is to be 60.5 square feet, and the top of the sign structure would be approximately 20 feet above ground level. City of Richfield Ordinance Code 3.49, subd. 1g - Illuminated Signs, provides that City Council approval is required for illuminated signs. A copy of that section is attached. Staff Review The sign structure as proposed is not consistent with the urban design elements for the L/H/N district, but is in conformance with the ordinance in all other respects. The sign does conform to the approved exterior design of the buildings on the site. Staff Recommendation Because the sign meets the requirements of the ordinance and matches the approved design for the shopping center redevelopmeent, staff recommends approval. Respectf~ly submitted, ~ ~ L John G. Cartw ght City Manager JGC/eja _ _ _ _ _ - APPROVE ~ , DENY+ ~ ~ APPROVE lx DENY ~x~-r.d-~-`~` City Manager Inspecto j/,Z~$¢ Date Date APPROVE x k DENY` ~ : APPROVE ~ DE~,1'I 5iav 15 ~MPlannin D partment City Council •E. v~FCO.uS~ os ME'r4~- Date S~~~t.( Date • /tf+0 teST. DoCS TI C iK.CY~. µa7'EWOI.S~ ?Fsu~Ea1~~ . Route to above for special approval per code General Sims APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date C,~ Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee T H*G U tJ C OL~3 Address of Sign -~~r;~'aJi ( oprietor Name Cprn P,Q.JV> ~ DBA Sign Erector ( ,~j Address ~ ~ ~ _ Tvpe of Ginn Design Weather Cover Lis~hting Wali 1 Single Face ? Clear Lexon ~ Constant Projecting ~ L Double Face _ Frosted Lexon _ Flashing Ground ~ Multi-Faced _ Plastic Covered _ Revolving Roof Aerial/Blimp _ Shaded Traveling Pedestal Searchlight Neon _ Zip Lite Changeable Banner/Pennants Other Other(Explain) Temporary Portable Frame: v' Sign Colors~e~~cYYl ~ Q~.iG ~~r~~~- Trailer ~ T ~ A ~ Post ~ ~ (y~~~j,K -r}-{~ P~'~F F')'~d~?G~t.4-rjQ~ i Illuminated Yes No Watts ctrical Contractor Address Phone ~~..11 Property Owner or his Agent Signature (~j((~, ~,1; Phone '~C.~.~L Estimated Cost ,~0~~ Sign Width( j'-(Height 5 ~-(p Total Square Feet (p(~i S Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for sa cess by persons des-tined for or passing the subject premises? Y~`~ . Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm ~`l G Date ~ / ~ ~ /O . Phone Number (1 ~~?j - 7~,~'J / g/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 M, tc7!-f i'' ~ ~ ~ t ~ y ~ . ~ 'Y .T ~ y . _ . ~ /'1 1 1 _ ~ i i - _ j t _l f i i J ? _ --DOUP~t~ ' FACED t1~~ 0~. PS~CIC(~ ~,L 3r'~Ut~J+.i C~r"~ I.~XA~..I , C.tzF.~, ~ALtjM I4,1 !J 1-1 CA81 ~.1~Y W tT~i fl~ BL?Ot_.1ZE PO L~U~{~T~A ~I I j _ ~ ~DOF " OF 51c,- tl. 15 ~l.s 0 D~ ~G1-:? Z G , f Ot.~ tS ~ ~ 3 O t ' n~. M: ~r. ,cv ra..:c+.•'n^c"~ .t, r~ .~a • I ~ ~ ^~'AL M-I.,~t t R ~ }.s-. .+r ~~cc~ t,m--t cr*~.r~s w.` I r .i `<if..?sTit c'. :`"t;~~-w-e.. ti v-. EXIST IA ~ 1 ~ - - L'~. b R' .a• r s-}-'t *r~ l-STOR EXISTING RETAIL SEIOPS nDDmoN OfflCl 1-STORY 6380 S.E, v~~:~~"` t EXISTING RETAIL SHOPS p3 ~ ,ar:=x':~~ BUIIDIn w ~~a~~.,~~ K- ~ f ~ _ ~ ~ N : ~ n sH'~-per i'.r~"wa`~a -7 +f.~wo~ ~ ~ t s rho,. TMs: r..• .b e~'., ~-o bz i _ ~ ~ _ ' _ _ eu 1 ~ f.,..ewmw a....eo , r..v-~• ~ ~ e. I ~ _ ~ ~i ie. 1 ~ ~ I f ~ a• i -w' 1 ~ ~ _ Y~~.~.~~.. ,uY~LU I ~i'•~~rA~_. Ate _`_-____-~v+,v.C..G van 1Z ld" NICOLLET AVER IE SOUTH ~ _ ~`i,'~ ?-,,.;i,~t y ~r ..r,.,-~ ran... .ni:_. ~n ct~Ci+ ci_yn nrpj~_rr? .~n~ ~jl 3ttdChmenCS or LaStcnLn~S -;uSt be so constructed as t0 SaLel~ rcSiSC the dead load and the wind load added by the attached sign. (5) A11 such signs shall be of non-combustible materials, or of not less than one hour fire resistive construction. ~ Subd, 14. Roof Suns: Construction and Design. The following standards shall be maintained for all roof signs: (1) No roof sign shall be located nearer than five feet from the outside ~ wall toward which it faces, nor exceed 25 feet in height above the roof level of the building unless constructed integral with the building or structure, nor shall it project beyond the edge of said roof in any direction. For the purposes of this subdivision, lights attached to the sign structure and lig'r~ts ` attached to the building and beamed toward the sign structure shall be con- - sidered part of the sign structure. (Z) Every such sign shall be either metal, metal clad, incombustible, open wire or open metal sign, except that such sign may have letters, figures, characters, or borders of wood if such borders do not exceed four inches in width, and such wooden letters, figures or characters do not cover more than 25 % of the area of such sign, provided that in place of sheet metal, sub- stitution may be made of the following materials; tempered pressed wood or other similar materials approved by the chief inspector, having equal proper- ties as to strength, fire and moisture resistance. (3) No such sign shall be so placed as to prevent free passage of persons from one part of the roof to another. (4) The building or structure upon which such sign is placed, and all attachments or fastenings must be so constructed as to safely resist the dead t load and the wind load added by the attached sign, and in such a manner as not to cause damage to the building or structure on which such sign is placed. (5) No roof sign shall be more than. 65 feet in length nor shall it extend more than 25 feet above the surface of the roof of the building on which it is located. No roof sign shall extend more than 45 feet above the average ground level of that part of the street toward which it faces. Subd. 15. Wall Suns; Construction and Design. The following standards shall be :maintained for all wall signs: . (1) No wall sign shall have a projection over a private sidewalk or an established building line of more than 12 inches. (2) The materials, construction and attachment of any such sign shall meet the same standards and requirements as roof signs. Subd. 16. Banners and Temporary Signs. The following standards shall be maintained for all banners and temporary signs: (1) Temporary signs and banners attached to any building and constructed of canvas, plastic material, cloth or other combustible material with or with- ' out framework; shall be strongly constructed and shall be securer; attached to their supports. They shall be removed (including all framework and supports) as soon as damaged or torn and in no case later than b0 days after erection. (2) Temporary signs of combustible material shall not be larger than t20 _ square feet in area for each twenty feet of building frontage. There shall not be :more than one temporary sign on an,~~ building frontage. 4%8/63 ORDINANCE CODE 91 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA -~~~r -=-~n'`~--. =-o~ -C"':bi_St1.til= -Cnctr_.~r~=~•.~ Si1311 rr,-~-~i=Ct O., e.^ public property or ri,ht-of-way, but may extend a may:imum of 6 inches from the mace of the building. - (4) Temporary signs of combustible construction shall not be hung so as to cover either partially or completely any door, window, or opening required for ventilation, (5) No roof sign shall be more than combustible material, and no tem- porary ground sign shall be located on any multiple-residence, commercial or industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special permit therefor from the council. If the council determines to grant an application for a special permit for any such temporary sign or bannering, or any such temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, and it shall be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering for a longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the special permit, No such special permit shall be for a period of more than 60 days. No such special permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs or banners are prohibited by other provisions of this code. Subd. 17. Application of Other Provisions of this Part, Temporary ground signs as defined in Section 3.41, Subdivision 1, of this part, shall comply with the provisions of Subdivision 16, _ - Subd. 18. Approval of Sign Permit Applications. Upon presentation of ap- plication, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information, the sign construction permit shall be issued by the manager, or his represent- ative, except as provided in Subdivision 19 of this section, Subd. 19. Special Approval from Council. In the case of an application for a sign requiring a special permit, or which will be illuminated, or moving, or of unusual height, size, design, or location, the manager shall refer such sign to the council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so referred, shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the council. Subd, 20. Variance from Terms of Approval Prohibited, No sign shall be erected, used or maintained in a manner at variance from the provisions of this code or different from that approved by the council. No building er electrical permit for a sign shall be granted until the sign permit has been approved. Subd. 21. Future Permits. A permit shall not be issued for any new bill- board or advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised product is sold, if such billboard or sign would be within 300 feet of any other such billboard or sign already in existence in the interior of the same city block or its equivalent area. Permits may be issued for directional or identification signs. Any billboard removed under the provisions of Sub- division 22 of this section shall not be reissued. Any billboard destroyed by storms or acts of God may be rebuilt within 90 days, if complying with this part. 4/8/68 ORDINANCE CODE 92 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO?A CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 194 Agenda May 29, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Temporary Signs, Richfield Shoppes North, 65th and Nicollet Avenue Council Members: Two advertising permits have been requested by Nordquist Sign Company for Richfield Shoppes North, located at 65th and Nicollet Avenue. The signs are to be temporary, non-illuminated signs reading "We apologize for any inconvenience caused during our remodeling. We appreciate your patronage. The Richfeld Shoppes, The Lincoln Companies." The signs would be located near 65th and 66th Streets, facing Nicollet Avenue. Staff Review The proposed sign sizes are 16 square feet, while city ordinance specifies a maximum of 12 square feet for temporary sign structures. City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, subd. 16 (5) provides that City Council approval is required for temporary ground signs. A copy of that ordinance section is attached. Staff Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the signs if they are reduced to meet the 12 square foot maximum. Further, the sign to be located on the southwest corner of the shopping center is shown on the public right-of-way and would have to be relocated to private property. Respect 1 submitted, John G. Cartw ght City Manager JGC/eja 312 WEST LAKE ST. • h11NNEAPOUS, MICNNES,OpTA 55468 A FULL SERVICE 5JGN COMPANY 6121823'7291 t ~ I ~ 1 a olo ~e ~o~ any ~ ~ ti n c~on~ep ~e Caus~c. ~ r;,~ ~ our r~mcx~e in C~ U ~j ~a-fr~n~~e , - ~ ~E'~J1 f .e sh~pP~ 7`~ (h LG ~n C~rn~~°s _ f- _ ~ - Two 4'x~'~~~~i.~-~~c.~o ~ m Poke ~ P~,Y ~ oc~o ~ l ~ SlGNAGE fOR BUSINESS AIyD INDUSTRY SINCE 1904 APPROVE I ~ DE'_v1'~ ~ : APPROVE DENT' City *lanager Inspector Date Date APPROVE ~ f ~ENY~ ~ : ~.c~ ~ APPROVE ~ I DENYI Z 44 R ~ Planning D partment City Council ' iN s.w. cct~..~~.. , Date Date rs .,a ~ Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date ~ /P}G~ Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign ~n~ ~ tr~LL~~ Proprietor Name l'(~?'Yl~P,~~~ DBA Sign Erector~(~{~~7(; ~L-'j~~ ~ (n(v [~o •Address ~ ) ~ ~ ) ~(-J, ~~~'1 Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting _ ~ _ Wall V Single Face Clear Lexon ~ Constant _ Projecting Double Face Frosted Lexon _ Flashing Ground Multi-Faced _ Plastic Covered ~ Revolving _ Roof Aerial/Blimp Shaded Traveling r Pedestal _ Searchlight _ Neon _ Zip Lite ~G`hangeable Banner/Pennants Other ~ Other(Explain) y Temporary u Portable Frame : ~ Sign Colors Ia,`N 177? Pr p-GlG <7 P_ r°d~iro~ Trailer T ~ A ~ Post Illuminated - Yes No Watts ~ectrical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature - Phone~~'q Estimated Cost Sign Width q' Height Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? ~ti Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for s access by persons destined. for or passing the subject premises? Yf~ ~~~i%tKf~,G1 ~ Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm r J Date _ Phone Number ~57~?j `'f ~t 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 J , ..eft yrw isc...t-cY~'.'s.. ~ 1• t~ i•J%wni. 'u i. ~s u*. ~y~,:i:ro-•~'°nr~t. o•?..~e++,.s• ~ ~ w~-v .=i' ~ _rt.`n .a k -.~~1'~~~w..-t -`--+-t^•"``~-"-'y EXISitt` f RETAfI ~ (-Sion EXISTING RETAIL SHOPS ~ .~.-~,~'K.. 4 OPS OF F IL 1 S(ORY 5]80 E 4 ~4_D;` ~cv~ w RETAIL SH uul~ou k =`f J i•STURY ~ N r~ax ~I"w"a`"'o-o i; " ~ rw~"a-. ,,7' w - C1 / Q'p8'"'~' ~ i~ eft •a~ -o '1721--" : ~ _ F~- ! F.. :o w is-.'. w ~ . ~ ~ r l v.::'_ i ~ «u ° O7 ~ ~ t l , _ ' r ' ~ y,. U.~ ,~._'..D6 v .t.~..: ..p6 l~I~jyy,~.t-t~j ~ ~ i ~ ! p6 " t` - ..-r - ' ~ i"c nr u:Y~ s D~-~, ~ (s-°..: ~~,A„1'i ~~1 , (G~{~ °(t 1 j i 1 . - ,i ,7a siti =n`~ez:a ~ I i~l S~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `""tea t•1 ~ ~ }K~:~;~` IE SOUTH _ ,;n..r ~ ~i6_tJ t~EOFC~'t T}-:e }itii lr?i .'?Y cr- ''~tr2 _rn.« ~Li . attachments or fastenings must be so constructed as to saf~l_; resist the cead load and the wind load added by the attached sign. f5) A11 such signs shall be of non-combustible -!aterials, or of not less than one hour fire resistive construction. z ' Subd. 14. Roof Sins: Construction and Design. The following standards shall be maintained for all roof signs: (1) No roof sign shall be located nearer than five feet from the outside wall toward which it faces, nor eYCeed 25 feet in height above the roof level of the building unless constructed integral with the building or structure, nor shall it project beyond the edge of said roof in any direction. For the purposes of this subdivision, lights attached to the sign structure and lights attached to the building and beamed toward the sign structure shall be con- • sidered part of the sign structure. (2) Every such sign shall be either metal, metal clad, incombustible, open wire or open metal sign, except that such sign may have letters, figures, characters, or borders of wood if such borders do not exceed four inches in width, and such wooden letters, figures or characters do not cover more than 25 % of the area of such sign, provided that in place of sheet metal, sub- stitution may be made of the following materials; tempered pressed wood or other similar materials approved by the chief inspector, having equal proper- ties as to strength, fire and moisture resistance. (3) No such sign shall be so placed as to prevent free passage of persons from one part of the roof to another. (4) The building or structure upon which such sign is placed, and all attachments or fastenings must be so constructed as to safely resist the dead Load and the wind load added by the attached sign, and in such a manner as not to cause damage to the building or structure on which such sign is placed. . (5) No roof sign shall be more thar. 65 feet in length nor shall it extend more than 25 feet above the surface of the roof of the building on which it is located. No roof sign shall extend more than 45 feet above the average ground level of that part of the street toward which it faces. Subd. 15. Wall Signs; Construction and Design. The following standards shall be maintained for all wall signs: • (1) No wall sign shall have a projection over a private sidewalk or an established building line of more than 12 inches. (2) The materials, construction and attachment of any such sign shall meet the same standards and requirements as roof signs. Subd. 16. Banners and Tem~orarv Signs. The following standards shall be maintained for all banners and temporary signs: (1) Temporary signs and banners attached to any building and constructed of canvas, plastic material, cloth or other combustible material with or with- ' out framework; shall be strongly constructed and shall be securely attached to their supports. They shall be removed (including all framework and supports) as soon as damaged or torn and in no case later than 60 days after erection. (2) Temporary signs of combustible material shall not be larder than 120 _ square feet in area for each twenty feet of building frontage. There shall not be more than one temporary sign on any building fronta,e. 4/8/68 ORDINANCE CODE 91 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (3} NO temporar}' S1on Ot CO"1buStible COPS tr'_'C tiOn sh311 ;~rO~PCt ~~Vnr public property or right-ef-way, but may extend a maximum of 6 inches from the face of the building. (4) Temporary signs of combustible construction shall not be hung so as to cover either partially or completely any door, window, or opening required for ventilation, (5) No roof sign shall be more than combustible material, and no tem- porary ground sign shall be located on any multiple-residence, commercial or industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special permit therefor from the council. If the council determines to grant an application for a special permit for any such temporary sign or bannering, or any such temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, and it shall be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering for a longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the special permit. No such special permit shall be for a period of more than 60 days. No such spgcial permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs or banners are prohibited by other provisions of this code. Subd. 17. Application of Other Provisions of this Part. Temporary ground signs as defined in Section 3.41, Subdivision 1, of this part, shall comply with the provisions of Subdivision 16. Subd. 18, Approval of Sign Permit Applications. Upon presentation of ap- plication, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information, the sign construction permit shall be issued by the manager, or his represent- ative, except as provided in Subdivision 19 of this section. Subd. 19. Special Approval from Council. In the case of an application for a sign requiring a special permit, or which will be illuminated, or moving, or of unusual height, size, design, or location, the manager shall refer such sign to the council for approval, No permit for any such sign, so referred, shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the council. Subd. 20. Variance from Terms of Approval Prohibited, No sign shall be erected, used or maintained in a manner at variance from the provisions of this code or different from that approved by the council. No building or electrical permit for a sign shall be granted until the sign permit has been approved. Subd. 21. Future Permits. A permit shall not be issued for any new bill- board or advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised product is sold, if such billboard or sign would be within 300 feet of any other such billboard or sign already in existence in the interior of the same city block or its equivalent area. Permits may be issued for directional or identification signs. Any billboard removed under the provisions o£ Sub- division 22 of this section shall not be reissued. Any billboard destroyed by storms or acts of God nay be rebuilt within 90 days, if complying with this part. 4/8/68 ORDINANCE CODE 92 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 193 Agenda May 29, 198 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Smoking and Non-Smoking Designations for City Hall and Public Safety Building Council Members: INTRODUCTION The Advisory Board of Health in late 1983, adopted a resolution recommending a plan to designate non-smoking areas throughout city hall and the public safety building. This city council letter provides a plan recommended by the City Manager after receiving input from employees on three alternative plans. The recommended plan (Alternative Plan C), is more restrictive tr.an the restrictions now enforced. The key points are: 1. No Smoking shall be designated for the council chamberis and all conference rooms; 2. The city hall lobby shall be designated a No Smoking area, while the public safety lobby will permit smoking (the public safety building has superior air handling equipment); 3. Both employee lunchrooms will continue to operate as they have by permitting one table for persons who wish to smoke; and 4. Work areas shall not permit employee smoking unless the work area qualifies with the regulations provided for by the Minnesota Department of Health, namely: (a) have a continuous barrier, except for door portals, at least 56 inches high, or , (b) have at least four feet of space separating it from a work area, or , (c) be in a room with ventilation of at least six air changes per hour (work areas in the public safety building and city hall meet this provision). Council Letter No. 193 -2- • ANALYSIS Three smoking/non-smoking plans were presented to employees for comments. The plans are: 1. Alternative A - present plan in force; 2. Alternative B - very restrictive plan that only permits smoking in four locations (fire division day room, public safety building lobby, and both lunchrooms); 3. Alternative C - a compromise plan, more restrictive than Alternative A, but less restrictive th an Alter- native B. CONCLUSION The recommended Alternative Plan C regulating smoking and non-smoking areas in city hall and the public safety building was presented to the Board of Health for review and comment at their May 21, 1984 meeting. The Advisory Board of Health recommendation to the city council says "The Richfield Board of Health would like to ban smoking in city hall and its workplace areas entirely, but in lieu of no smoking, would unanimously vote to go with Plan B." • The City Manager's proposal has been formulated on the basis that the responsibility for smoking and non-smoking designations in work areas shall be placed with the City Manager. The City Council, under this proposal, with advice from the Advisory Board of Health, shall be responsible for the public areas of the building for smoking and non-smoking designations. EMPLOYEE CONCERNS On Wednesday, May 23, 1984, the City Manager learned that the Public Safety Department employees were not consulted by the Program Director about the proposed smoking/non-smoking regulations. Two letters have been received from Public Safety employees expressing concerns about the proposed regulations (letters are provided in your backup). The City Manager will make every effort to have Public Safety Department employees informed about the proposals by Tuesday, May 29, 1984. If all concerns are not addressed by Tuesday's council meeting, the City Manager will recommend that after the subject has been presented, that the proposal be tabled to the first meeting in June. Council Letter No. 193 -3-- • RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION Approve the City Manager recommendation to adopt Plan C for regulating non-smoking and smoking areas. Also, to approve the recommendation that the City Council, with advice from the Advisory Board of Health, will be responsible for determining what regulations shall be enforced for the public areas of the buildings and the City Manager shall be responsible for the work areas. tf lly mitted, ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ hn G. dart right City Manager JGC/eja Supporting Backup: 1. 3/26/84 Summary of Departmental Responses 2. 2/15/84 Interoffice Memorandum 3. 1/30/84 Interoffice Memorandum I OPGPNIZE.O P • za 9F~ _ C10 ~~~~9F~~L® P~~~~SS~~~IAL ~ ~S L~~~L 1 5 AFFILIATED WITH Minnesota Professional Fire Fighters International Association Fire Fighters May 2 3 , 19 8 4 Minnesota State Federation of Labor A.F.L. C.I.O. Mayor John Hamilton City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mayor Hamilton: I write this letter to express my concerns regarding a rumored City Smoking Ordinance for City employees. Up to this date, I was not aware that the City was even addressing this issue and, therefore, not aware of a possible action being proposed, much less an ordinance being discussed. I have been informed by a member of the Public Safety Department that an ordinance is going to be presented at the next meeting of the Council. As a Public Safety employee, I am concerned because we have not had an opportunity to participate in the drafting of the ordinance. As an oi;ficer of the firefighters, I will be responsible for initiating any proceedings or objections resulting from this ordinance; therefore, I have a special interest in being made aware of new personnel policies that could cause labor problems between the City and the Union. Due to just recently being informed of this situation, I am unable to assemble the membership of Local 1215 to seek their direction in response to this issue, not to mention the fact that a copy of the ordinance is not yet available. As a result, I am respectfully requesting the Council to consider a status quo resolution for the present time until all interested persons have an opportunity to review the proposed ordinance ar.d its implications. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, RICiiFIELD PROFESSIONAI, FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1215 ~ Thomas Moore, President M E M O R A N D U M DATE: MAY 23, 1984 ~C.:K,4:,~L'~-T~'~.. GA~T'nIRI~GI~~,~ ~G~.~ NLANAGEI~ TuRU RpN RANKIN, ADM?~SIST?~A.t :L~1~ ~ SST C~S~ DIFEGi O COPYe:~.TOM'ri~SORO~N; PU~L'I~"~'ArLi`~sR~CTO~~. FROM: PAUL LINNEE SUBJ: COMMENT ON SMOKING REGULATION PROPOSALS I am aware of the proposal to have the Council consider at it's May 29th meeting the issue of smoking regulations for city hall. I would like to offer several comments from the perspective of a manager of a large group of employees who would be affected by these proposals. To begin with, I applaud the efforts of the Council to attempt to enact a policy that intelligently preserves the rights of non-smokers and complies with the spirit and intent of the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act. As it relates to the personnel and functions I manage, I have substantial problems with the proposal known as PLAN B. This plan seems highly restrictive and is arguably beyond the intent and scope of the State Law and, as such, subject to potential litigation but moreover, would create immense problems in continuing to provide work productivity. We just cannot have the smokers leaving their posts every 3o minutes to go to the designated smoking areas or outside. I am led to believe that Plan B is not favored by your staff and I would support the defeat of Plan B. As it relates to Plan C, which I am led to believe your staff favors, I am also in favor with one minor and one major exception. These are: 1.(Minor) The proposal to designate the Public Safety Lobby as a Smoking Area may cause some problems in that smoke from that lobby could drift through the open counter area into our clerical common area which would be a designated No Smoking area. Further, if it develops that customers waiting for licensing service need to smoke and can only smoke in the public safety lobby they may congreagate in the PS Lobby along with their kids (who are often noisy and running around), thereby increasing the noise problems we already have from that lobby when it is occupied. JOHN CARTWRIGHT Page 2 ' ~ Since the City Hall lobby is closed off from all work areas by doors which would cut down smoke and noise, would it be better to have that lobby be Smoking and the PS Lobby be Non-smoking? 2.(Major) The proposal to designate the Emergency Communications Center as a Non-smoking area will cause me tremendous problems. To begin with, this room is unique in a number of ways. First, it is the only room in all the city facilities that MUST BE MANNED every second of every day, 365 days a year. It's occupants cannot just take a break to smoke. Before they can leave that room they must be relieved by a properly trained and "checked out" person of which we have only a handful out of our total complement of nearly 90 employees. This means that at many times, there is just plain no relief available in the building for any purpose and it was with this in mind that we designed the Communications Center with its own lavatory complete with phone and radio capabilities. Secondly, the room has an extraordinary and independent air circulation system. We exchange the room air not less than 12 times per hour and the flow is such that loose papers are hard to keep hold of! Thirdly, for practical purposes, the room is "an individual's office". Manning schedules are such that there is one person scheduled on duty in the room 90~ of the time. If that person requires intermittent relp that person can summon assistance from the clerical area for the duraticn of the need. Consequently, whether or not there is smoking permitted in the room would be of great concern to only that one person scheduled to be in the room at a time. Fourthly, while same may consider it weak, I can speak from experience that periods of extreme emergency can be unbelievably stressful in that room. I would be disinclined to tell a dispatcher who has just handled or is handling a high speed chase or a shooting incident that they should not or could not smoke. As a sort of a compromise, I would advocate that Plan C be adopted with the Communications Center designated as a "SMOKING OPTIONAL" area at the exclusive discretion of the scheduled operator on duty. If the scheduled operator desired that there be no smoking, it would become a no-smoking area for that shift and I am sure that all would abide by that persons wishes. Creative signing could be installed to effect this purpose. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on these matters. If you have questions please feel free to call me. S ' CITY OF RICHFyELD, MINNESOTA INTER-OFFICE 4iEMORA~iDUri -DATE: March 26, 198u ~O: John Cartwright, City Manager FROM: Ron. Rankin, Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services--!"~ Director SUBJECT: Response of Department Directors regarding Smoking and ;io-Smoking Areas All departments have now responded to our request for comments~on the various alternatives for smoking and no-smoking areas in the City Hall/.Public Safety building. The comments are as follows: 1) Public Safety - Tom ;Morgan said he believes alternate "C" would be the most appropriate. Further, he said tine Fire Division day room and the partitioned work areas should be allowed to remain as smoking areas (in response to your suggestions). 21 Community Development - Dennis Kraft indicated employees are evenly split in preferences for alternatives "B" and "C", al;,hough supervisory employees nave a greater preference for alternative "B". 3) Community Services - Don Fondrick surveyed the preferences of the seven department employees stationed in Gity Hall. Six preferred alternate - "C" and one strongly preferred alternate "B". 4) Administrative Services - My review of this matter with Division managers indicated support fcr alternate "C". (T"nere is presently no smoking in the finance and licensing work areas.) . It is :ny recommendation that the implementation of alternate "C" be pursued. Prior to doing so, however, it would probably ue helpful to discuss the issu` at a staff meeting. Such discussion could be direc~ed at resolving issues of smoking desi'nation 'in lunchroom and :~eeting rcom areas. Please let me know if you require further information. RSR:sb i .n y..• L113 OF RIC.IFI.=.D, MlidNc.SOTA ~ Inter-Office I~lemorandum February 15, 1984 T0: Ronald Rankin -Assistant City Manager/Ad~.ia;strat~ve Services Dir. ~ ~ . rROM: John G. Cartwright -City Manager . SU&TECT : SMC~{TNG AND NON-SMCK~G AREAS IN•• CITY HALL A1~ID PU~.IC SAr ~ 1 i EL?`GS . have reviewed your communication of January 30, 198, on the subject of smoking and non-smoking areas in city hall and• public safety buildi.^gs. I would like t0 have the assistant City Manager provide copies of the January 30, 198u report to each Program Director i+n order that they may review the receffierdations and alternatiave plans and submit t:~~eir cements flack to you for further ccnsideration by tie City Manager. Tine City Manager would like to offer these comments which you could pass or. to the Program Directors: 1. Alternative A, or Map A, which sets forth the current srekirg areas and nor.-smoki.*~g areas, is a plan that I would like to improve upon; c. I like Alternative or Map 3,~ ~~ut - would i:.agine t.".ere may be employees who would f_nd this plan too restrictive; 3. Map C seems to be a fair compromise and I can support a plan where smoking is peraitted in individual off,:ces and leave that dAcision up to the individuals who work in that particular oif_ce. I would like to learn specifically whether we should 'nave the fire division day room desi3rated as a snoki::g area. I would like to suggest t:.at •this area be made rr'd0 ~lIIOking" and that the SiRCkCirig ar°_2 ~Je deSlvi;aL2d scmeWhere i.2.S1C.° the aDCaratL'S rCCm. I would also like to proacse that there would be no sr.~king in the public SaI ety area wh1Ch haS .the Small Cubicles WhiC:: are Se,^~arated by : OL'r f OOt '^ioh partltion5. Also, would a3ree wit.". the proposal to designate the public sa°~ty iob^,y aria t. . as a smcx:.ng area and the lobby outside the city council cha:tbers as a no smoking area, or to reverse that arrangeWe^.t and ,.ave the pub'_ic safety lob^,y no s:aokiag, and the lobby outside the council c^~tbers a smoki:2g area. i • -2- Also, I would elimi-gate the area designated as a sacking area in the inspection area unless it is in a separate, confined, one person office. Ln the area that is occupied by the Departuent of Adrairistrative Services and the City Manager, I wculd eliminate the cne area ycu have designated as a smoking area in the Assessing Division of the building because of close proximity to other employees who do not smoke. On the lower level, Mere there is both a lunch.oom ir. the public safety building and a lunchroom in the city hall building, I would either eliminate smok:.ng entirely from both rooms or have one lunchxcom designated as a smoking area and the other lunchroom as a no smoki.^.g ,area . If the lunc.'~rooras are both designated no smoking areas, we cculd designate the conference roan adjacent to the Deparmtent of C.~.W,unity Development as a smoking area. Once you have received ecmments from Program Directors on these proposals and the City Manager comment, please advise and we can deterriine cur next steo towards implementing a smoking and no smoking revised plan f.or the public safety building and city :gall. JGC/eja CITY OF RIC:iFIr~D, ~iL~1I~1r~SOTA Lnter-Office ~'vmoran~ DATA: January 30, 1984 'IO: John Cartwright, City Manager FROM: _~on Rankin, Assistant City Manager/Admini.st-native Services Director SUST^C~: Smoking and i~1on-Smoking Areas in City Mall and i-ublic Safety A review.of existing smoking and non-snicking areas has been requesl~zd by the City Manager, as well as a review of possible alternative arrangements. Fur~~her, t`Ze Advisory' Bcard of 'riealth recommended certain policy c.'~anges for smoking areas in November, 1583. This sets forth the basic rea lations of-t'~e Minnesota Department of Healt'~, the exis~~.ing smoking areas i+n City Hall/Public Safety, ar~d reviews 'pro altzrnative arrangements. Th° regulations of the Minnesota Depa,. 1~..~nt of Health (ccgy at~cned) p~~,~slgatad under the authority of the Minnesota Clean indoor Air Act, set out certain requiremenTw for smoking and non-smokin-g areas in public ineetin~s and public places, inclt,~, n~ work ar...as. . . The follawirg are the basic requirements--of t'~e regulations as they apply Leo . City Hall/Public Safety: 1) Tl:e key requirement is maintain-~ ng "acceptable sr.~oke-free areas" in public meetings and public places. To qualify,, t'~ese areas must: A. 3e at least 2C0 square feet in size, and B. :lave a cantinuous barrier, except for door pcrtals, at least "^o inches high, or Have at least 4 feet of space separating it from a smck:1ng a.^ea, cr Be in a room with ventilaticn of at least o air changes per hour. 2) Smoking is to be prohibited in all secticns of rooms except designated snicking-permitted areas. 3) There may be only one desigrrnatzd smoking area per rocm, except i.n those over 20,OC0 square feet in size. 4) In a single room wit's a designated smoking area, t'~ere must also be a reserved and desi~ated ro-smoking area. ' _ Join G. Car~,.~aright • ~ January 31 , 1984 ' ~ Page 2 5) The size of the designatzd smoking area is not to be lard r than the proportion of snickers using tie room. 6) Por~.able ash trays are banned in ro-smoking areas. • 7) A place of work may have several smoking and ro-snicking areas. 8) Proper signing of all areas is required, except places of work reed only a "smoking is prohibited except in designated snicking areas" sign. 'fie existing inventory of smoking-permitted areas in City Hall/Public Safety is specifically set out in the at-~cred inventory listing and Sap "A." existing situation appears to meet tt^~e Sate law and regulations, except: A. Building entrances are not properly postxi "Smoking is prohibited except in designated smoking areas." ' B. The designated smoking area in the City Council c.'zambers is probably too large, given the observed number of smokers. using ~~he room. C. Certain rooms used for public meetings and staff meetings (i.e. conference rooms} in which smoking is permitted c3o not , provide "an acceptable smoke-free area." D. Certain work rooms occupied by both smokers and non-smokers do not meet the regulations. In addition to the conference rooms noted above, _ examgies LnciucL the Tire Division Day Rcom, the ?olive Briefing Room, and tre Community Services meeting room. All of these exceptions could be brought into compliance relatively easily. It should also be noted t'~t }one ventilation sys~~m is believed to provide at Ieast six air changes per hour, thereby making ccnipliance easier to ac.'zieve.~ The recommendation of the Advisory 3oard of Heal;~h is to adopt "an ordinance ~Jat bars smoking from the council chambers and working areas of the Cit,~ Hall and to designate spec...fic areas in the building for snicking." Following t'~.e Board's recommendation literally would go considerably beyond the requirements of State law. As noted in the discussion above, regulations do allow snicking in meeting rooms and work areas, provided Ld•~at m°asures are *~k°n to esi-.ablish "acceptable smoke-free areas." However , the po+wntial implementation of the Board's recommerdation r~s been reviewed. it would be possible 'moo ban snicking from till areas of City Hall/Public Safety except for cer°`~zin designated areas. 1. at ached drawing "B" shows how '.his alternative might be acxmplisr~d. Before any action is taken, however, it would probably be advisable to allow smoking and non-s~kirg employees to comment. As shown on the map, designated smoking areas would be: 1. Tire Division Day Room 2. Public Safety Lobby (tre City Hall Lobby could be an alL.,ernay,,e _ location) John. G. Cartwright ' ~ Jarn:ary 31 , 198.4 Page . 3 3. The City Mall and Public Safety Lunchroom areas (Zi t':ese areas can be shared by all employees, one could be designated t'sm~k;ng" and. t'~e other "no smoking . _ There is also anoy~r alternative for the designation of smoking areas in Gity Hall/Public Safety which strikes an intermediarz around betwe~_n existing situation and ~ recoamendations of the Advisory Board of Health. In essence, this alter~,ative would ban smoking from all meeting rooms, and would allow smoking in work areas only when such smoking could meet Stata reo lations. Eac'~ lunch room would ^ave a designated smoking area as well, .~s alternative is shown in the attached ~ "C." It would, of course, include bringing all existing areas of nc~-compliancz with Statz rgula+~.icns inter compiiarce. Certain work s~y~ions/areas whic;~ now have smoking per~ni.tted would only_be allowed to con°`~iriue if they met the State reo lations. It is recammended that Richfield consider implementation of this i.nter;nediate alternative ("C"). This would protact Lie rights of all non-smokers in meeting rooms, and would provide assurance t'~at smoking would be allowed in work areas only when State regulations can be met. RSR: sb Attachments ° PUBLIC SAFETY • f. i ~i PAYROLL/ ff =STORAGE UT I l I TY CITY :a~:-:-=• SAFE ACCOUNTIrlG BILLING CLERK _ja'~~ - _`3 ~ - j ~ ~ PUBLIC \ SAFETY FINANCE COORDINATOR ~ / FINANCE ~ LICENSING 1 - - . `t COUNCIL `l. CHAM8ERS LIBRARY/ ~ ~ ~ ' :dORD ' . PROCESSING - ~ _ ~ -r ~ ~ I - ~ Ir, {r.l Y i_. •u. Y..i. It ..d^. III I Y.~.II~~~ ~ ~ - 0 f ~ RECEP- :1 TIDNIST I it, - CI{T`! tSAPlAG~ I I / = -I. (E ' ASSESSING y ~ ~Si~lALL CONFDRE - ROOM/REST : ~ ~L NN PERSO EL / . ~ ~ R~.a ti i ~ , ; ~ / I M E / PERSONNEL CREDIT ~ ;;E - CITY ,t riAt~AGER - ASSESSING UNION ~ M„P.AGcR ~.:I.r; . _ ~ . PARY,INC~ LOT STREET . LEvEL Er,TRY . i4 /~1~~ A''~~T`~ L• M+~ • ~.,.~w j iw ~ ) 1 w~~1M n, f,.l,~~ ~`1 ~ i ',mom a ~ i . ! -r~ { ? ` ,,.,,..r...~. _ j ~ 11 n ~ 1 V M ?~,M: ! j ~ 7F . ; y M ~~~,,.,,,,,__.----ter' ~u - :~:u:~=_ ~ 1, ~ +r~ . - --rl.. . r . ~ ~ 1,,.....! f ~TM...,•rw ~ r,....•~ w - N!N r 1 G~ r-- 1 ,aw. Y ~ ! ~ i ~ t ' w ! t '1 ! ' " Y•? ir. wJ1 MA _ ' l-- ~Y p~51t~N p AN no~Na ~~QOn ~ ~ v~ je ~a A r ' 1- _.I~_ .N» ~ _ ..w« ~ w~M, ~ ~ / ~~~,huws Y{• I ~NJ. ~M I r~ «"i . .NM,t~ ter' ~ 1~ ~1 1 ~ ~.i i~..y l / • M.A.' 'r ,/V . s _ i y! r : ~ a ~ ) 'fir ~ ~ ~ ~ 't""r~ .,ter-~ e , t ii •ww ` ~ ~ v ~~1=• ~ ~v ,~y,, _ ~ r1115~ F \.._,.r•~ PUBLIC SAFETY i _ - ~ ` _ STORAGE ~ PAYROLL/ UTILITY CITY ~...i-.;l . SAFE ~ ACCOUNTING BILLING .-CLERY. - t,- . ~ q a. TO / = PUBLIC -rv CAF FINANCE - COORDINATOR FINANCE LICENSING , , ~ • ~ `I CDUNCIL ' 'i CHAMBERS ' LIBRARY/ - ~ WORD ' ~ ~ . PROCESSING CONFERENCE. ~ RECEP- ROOM - TIONIST ;I CITY MANAGER/ i1 ASSESS IrlG ~ SMALL CONFER; PERSONNEL / ~ ROOM/REST RAC ADMIN.SERV. ~ ASST. CITY • ~ CITY MANAGER/ PERSONNEL ~ CREDIT'.', N'u,rSAGER ADMIN. p'~ANAGER ~ ASSESSING UNION -SERVICES DIR I k STREET PARr .ING LOT LEvEL ENTRY I4 - .z. 1 ` ` i ' ~ 1 II . ~ ~ , r ~ ; aM w.~ ~ ~•.ow•.. •a t.t `MK ~Mw~Mw.M tl r--- ` `.w...- o /fit < <i~u d . ~ . ~ rt.w r.w.w • • W ~ ~ ate ` t ~ ~y t. rhti ` . .Mw M -"r .~i.111111 ~1l1Z~11L~ • w..•. t ~ ~ r~ICHHF1~trD nue~lc snF~~rtr D~SIQN DEVELOPMENT 1 ~ GROUND LOOi~ PI.A F N o ~~o ~ ~ . ~ M ~ ~F~--`-~? f ~ ' ~ 1 - ~.i 1 ~«w~N» ~ _ waf... 'd• ~ 'L..( xY {M ~Y1i... i S . i tN~ . Myy Me+~ ' .•i ~ ~ - tt . ~w1 . ~ nl t • 1 ~~CI-IFI~1-D ` ..~M~ ~ p~S1~N ~ . PUBLIC SAFETY ' _ ~ ' _ :STORAGE PAYROLL/ CITY _ UTILITY SAFE BILLING CLERY. . ~ •-f~«-~~.. ACCOJNTING j- / _ / ~ /r PUBLIC SAF E T Y ' FINANCE - ` - . r:i COORDINATOR FINANCE LICENSIrlG ~ ~ - ~ 'i COUNCIL LIERARY/ ~t CHAMBERS ~d0R0 ~ . PROCESSING- ~ I pad . ~ i.:.w. CONFERENCE - - RECEP- ROOM TIONIST" ;i C. ~ riAr~ACuR/ ~ f~ ASSESSING ~ ~SMALL COivr ERf PERSONNEL / f RODM/REST~ROC AOMiN.SERV. 5 tr ~ ,13 ;7' A T C . CITY A PERSONNEL CREDIT ~ '1 • r.;,^;AGER A I r~aNAGER - ASSESSING UNION ' s~' E I ~ I r _.,._a~ - _ ~ . PARY.ING ~ OT _ - _ - - _ - I _ - . STREE~ - LEVEL ENTRY 14 . ~ M~° "C''~~Q l~1 ~ ' • r _ ~ ~ ~~'nV.'^.I41Y ~ ~ s ~ HN MMv~ ' f ~ I+r1M ; MrW ~ 1 1'f • • J My Mq I ~ Mss r,~' { , 1 I J t....._ - an u ! . I~U'u 1 M ' r _ ~ ~w ~ „ .«..~~i, 9.,~' 4d'1 i ~ ~i. 1«~YI., enY My ~ ~ •,1 jjj,jll~j~ ~ ..u u ` . _ . , i~ICN1=1~Lp 1~upLiC SAFCTY - - pfSiGN p~yELC)PMENT a onouNO t=~.oon ~~nN Z ~ ~ . a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ ~J Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 192 Agenda May 29, 198 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Agreement with the City of Minneapolis for Participation in Urban Corps Intern Program Council Members: For several years the City of Richfield has cooperated with the Urban Corps to place area college students in internship positions with the city. This arrangement has been quite beneficial because it has enabled the city to hire additional part-time employees, at very little cost, to either undertake short term studies or projects, or to supplement our full time work force in performing some of the city's on-going services. Under the program, undergraduates are paid $4.75 per hour and graduate students are paid $5.75 per hour. However, the cost to Richfield is $1.90 per hour and $2.30 per hour. In 1983, Richfield spent approximately $2,000 for six interns who worked at the Nature Center and Community Center during the summer. The students were residents of Minneapolis, St. Paul and Crystal. The Urban Corps Program is administered by the City of Minneapolis. In order for Richfield to continue participating in this program, it is necessary to execute an agreement with the City of Minneapolis, a copy of which is attached. This agreement does not commit the City of Richfield to hire Urban Corps Interns, but it does provide the City with the option to hire interns through the Urban Corps Program if we choose. It is recommended that the city council authorize execution of the attached agreement with the City of Minneapolis. Res ectfu submitted, /vtt/ Y John G. Car wr~t City Manager JGC/eja cc: Personnel Manager Administrative Services Director 19A4 - 1985 AG3F..~"SE3T FOR PARTICIP9TIO21 I2+ URBA.v CORPS PROGZA2S 3ETk'EFil CITY OF :SZ`^ir.1POLIS A+`iD rTmv nF` RTC'?3FjE~~D TSZS aGREE:S~"L, entered into this 29th Say of `~?av 19Ra , by and between the City of uianeapolis (herein eaLed "Urban Corps") and C~t.v of Richfield (herein called "agency"~. WBERF~5, the above named Agency, a public organization or private non-profit organization, desires to participate is the :win City area Urban Corps and is consideration for the assignment of Urban Corps student interns to the Agency, wa do hnreby agree. to the following terns and conditions: i 1. The IIrban Corps shall have the right to approve or reject requests for ' studeaL interns submitted bq this agency upon forms provided for that purpose bq the Urban Corps. ' 2. The Agsacy will accent a student as as intern by completing sad signing the Assignment section of the student's Urban Corps application fors. ' ~ 3. The Agency shall utilize such students as maq be assigned to it is accor- - dance with the specifications sec forth in its written request to the Urban Carps, i sad shall immediately notifq the IIrban Corps of nay change is nature of assiga- i meat, duties, supervisor or work location. 4. The Agency shall provide such students as may be assigned to it with a safe ~ place to work sad with responsible supervision. ~ 5. The Urban Carps shall have the right to inspect the work being performed by such students as maq be assigned to the agency, and shall have the right to ~ interview such students sad their supervisors. b. The Urban Corps shall have the right to require such students as may be assigned to the Agency to attend such general or special meetings, or to apoear. at the Urban Cams office, iadividualiy or as a group, as shall be aecessarq for the proper functions of the program. ~ 7. Za accordance with the requirements of Federal and State law, work per- forced by such students as may be assigned to the Agency shall: a. Ha is the public iatereat; ~ b. Wi11 not result is the displacement of employed workers or impair ` existing contracts for services; 1 e. Does not involve the coast:.sctioa, operation or maiatanaace of so much of nay facility a9 is used, or is to ba used, for sectarian iastruetion or as a pdacs of religious worship; and d. Does not involve nay partisan or nonpartisan political activity associated with a r'^aadate, or contending faction or group, in as election Eor pub L'c or party office. 8. 'use Agency shall require such students as may be assigned to it to submit time reports sad follow such other procedures as may be established by the LTrbaa Corps. 9. The Urban Corps shall have the right co remove anq student assigned co the Agency from said assig~:eat sad from the agency at aaq time for any reason without prior notice, sad the Urban Corps shall not he obligated to replace said student. 10. The agency shall have the right to remove app student assi5._ed co said agency at any tine with prior notice given co the student and the Urban Corps. 11. The agency warrants coat it is in compliance wic:s the provisions of the Civil lights Act of 1964 (?.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 252), and `ii.anesota Statutes Section 181.59 and 'finneapolis Code of Ordinance, Chanter 134 and 141. 12. The agency shall irdemaify, protect and 'cold harmless t::e Urban Corps from all claia:s, cassses or actions which .:ay result frcm the assignments of students to the Agency subiect co the extent authorized in `i.S. 1980: Sec. 3.736. 13. The agency shall obtain ac its ewn expense ?:or'.cman's Compensation insurance (or shall be self-insured under State taw) for such students as may Se assigned to it under this agreement. " 14, The Agency shall pay to the Urban Corps 407, or other percentage figure as agreed upon by identifying the percentage figure on the student's L'rban Corps application form of the gross compensation earned by such students assigned and accepted by the Agency under a Federal or State program. The Urban Corps will bill the Agency, in accordance with bi-weekly payroll periods, for its proper share of the compensation of such students as may have bean assigned to the Agency and performed work during said period. Student hourly rates are set forth in Section 14(a), and 14 (b) of this Agreement. a. Hourly compensation for students will be set at ainiaum rates of 54,75 per hour for entering freshmen through receipt of a Bachelor's Degree, and 55,75 per hour for graduate students; other agreed upon hourly compensation rates not to be below the specified rates in 14(a); or other rates for L'rban Corps student interns as established by the City of uinneapolis through a salary ordinance replacing current minimum rates, b. A graduate student is defined for purposes of this Agreement as one who ! ! has received a B.a., B.S., or equivalent degree or is enrolled in the fifth year S of a five year program. 15. At the election of the agency, the urban Corps shall place students to intern under a Stipend program. This option will be specified is the Assignment i ~ Form which the intern's Agency supervisor must sign before commencement of the j internship. The Stipend rate which the Agency shall pay the L'rban Corps is $30.00 per week for each week the student works. 16. at the election of the Agency, the Urban Corps shall place interns for Whom the Agency will pay the intern's total compensation plus an additicnal ten ' percent (lOZ) for administrative costs. This option will be specified in the Assignment Form which the fatern's agency supervisor must sign before commence- ment of the internship. Agency rates for said option are set forth in Section 16(a) and 16(b), of this Agreement. t ! a. Agency rates for stud eats will be set at minimum rates of 55,23 per hour for entering freshmen through receipt. of a Bachelor's Degree, and 56.33 per hour for graduate students; other agreed upon hourly compensation rates not to be below j ~ specified rates in 16(a); or other rates for L'rban Corps student interns as established by the City of :fianeapolis through a salary ordinance replacing current minimum rates. b. A graduate student is defined for purposes of this Agreement as one who ' has received a B.A., B.S., or equivalent degree or is enrolled is the fifth year of a five year program. i 11. Performance under this caatract shall commence on July 1, 1984 and ter- ' miaate on June 34, 1985 unless amended is writing as mutually agreed upon by both the Agency and the Institution; however, either Harty may terminate upon • sixty (60) days written notice. Based upon the statements and affirmations made by the Agency through the above document, the L'rban Corps hereby agrees to the assignment of students to said Agency, is accordance with said docent and the applicable idWS and regulations. CITY OF MI.Yi!IPAPQLZS aGE.WC° CITY [IF 1ZT C:J F'1 ~.:.17 By Yame 1 ".ayor aTT°_ST: 5700 Portland ave. S. address City C1erK _ ~~423 City `atate Zipcode CCL:T~ EAS IG2;'.y By ?itle >tayor City Comotroiler-treasurer 3y Title City :?anager approved as to Legality: at*est: assistant City of ;•ti:neapoiis attorney City C2er't i_ ~ • Date ~j~ sT- '?J T Ti'~.in^ 1 fD ~r 1 r~-* ~~~'~4 .m`I O~r~ S 10 ~~i"~., ti:'!.U 1~_.__~_ .11~a ~11:~~iJ iJ S D._ 1J a PRO v!~ BY" CON I~:uCUS L _ ~ ! ? P rAT';T ~ ^ Ordinance code lto. 10.05, Subd. 5, reai.ii~ es anyone ;with amore than. three pigeons hi S pre~'se to first obt•ai n 2, lic2'lse. id0 Ore than twer_ty-five (25) _ni~eon5 can be kepi, at any ona time on any licer_sed premises. It further states: "ine application for license shall be accompanied by the :written approval of such application by the occupants of all privy-.tely-owned real estate abutting the prenises for which the license is sought." I hereby-,approve of pigeons on the premises of: i 7 i L - ~ ,,,Y r 2. ~ x z ;y- , i "'rte . , ~ ~ - - ~ ; • • KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION INSPECTION Name - r ~ ^ - Address - _ - s--~-- Number of Animals : ~ ' dags ti `eats ~o Breed: Are animals currently licensed? yes no Number of residents occupying dwelling l ~ _ ~ - Is yar~ enclosed with a fence in good repair? Yes~`~ No - _ Will fence keep anilaals on owner's property? Yes;;r No ' Zs yard kept clean and free of animal droppings, etc.?. _ Yes No - _ Is garbage stared in-covered metal coAtainer?_Yes ~No - - , -Are ,pets kept for breeding purposes?. - Yes NQ ~ - _ . ' ~ : Haw are pets exercised? (Where - areawise# - _ _ Are there unpleasant odors .present? Yes Na,,_.:~'' Have all abutting property owners signed-a petition of. - - approval for a kennel license for this number. of animals? Xes ' No . - - - _ _ - I f not , why not? - - . - - - _ - ~ _ - Additional Comments : r, f ~t =.n~' ; Y i-: _ '~1: _ r,~, i . - . . ~ ~ .Inspected By ~ ~ ~ ~ _ Date - _ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 191 Agenda May 29, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Illuminated Sign, 6533 Nicollet Council Members: A permit has been requested by Sign Service, Inc. for an illuminated sign for Warner's Hardware located at 6533 Nicollet Avenue. The proposed sign is to be an illuminated wall sign with constant illumination. The proposed sign would have letters 19 inches high on a panel 32 inches high and a length of 90 feet. The sign is consistent with the signing concept presented for the Richfield Shoppes North redevelopment. The sign would be just like the signage for the development of the S.E. corner of Nicollet and 66th Street for the Country Buffet and Gentlemen's Warehouse. City of Richfield Ordinance Code 3.49, sub. 19, Illuminated Signs, provides that City Council approval is required for illuminated signs. A copy of that section of the ordinance is attached. Staff Review The proposed sign is in conformance with the city sign ordinance. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the sign permit as requested. Respectfully submitted, i John G. rtw ght City Manager APPROVE ~ DE`;I ~ : ~ ~ ' ~ ~LGI~''~~l APPRCVE ~ I DEN~'I i :Ianag Inspector -~'c?7 - 3 7'~~/ Date APPROVE ~ ~ 'DE:,'Y~ 4: APPROVE ~ ~ DE.'~1Y1 Pian_ning Department City Council Date Date Route to above for special approval per code General Sians APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date -I _ ~U Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign Proprietor Game !~',r.f„-; f-~~t~ : ~w~;~!' DBA Sign Erector j „~,i, .5~~-~,~~ Address `1/. S ;~'n e~;'~ ~ 5~`~/i / 1 Type of Sign Design _ ~ Weather Cover Lighting Wall ~ Single Face ~ Clear Lexon Constant - Projecting _ Double Face Frosted Lexon Flashing - Ground I Multi-Faced t/fi Plastic Covered Revolving Roof I Aerial/Blimp I ~ Shaded _ Traveling i Pedestal Searchlight ~ Neon I ~ Zip Lite _ Changeable Banner/Pennants I Other ~ Other(Explain) Temporary _ Portable Frame: U Sign Colors Trailer ~ T ~ A ~ Post Illuminated - YPG ~ No Watts ectrical Contractor Address Phone Proparty Owner oar/his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost ~?`~~r?: Sign WidtY~~~~az,~~i~~ight/;r h•"~~,~~>Total Square Feet 1',r~..~%~>>% Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with signif icant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? . Applicant's Signature and Title" 'th Firm ~ _ / c`-,~~~ Date ~ ~ ~ _ Phone Number C~ ~t 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 i _''iQ r.nmrCr~r~T =ir;'? ~Cm}~~`ct_~1= _-,nct~--`- - _ - aublic property or right-of-way, but :gay e:ctend a :-iasimu^ cf ~::cies frc-: the face of the building. (4) Temporary s.ions of combustible construction shah not be sung so as o cover either partially or completely any door, window, or opening required for ventilation. (5) No roof sign shall be more than combustible material, and no tem- porary ground sign shall be located on any multiple-residence, commercial or industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special permit therefor from the council. If the council determines to grant an application for a special permit for any such temporary sign or bannering, or any such temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, and it shall be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering r"or a longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the special permit. Vo such special permit shall be for a period of more than 60 days. No such special permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary suns or banners are prohibited by other provisions of this code. Subd. 17. Application of Other Provisions of this Part. Temporary ground signs as defined in Section 3.41, Subdivision 1, of this part, shall comply with the provisions of Subdivision 16. - Subd. 18. Approval of Sign Permit Applications. Upon presentation of ap- plication, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information, the sign construction permit shall be issued by the manager, or his represent- ative, except as provided in Subdivision 19 of this section. Subd. 19. Special Approval from Council. In the case of an application for ~ a sign requiring a special permit, or which will be illuminated, or moving, or of unusual height, size, design, or location, the manager shall refer such sign to the council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so referred, shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the council. Subd. 20. Variance from Terms of Approval Prohibited. No sign shall be erected, used or maintained in a manner at variance from the provisions of this code or different from that approved by the council. No building or electrical permit for a sign shall be granted until the sign permit has been approved. Subd. 21. Future Permits. A permit shall not be issued for any new bill- board or advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised product is sold, if such billboard or sign would be within 300 feet of any other such billboard or sign already in existence in the interior of the same city block or its equivalent area. Per*.nits may be issued for directional or identification signs. Any billboard removed under the provisions of Sub- division 22 of this section shall not be reissued. Any billboard destroyed by storms or acts of God may be rebuilt within 90 days, if complying with this part. r 4J8/6~3 ORDINANCE CODE 92 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO?A CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 190:. Agenda May 29, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Rogers Cablesystems Financial Presentation Council Members: Background At the May 22, 1984 Operating Committee meeting of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission, representatives of Rogers Cablesystems reported on the financial condition of the Southwest system and presented a financial restructuring proposal. The Operating Committee will conduct an analysis of the financial data submitted and give careful study to the restructuring proposal before making recommendations to the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission. The purpose of the presentation by Rogers Cablesystems to the City Council at the May 29, 1984 city council meeting is to keep the City Council and residents of Richfield current on the financial problems being experienced by Rogers Cablesystems. The Financial Problem Rogers Cablesystem representatives will report that if no responses are made to the current circumstances and Rogers Cablesystems continues to operate on its current course, the system is headed for serious financial problems. Projected Cash Shortfalls 1984 $ 183,000 1985 $ 363,000 1986 $1,138,000 Briefly, the changed circumstances listed by Rogers Cablesystems are: • Council Letter No. 190 -2- ew s ces o ro rammin have dr'ed u 1. N our f p g g i p, 2. Soaring interest rates; 3. Inflation; 4. Recent emergence of alternative program distribution systems (SMATV, subscription tv, etc.); 5. Increased cost of the Zenith converter model ($150 in place of the bid on the $70 Atlantic addressable converter; 6. Increased operating costs in programming and copyright costs (these costs are expected ".......to escalate dramatically".); 7. Fewer basic service subscribers (42.5% penetration instead of the projected 50% forecast in their appli- cation; and, 8. Rogers Cablesystem still waits for the industry to introduce "futuristic services" (burglary alarm system for example). Rogers Proposal Rogers proposed restructing plan is Tabled a balanced and comprehensive approach. Their approach to the financial situation would consist of these action steps: 1. Increase subscriber rates; ~°~ti 2. Increase operating efficiencies; 3. Defer some fixed asset purchases; 4. Reschedule the bank loan; and 5. Temporary reductions in franchise committments. Their May 22, 1984 report to the Operating Committee says this about the reduction in franchise committments - "As a final component of the restructuring, we are asking the cities to reduce our franchise committments in certain "public benefit" areas on a temporary basis. We are proposing that these committments and the areas of performance bonds and letters of credit, franchise fees and local programming be reduced so that a savings of $380,000 is realized in our fiscal year 1985 (starting September 1) and in an amount to be determined on a yearly basis thereafter. Council Letter No. 190 -3- • To put this proposed reduction in perspective, we are currently forecasting that almost $1,000,000 will be expended in the southwest suburban system in franchise fees and in providing local programming in our fiscal year 1985• This amounts to nearly 10~ of our anticipated gross revenues. Unfortunately, our subscribers do not generally perceive the value of these public benefit expenditures, Only 18% of our subscribers watch our locally-programmed channels more than once a week, while 58~ of our subscribers seldom watch them, according to our recent subscriber survey. As the attached study by the National Economics Research Associates, Inc. (study not attached) indicates, our experience is common place in the industry. Thus, as we attempt to maintain an affordable product that is attractive to our present and prospective clients, franchise fees and local programming are the two areas where temporary reductions can be made without dramatically affecting subscriber satisfaction." Rogers Cablesystems proposed to the Operating Committee that a task force be created to study Rogers proposal. The Operating Committee, at its meeting of May 22, 1984, has instructed the cable commission staff to prepare a list of • issues and scope of work that has to be done to deal with this proposal from Rogers Cablesystems. As soon as the Operating Committee has more information or recommendations, the City Manager will return this issue to the City Council agenda for further consideration. City Council Action The City Manager recommends that the City Council hear the presentation by Rogers Cablesystems representatives, but take no action at this time since the Operating Committee of the Southwest Suburban Cable Systems has just begun its study of this matter. Re ectfu y, b omitted , 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~G~L ~ `LC ohn G . Cart Kr fight City Manager JGC/eja i LETTER TO MINNESOTA SW CABLE COMMISSION May 15,.1984 T0: Operating Committee of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission FROM: Gary L. Mizga DATE: May 22, 1984 RE: Financial Condition of System and Restructuring Proposal I. INTRODUCTION In 1980, the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a cable communications system. This action followed months of hard work by the Commission members and substantial input from organizations and individuals in the five communities. As indicated by the RFP, it was the intention of the Cities to obtain a truly "state-of-the-art" systet. We think and we hope that you will agree that the thoroughness of your RFP and the competition it engendered among three of the nation's largest cable operators produced an exceptional syste:~. Since 1980 conditions have changea ~n tre cable incustr which neither the cities, the p;:L^•iic, nor the three aopiicants could have foreseen. These caaces have dra:taticall.i impacted Rogers cost of doing business anu rare resulted in reduces basic subscriber pe^etratic;. taus affecting our re~.Te^ues. In soite of these char_aing conditions, we constructed our propcseu system ahead of schedule. We have kept ar:d, in ma:~y instances, exceesed our service commitments to the cities. We have weathered the changing economic conditions to date by imple;r:e tirg ar. ag•~_essive cost control program and effectively marketing premium services to our subscribers. However, we have only been partially successful in offsetting the impact of these changed circumstances. we now find that a multifaceted approach to our financial problems is necessary in order to meet our financial commitments and ensure the system's viability. We respectfully request the cooperation and participation of the cities in this effort. ' II. CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES As you are aware from the many newspaper and magazine articles on the health of the cable. industry, cable operators throughout the nation are experiencing significant financial problems. The other companies that applied for your franchises Storer and Group W s subsequently were awarded franchises in other Twin Cities area suburban consortiums. Both companies have requested and received substantial assistance from their franchising authorities. We have taken the liberty of attaching a report to the North Suburban Cable Commission prepared by its consultant, Cooper Associates, Inc. (CAI). The report details many of the issues facing us as a cable operator and you as regulators. CAI summarizes the changing economic circumstances as follows: In the last five years cable television operators have come up against a bruising reality. New sources of progra:^.:~:ir_g have dried up, reducing the n~~mbe- of charm^els that cable operators can actually fill. A litany of economic setbacks sir_ce 1979 hit cable operators hard: soa=ing interest rates, inflation, cost cverruns and other ecor_a^;ic factors .here was beer_ a recent e:~~e_gence of alterna*_ive distribution vehicles such a~ direc~ br~adcas~ sate_iites (DBS), multi-distribution systems (MD5), TV sate~lite r.:aster ante::na te.evisicr. (S'_~'-+ ) , and a subscription tele°risior_ (STV). The costs far proararu-~inc services ar_d copvrie~:t fees have increase:. Further, ccr_su~er c~:-Y. aint., about the cable _ndu~ r -J ~Yz :^c rise. Disappointed in t_^.e c;.=_-- o= ___-;_ce and pr~~gr2mming, sub.c._^e~~ a_e n^_ disco:-~r_eot_nu aicY:-_rg _ . e~ - "ter S ~":=r. .:-,,n _n ':F r ^ ~,i ~ • • / _ v r v ~ 1 _ t 1 ~ 1. r~.. _ Q r ` ~ ~ r e ~ v Y V ' l ~ _ ~ v J .a ? 1 _ ~ . . syste~: _r_ ic... ye± eral areas . A) Increase^ Capital Ex en ses - As Rocei= no`t~; to trig Com-~ission in our rate application la=. s~:~~:e~, increases in capital expenditures have occurred primarily in two areas. First, we bid a Scientific Atlantic addressable converter costing $7o per unit. Scientific Atlantic was unable to resolve the technical problems with this model and it was not-put into production. We substituted the only available converter that would perform up to our franchise • requirements, a Zenith model which is not only comparable to, but in many areas exceeds, the Scientific Atlantic prototype. Unfortunately, these 'Report to North Suburban Cable•Commission, April 25, 19E4, Prepared by Cooper Associates, Inc., pp 4-5. _2_ 1 ` converters cost $150.00 each more than double the cost we had budgeted. The second area of increased capital cost is plant. The RFP required applicants to bid based on 85 percent of the street mileage as provided by the Cities 650 miles. Rogers actually budgeted 40 extra miles. We now forecast that the system will contain 765 miles. As a result, our total capital investment in 1984 is X23.2 million rather than the $18.5 million origir_ally forecast. 3) Increased Operating Expenses - As C";.I points o~~t, cable operators have been hit by substantial and unforeseen increases in programming and copyright costs. The cable industry ar_~ticipated that satellite programming for basic service would either be ~ree ~r ~erha~s become a source of revenue to cLera",_s as p~oaram . providers sought to increase ad~er-ising re:'enues by getting their product before t~:e arcest posssible audience.` Instead, virtually al of the popular services are now charging us. Currert~y, between copyright fees and program;~ina ccs'_s, we pay $1.06 cents per subscriber per month; a total of more than $300,000 per year. we expect this amcunt.to continue to esca;atc drG:~a=ica'_'y. C) Fewer 3cs_C SerV1Ce Su~'SCrlbers - Roars has SCh'_e'.'er'. a ~a._C 5~..^~Cr1Dt== _~?::_~~at~C'I-_J: 4~.=o OI hGl?i??s ~n:Sc:, %~;"~cr?~ =..^.e 5iJ fC'_'2CaS = 1'_. G'1'_' a_ pi1Ca=_Oi.. '~'^Is ~e ~•a~= -c t~_ ,.:,r._~e=___cr_ ~r.:r. OVe~-~.C-a__ scrL':.CE~ S:~C^ aS J~~C =ru~:: d..^_C :V~~ `%i.~'ieC CaS et ~e =?C;,_ Ct= ~ _.J': C .:,eC.^r::~E C'J~:= :'J_.L'i ~C~ a:^.r.. a,: c ~ _e'"c= ~V :;:arv as a s::bst i tote for cable . B::t , most imgor ~ ant ly, pe^etration is dowr. because the product which we market is not as diverse as we expected. Ma_.y satellite services have failed to get off the ground (Las Vegas Entertainment Network, Cinemerica), folded (CBS Arts), or merged with other services (Satellite News Channel and Cable News Network II and Cable health Network and Daytime). Even Time, Inc.'s attempt at a weekly national cable television guide failed. Further, new rules of the federal Copyright Tribunal have made it prohibitively expensive to augment programming by ' carrying additional distant "super stations" such as =During the early 1980's, ESPN paid operators 10 cents per subscriber per year for carrying its service. Now, we pay ESPN 10¢ per subscriber pe: month. _3_ rt WOR. All in all, Rogers cannot market as diverse a programming package as we expected at this point and subscribers have responded accordingly. In addition, based on information contained in the RFP, we anticipated passing 61,000 homes by this time; instead, there are only 58,000 homes. Thus, we have built more miles of plant only to reach fe~~~er potential subscribers. D) "Bells and Whistles" Develop Slowly - We have constructed a system with full bi-directicr:a capability as required by the RFP. Kowe•:er, there is currertiy no economically viable use for this capability. The "software'' which would have produced cons•um~er deTand just ,has not developed. '~e Nave the hardware capability to offer a wide range cf "futiirlStiC Se:'.'~CeS w:^.e :.her it be vi~.eote:~t, teiete ~ or shoe-a_-ho~.e. ur_fortunatey, suc^. giants a5 inC. nl.`1 Sears have not fulfilled their comm.itmer._ tc deliver these services via cable. Thus, our multimillion dollar electronic "highway" sits in place waiting for bi-directional traffic. Rcyers remains excited abo~.:_ the potent_al o~ pay-der-event progra:ts ar_= Fe°15 tha_ afrordale a=a_ se.~r:.ces will be ava~~ah_e sr~~r: throuch cable. hcwe:Ter, the full „pay bac;.' c:: t^= ..~g:~s_icated hG~. '~..'+~.._C ut.ll _t +hr,v v'.. s- r~~.-____ .+~.r~ G-~~~ r~ `A•~__ Le rAai_ZC:+ :'.~=~=~C ~L.~' _u_..~~' ,r r_ ~~=''r.. ~l~ i'= .rv~: r_11V C'~_~.. 1..^T ll.~~J i~ n0 reSD~.~r. c= w~_"~ made tG C..^.a^^~^. ^1rC'~r':~ =?:'!Cc_ ,..=^r. .._^e SOUthwest SllbuCbar. SVSteT~ COntlnUe~ tC Op@~c`_~ O.: 1tS Current course, it would be headed for serious fnar_c_al prcbie-r.s . A= the attached financial information indicates: A) We are. still borrowing money. to comer our operating expenses including interest payments. 'I~he money available to us under the loan will be comz~ietely draw:; down by the end of 1985. B) We are experiencing and would continue to experience cash shortfalls of a growing magnitude: 1. 1984 - $ 183,000 2. 1985 - $ 363,000 3. 198E - $1,138,000 -4- C) We would not be able to meet our initial principal payment in 1986 under our bank loan agreement. D) Even assuming substantial fixed asset deferral, we would have to infuse significant amounts of additional capital into the system, starting in 1989, for plant and equipment replacement. The system under its current cause will not generate enough cash to meet anticipated capital requirements and service its debt. It will be very difficult to raise this capira'_ whether it is debt or equity unless we can demonstrate that the system is fira^cially scur_d. While the present financial situation is pote:tially ;rim, pr•~:dent restructuring which will require the coope:atior. of .the Cities and our lenders will enable Rogers to cortirue to successfully refocus the syste:a to meet the new eco:~omc realities of the cable industry. IV. ROGLkS'_.PRJPOS~L We are ~raposing a balanced, comprehensive a~rr~ac^ to the current financial situation including increasing re~.e~ues through hig'~er subscriber rates, increased operating efficie^c:es, rescheduling j our bank loar_, deferring the purchase of some i {e:. assEts and =e:;~pcrarily reducing of certain exrerditures r~ -.:_re ,ender our franchises. ~,I ~nrr?~~^.2". tC it1Cs - ~e 3re ~vrCL...=.. .::g t-1Qr OL'!~ LJ' a~ i ~ubscrie~r pe~fi~_ a- _~or_ _ _ cr,~w by 2% per ye~_ ' :FcC:^i^•.v ~4: LV 19$~ a:''.'~, ct:r r~:c _P_ S,. ;~;,__:,c_ ~ti1il inCrCa~e Dy 7o Der Vear. Lln;=c?= rCCe:iL .~L. rulli Q, I~ k~ich -~~r=ua_iv dere~ _a-~e a'1 subscr=ber rates, we could im~~:e:-e^t a mere aggressive revenue policy. ~ However, we feel such a^ approach would create a substantial burden on our subscribers and• woul~ ultimately backfire. Given the competition in the home entertainment marketplace, cabletelevision has become an extremely price-sensitive service. Repeated and substantial price increases will result in subscriber dissatisfaction, increased disconnections and, ultimately, reduced revenues. Thus, while a prudent rate policy must be part of an overall strategy, we ' cannot resolve the current situation. through rate j • increases alone. B) Increased Operating Efficiencies - Rogers has already achieved significant operating efficiencies in its , Southwest Suburban System. This has been accomplished through a series of reorganizations following tre -5- . completion of our construction phase, a personnel policy which has emphasized increased productivity through restructuring the jobs of existing employees . rather Char. replacing employees who leave and increased economies of scale resulting from Rogers operation of the cable system in the City of Minneapolis. We have not only run a lean operation but have done so in a manner that has created a very high level of subscriber satisfaction with our service as reflected by our recent subscriber survey which is attached. Nonetheless, we will attempt to achieve substantial additional operating reductions each year.. It is our goal to achieve these savings through increased operating efficiencies as the Minnearciis system becomes operational. Further cuts in our technical,. marketing or customer service departments would affect subscriber satisfactior. or penetra*_ion levels and thus would be counter-productive. C) Deferral cf Fixed ?asset Purchases - There is a certain amount of caoita e>z_enditure that is necessary to ope-ate the syste~^. For example, we continue to sign un ne-~ subscribers with the resulting expense of a~~i-ior.ai converters and drops. There is also a cer=di^: amou_^.t o~ equipment which wears out and mast be _ _ ~CC`~.. ??~~`n'~ . , t}'ie T~':'_OlE'Sai a Ciic_'? Ju~ C~ ec -oT:c=== sic = as cc_^.~~erters _s a^ area~t!-:at ~e can cor _ro:. B_, :~ee_ i^.a e~lipme^t in the ed a vear o= „ti- _'Ji_.~-_ _^c. _?:___31_y D1cnnE.. 'vJe Cc_^_ :^c._ C^_ ex~ ..s_':l:re3. vvn--°- 3"?^.1 _1G"c_ r~''a_'"S :r^_ - _~..G vr_-.._~ J'..r?ru_-.y j~V;}t~.'~ r•.:, -C-~~CitJ a--~''• t ~ c_aa: ,ty or service to our subsc: acGrs ire: er ~ is _ ~._C T~1r~_ .a=~ ,;f ±1Z_-... QJJC..J nv_ ? _vn~-..E r.:t Gn h__ since ecu~gm.e:_ dons wea_ out or become obso:e=e and must eventually be replaced. It does assist us ire managing cast: f lo~~, hcwever . D) R_eschedu_lin_o Bank Loan - We intend to approach our lenders to request ti~at our f first payT-:e: of principal be postponed by one year to 1987 and that the term of the loan be extended by one year. While this will assist us in overcoming our short-term problems, it is not a long-term solution. Rescheduling of the bank repayments will create substantial additional interest costs over the remainder of the term of the loan. If the banks are to agree to the proposal rescheduling, we will need to convince them of the long-term financial health of the syste:^. In this vein,. we would request that the franchises be modified to indicate -6- - that the institutional network be constructed only upon a demonstration that it would be economically viable on a stand-alone basis. It is our goal to obtain long-term financing for the system from a large institutional lender such as an insurance company. The importance of such refinancing cannot be overlooked as interest rates begin to skyrocket once more. Our current interest rate is tied to the prime rate and, as such, is variable. Refinancing would be at a fixed rate. Any refinancing will occur only if we can demonstrate that the system is economically sound and a good long-term investment. /,~oorc Of particular concern to institutional investors is the U~/u Spector of municipalities purchasing cable systems at bargai^ base:^ent prices when the franchises expire. In order to facilitate long-term financing, we would ask that the fid'_7CR1jeS be amerced to reflect` a municipal purcrasa orice 11D_0n franc:?i~ Px~iratien of fir marKet value deter;nined or. ,a Doing concern basis and, e`stabisa•ir_g a reascnable expectation of franchise re^ewa~ if we continue to perform well under the franchise. Te~:porary Reductions in Franchise Co~*i-nitments - As a fna? compcrer~t of the restructuring we are askir:g t'~e cities to reduce our frar_chise co:m~~it:^eas in certain 'puDiiC benefit" areas or_ a temporary bass. We are ropesing that these cc:r~:_tTencs ia: _^e ~_eas of ~er_cr.:.ance bonds ar_d le~ter_ cf cre.._t, franchise =ees _^Cai ~''v'"d=^_'!r:_:?~ reC::Cej S^ _:'.d'_ a SaV~.^.v~ O~ ~38J,000 is~rea_i2ec in cur fisca year 198 (starting Se:;_e~ber 1) ar:d i^. ar to .be cete::.;.:ned cn a _ yearly basis thereafter. To put this proposed reduction in perspective, we are currently forecasting that almost $1 million will be expended in the Southwest suburban system in franchise fees and in providing Iocal programming in our fiscal year 1985. This amounts to nearly i0% of our anticipated gross revenues. Unfortunately, our subscribers do not generally percieve the value of these public benefits expenditures. Only 18% of our subscribers watch our locally-programmed channels more • than once a week while 58% of our subscribers seldom watch them, according to our recent subscriber survey. As the attached study by National Economics Research Associates, Inc. indicates, our experience is commonplace in the industry. Thus, as we attempt to maintain an affordable product that is attractive to -7- r c, our present and prospective clients, franchise fees and local programming are the two areas where temporary reductions can be made without dramatically affecting subscriber satisfaction. We want to emphasize the proposed reductions are temporary. The manner in which the reductions are implemented would be carefully reviewed and agreed upon between the Commission and Rogers. We would provide quarterly reports so that the Commission would be fully informed of our progress. As the. financial situation improves, we would hope to phase out the reductions. V. PROCESS We would suggest that the Commission create a task force to study our proposal, meet with us to review any further information which the Commission might desire, and examine ways of structuring the modification and/or deferral of franchise requirements. Gde would, of course, be willing to provide whatever additional information the Commission deems necessary to its considerations. Should the Commission find it necessary to retain a consultant to review the material, we would gladly cooperate. Hopefully, the task force could review all materials and be prepared to report back to the Commission's operating committee at its July meeting. V I , SUMNiAxZY We entered into this franchise with trLe Cities with the :~iahest of expectations and with every intention of fulfilling ou: J commitments. We feel that we have done a cor~umerdabie job of living up to our obligations under very difficult circumstances. We come to the Commission reques~ing assistance only after having made our best effort to make the system as proposed work. In spite of these efforts, the changed economic conditions require that alterations be made. We have termed the proposed reductions in community programming commitments and franchise fees as "temporary" because we continue to firmly believe in the long-term viability of the system and because we feel that public benefits should be restored once the system is on firm financial ground. We would propose that criteria be established for the reinstatement of these commitments when the system can support them. We would gladly provide the ' Commission with quarterly financial reports, in addition to our annual audited statements, so that you can readily monitor our progress. In short, you can be assured of our cooperation during this process and in providing future information. -8- T, We think that a comprehensive approach to our present financial situation is not only necessary, but that the involvement of the Commission in solving these problems is justified. As CAI points out Unquestionably, though, Cities and Companies both share the responsibility. Cable companies, local governments, cable consultant, financial analysts and citizens' groups each helped shape the current state-of-affairs. More importantly, a financially healthy system is the key to continued high quality, affordable cable service and is undeniably in the public interest. As CAI advised the North Suburbar. Cable Commission during its deliberations on Group W`s propcsal,". . it would even be more difficult to accept Spiraling rates, inadequate service ar_d the Company's inabiiiTy to aca_r_ in a timely fashion to changing service requireTents. Unfortunately, those characteristics are the hallmarks of cable operators in financial trouble. With your assistance, our subscribers in your communities will not face these prcbiem~=_. 091Ow I -9- ROGERS CQ~~ ~SYS~S OF 1NINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF CASH SHORTFALL AND PROPOSED RESTRUCTURING 000's CURRENT FORECAST 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989, Cash Income(1) (610) 278 845 1396 2060 2864 Loan Proceeds 2000 1000 - - - - Worktng Capital Change 467 (786) 52 182 (71) 199 1857 492 897 1578 1989 3063 Purchase of Fixed Assets 2040 855 1035 2597 1232 2898 Payment of Loans • . - ~ - 1000 1500 2000 3000 2040 855 2035 4097 3232 5898 Cash Shortfall (i83) (363) (1138) (2519,) (1243) 12835) RESTRUCTURING 1. Operating Efficieniea(2) - - 90 100 110 120 i 2. Proposed Loan Re$$cheduling(3) - - 1000 500 500 1000 3. Increased Interest`4) - - (65) (163) (228) (325) 4. Fixed Asset Deferra~(5) ; . - - - 1350 30D 580 5. Cities' Participation 6) ~ - 380 450 500 550 600 6. Additional Capitalization - - - - - Total Restructuring - 380 x475 2187 1232 2845 8eglnning Cash 283 100 117 454 122 111 Ending Cash 100 117 454 122 111 121 Resulting Purchase of Fixed Assets 2040 855 1035 1247 932 2318 (1) This figure assumes revenues based on a 296 annual increase in basic subscriber penetration and rates increasing at 596 per year. (2) These efficiencies are in addition to those already in effect and the additional measures budgeted for FY1985. (3) The rescheduling of the bank debt will be requested as part of our overall approach, i~ has not been approved at present. (4) The increase in interest payments would result from the rescheduling of the bank debt. (5) Deferrals of fixed asset purchases must be done selectively. For example, converters and drops for new subscribers. can rot. be deferred. A certain level of equipment replacement is essential (6) Thia figure reflects proposed ooeratina savings (as opposed capital savings) based on a temporary reduction of franchise commitments primarily in the, areas of community programming and franchise fees. ACTUAL EXPENDITURES OF ' ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA 08/31/83 - 029/84 GROSS REVENUE $3,7,,.1.000 EXPENSE TECHNICAL 716.000 MARKETING 303,000 CUSTOMER SERVICE 195,000 BUSINESS OFFICE, LEGAL, ACCOUNTING 540,000 FRANCHISE FEES _ 167,000 INTEREST PAYMENTS 1014,000 PROGRAMMLNG $1203,000 COST OF PAY TV $866,000 COPYRIGHT 50.000 SATELLITE FEES 100,000 LOCAL PROGRAMMLNG 187,000 TOTAL ~4~138,000 CASH INCOME 425,000) Of Each Dollar Speat 8/31/83 - 2/29!84 17~ Technical 7C SC Local Progr g , 2~ Satellite Fees.., Market 1~ Copyright SC ustomer Service 9C 21~ Business Office, Accounting, Cost of Pay TV Legal 4C „ ement Fees 25C 4C Interest Fr chise Fees t i ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA OR~GENASI~Y FORECAST CAP I~1L MILES OF PLANT 690 765 CONVERTER tPER UNIT) $70 $150 TOTAL COST t3 YRS, - 1984) X18,550,000 X23,271,000 INVESTMENT DEBT CAT 4 YRS. - 1985) $18,000,000 X18,000,000 EQUITY $ 4,000,000 ~ 9,000,000 ICI Ii I li PENETRATION OF SUBURBAN CABLE SYSTEMS* ~'I SYSTEM ~ PENETRATION SUBSCRIBERS BLOOMINGTON 37~ 11,219 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS/HILLTOP 32~ 2,500 FRIDLEY 37~ 3,983 NORTHWEST SUBURBAN 25~ 14,000** ST. Louis PARK 33~ 5,952 ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS -SOUTHWEST 42~ ~ 24,128**~' * TAKEN FROM "CABLE COMMUNICATIONS IN MINNESOTA 1982" ESTIMATE GIVEN IN PHONE CONVERSATION As of MARCH 28, 1984 ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA FORECAST REFORECASD HOUSEHOLDS (000'S) ORIGINALLY YR 1 - 1982 58 58 2 - 1983 59 58 3 - 1984 61 58 5 - 1986 63 60 10 - 1991 70 64 BASIC SUBSCRIBERS OF HOUSEHOLDS PASSED) YR 1 - 1982 40~ 23~ 2 - 1983 45 39 3 - 1984 50 44# 5 - 1986 60 48 10 - 1991 65 60: PAY SUBSCRIBERS OF HOUSEHOLDS PASSED) YR 1 - 1982 48~ 47~ 2 - 1983 54 65 3 - 1984 59 68 4 - 1985 66 68 5 - 1986 71 68 10 - 1991 ~ 77 68 * CURRENTLY AT 42,5% CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 189 Agenda May 2g, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Illuminated Sign Permit at 6534 Penn Council Members: A sign permit has been requested by Lawrence Signs Inc, for the Back and Body Center located at 6534 Penn Avenue. It is to be an illuminated wall sign, single faced with constant illumination, and would replace two existing signs. The proposed sign is three feet high and 18 feet long, for an area of 54 square feet. City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, sub. 19, Illuminated Signs, provides that City Council approval is required for illuminated signs. A copy of that ordinance section is attached. Staff Review The proposed sign is in conformance with the city sign ordinance. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the illuminated sign permit be approved as requested. Respectf~l,3p submitted , ~vt+/ John G. Cartwr ght City Manager JGC/eja - - r--~ APPRCVE ~ - ~ OE::~'~ ~ : ~ ,G~''~1 K~~ APPROVE ~ DE~,~Y~ Cit e~ ~ / Inspector Da a (f,~~! Date i APPROVE ~ I DENY APPROVE ` I DENY I: Planning Department City Council Date Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PER:IIT City of Richfield, _ Minnesota Date ~ Zoning Sign Erected - Yes ~ No Fee :-J ThC ~3 ~~fc Address of Sign~~`~ I~c:n~ .A?<' ,Sd. Proprietor NamevncC h,.~ x ccnTci' DBA f ht'n C yS~-~ 7%/ Sign Erector1,;~u_~/'ei'IGc S,'~h5 Ty1G Address9y~~~'~~~~ i/-ter I?% S1, j~~~~ :5 ~51a~ Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting X Wall ~ Single Face ~ u Clear Lexon !~-z~~`'T~d ~ ,x Constant Projecting Double Face Frosted Lexon Flashing _ Ground _ Multi-Faced ~ Plastic Covered Revolving _ Roof Aerial/Blimp 1 I Shaded Traveling Pedestal Searchlight ~ ~ Neon ~ Zip Lite Changeable I Banner/Pennants _ Other ~ Other (Explain) _ Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors i?!;~ c uiti ; i e `/c //G ~ Trailer T ~ A ~ Post ~ ' ,ReA/~ccs Twu x~ s i, ~~,`~h S ~ i ` Illuminated? Yes; No Watts l-~ ~ectrical Contractor jZ y' ^ j ~ i• Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost/~j>l~, ~ ~ Sign Width Ig ~ Height 3 ~ Total Square Feet ~ y Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks.Y curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with signif icant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, colcr of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? ~~c S Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for sate access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? G ~ ~ ` Applic~,r~it's Signature and Title with Firm _ _ Date ~ -~5 ' Phone Number y.~~-- ~ 7~~ ~t 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION Si~ETCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 / 7\ \1C _-nnCr4r~. t,Ct:?~1 .n -+nc ~ _',n 1 1 I public propert~•~ or riht-of-way, but :nay extend a mayi^:um of 6 _^c^e= ire-: _ the face of the building. (4) Temporary signs of combustible construction shall not be hunk so as to cover either partially or completely any door, window, or opening required for ventilation. (5) No roof sign shall be more than combustible material, and no tem- porary ground sign shall be located on any multiple-residence, co;unercial or industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special permit therefor from the council. If the council determines to grant an application for a special permit for any such temporary sign or bannering, or any such temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, and it shall be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering for a longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the special permit. No such special permit shall be for a period of more than 60 days, No such special permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs or banners are prohibited by other provisions of this code. Subd. 17. Application of Other Provisions of this Part. Temporary ground signs as defined in Section 3.41, Subdivision 1, of this part, shall comply _ with the provisions of Subdivision 16. Subd. 18. Approval of Sign Permit Applications. Upon presentation of ap- plication, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information, the sign construction permit shall be issued by the manager, or his represent- ative, except as provided in Subdivision 19 of this section. • Subd. 19. Special Approval from Council.* In the case of an application for a sign requiring a special permit, or which will be illuminated, or moving, or of unusual height, size, design, or location, the manager shall refer such sign to the council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so referred, shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the council. Subd. 20. Variance from Terms of Approval 'Prohibited. No sign shall be erected, used or maintained in a manner at variance from the provisions of this code or different from that approved by the council. No building or electrical permit for a sign shall be granted until the sign permit has been approved. Subd. 21. Future Permits. A permit shall not be issued for any new bill- board or advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised product is sold, if such billboard or sign would be within 300 feet of any other such billboard or sign already in existence in the interior of the same city block or its equivalent area. Permits may be issued for directional or identification signs. Any billboard removed under the provisions of Sub- division 22 of this section shall not be reissued. Any billboard destroyed by storms or acts of God nay be rebuilt within 90 days, if complying with this part. l • 4/8/68 ORDINANCE CODE 92 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO?A CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ Office of City Manager / Council Letter No. 188 Agenda May 29, 198 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Obtaining Citizen Feedback: A Proposal to Survey Richfield Residents on Local Government Issues Council Members: . Shortly after my arrival at Richfield, Mayor Hamilton expressed his interest in having the city staff undertake an opinion survey to help obtain feedback on public services, and city government topics of citywide interest. SUMMARY Currently, local governments are limited in their ability to get a balanced and comprehensive view of citizen thinkin on local issues. Among the common ways that officials obtain feedback are trough personal contacts with individuals and groups, advisory commissions, complaints, pressures from special interests, editorials, letters to the editor and city staff. Useful as these are, they do not easily lend themselves to systemmatic examination and, generally, they cannot be expected to be representative of the entire population. Scientifically conducted surveys, however, offer a unique means for city officials to test the public pulse - especially on citizen experiences with, and perceptions of, government services. They are possibly the most, if not the only, efficient way to obtain information on: 1. Constituents' satisfaction with the quality of specific services and identification of any problem areas; 2. Facts such as the numbers and characteristics of users and non-users of various services; 3. Reasons that specific services are disliked or not used; 4. Potential demands for new services; and, • 5• Citizen opinions on various community issues, including their perceptions of the city organization and its officials. -2- Such information can be very useful for local governments in setting budget • priorities and consideration of actions to improve, cutback or retain existing programs. Thus, citizen surveys can be an important government management tool for providing citizen feedback to local officials. Surveys Yiave substantial limitations, too. Data and findings should contribute to, but not substitute for, political and management judgment. Opinion surveys based on inadequate information can give misleading signals. Surveys held too close to elections can become political footballs. Surveys with poorly worded questions may give citizens false expectations of government action and the published results may tie the hands of local officials. A further limitation on the use of surveys is the lack of marketing research experience by city staff in the design, procedure and analysis of opinion surveys. Citizen surveys are not an end in themselves. They should not be undertaken unless public officials and managers are willing to finance them adequately, formulate them carefully and analyze their findings thoroughly. SURVEY SIZE AND COST A rough rule of thumb is that surveys should cover at~least 300 to 350 households. This sample size will give a 5~ accuracy result; that is, the answers will be within 5~, plus or minus. The preferred sample size is 1000. The approach recommended by the City Manager is to select Bob Nelson of the School District to conduct the survey. He will not charge the city for his time on this project. Bob Nelson has conducted many surveys for the Richfield • School Board (samples attached). The mail surveys are very professionally done. The estimated cost is $5000.00. A sample size of 300 to 350 respondents can be reasonably expected to achieve a 90~ to 95~ response if professionally administered by marketing research personnel, says Anderson and Berdie Associates, a survey firm. University opinion surveyors say the sample must be at least 800-1000. The cost for a 300 to 350 sample by mail (Anderson and Berdie Associates) or an 800-1000 sample by telephone (University Of Minnesota) will cost approximately $15,000 if all six steps of a survey are contracted for. There are ways to reduce the $15,000 cost, such as: 1. City provide volunteers to be trained to collect the data; 2. City utilize its in-house print shop for survey printing; 3. Keep the size of the questionnaire to 4 written pages (one side) or 10 minutes; 4. Have the survey include School Board and/or Chamber of Commerce financial participation; 5• Limit the size of the survey; and 6. Utilize the services of Richfield Public School Administrator Bob Nelson, who prepares and conducts an annual school survey. -3- THE SIX ELEMENTS OF A SURVEY 1. Project Design: Asking the Right Questions Professionals in marketing research do the following: (a) Interview decision makers (mayor, council members, city manager, department directors, advisory board chairpersons and other community leaders) (b) Identify decisions to be made (c) Design survey to collect relevant information (i.e., don't ask a question unless you know how you will use the data. It's not what you would like to know, but rather what you need to know). 2. Sampling Design: Asking the Right People (a) Select a representative sample using scientific methods (b) Responses can be broken down by: . (1) Which ward respondents live in (2) Renter or homeowner (3) Age, sex, marital status (4) Voter, non-voter (5) Length of residence in Richfield • 3. Questionnaire Design: Asking Questions in the Right Way. (a) Design easy to complete questionnaires (b) Construct valid and reliable questions (c) Pretest to eliminate potential problems 4. Data Collection: Obtaining Answers to Questions (a) Use skilled interviewers (b) Achieve response rates that exceed 90% (c) Achieve a response that has a standard of error not to exceed 3-6~, depending upon sample size 5. Data Analysis: Relating Answers to Client Needs (a) Correctly interpreting the data (b) Clearly explain the findings on the issues 6. Reporting of Results: Communicating Results Effectively WHY OBTAIN CITIZEN FEEDBACK (USES OF CITIZEN SURVEYS) Survey information will be of primary use to public officials in program and policy planning and in resource allocation. Survey findings should help: • -4- -determine bud et riorities g P -identify needed changes in existing activities -guide the physical location of facilities -determine citizen perceptions of the effectiveness of public services (or problems) -provide factual data such as the numbers and characteristics of users and non-users of community services -identify reasons for dislikes, or nor non-use of services -provide pretest of citizen demand for new services -identify perspectives of community opinion on a wide variety of issues -to aid in the process of establishing governing body goals and staff objectives (MBO) POSSIBLE SUBJECTS (ISSUES) TO BE SURVEYED As city manager, I would like to know community opinion on many issues including the list given below. As a member of the city council, you problably have a list, too. Here are some of my questions: 1. If your monthly garbage bill could be cut about $2.00 per month, would you favor the city government dividing Richfield into districts and taking competitive bids from private haulers to avoid costly duplication of service now practiced? • 2 Do residents approve of the snowbird ordinance provisions? 3. Do you watch the local Richfield cable tv government access channels? If so, which ones? 4. Would you watch city council, HRA and planning commission meetings if they were: (a) cablecast live? (b) taped highlights 5. Do residents support these housing issues: (a) housing similar to Lake Shore Drive Condominiums? (b) scattered site housing for moderate income families ($20,000 - $35,000)? (c) use of the arterial street frontage on Portland Avenue at Legion Lake for townhouse family housing? 6. Another set of questions on housing could include these issues: (a) if you are an empty nester family, would you move within Richfield to a condominium like Lake Shore Drive condominiums if space were available: (1) this year? (2) within two years? (3) within three years? -5- (b) Should Richfield maintain the present number of apartments (or less or more)? (c) Does Richfield want to encourage: (1) moderate income housing projects? (2) low income housing projects? (3) high income housing projects? 7. Are Richfield residents satisfied with the present level of municipal services? (A list can be provided). Would Richfield residents favor a tax cut and a reduction in some city services or a slight increase in municipal taxes to maintain the present level of services? 9. About 50~ of the 102 blocks of public alleys have been improved by special assessment financing. The city policy requires at least 50~ of the residents to be in favor of the project before it will be undertaken. Should the city council: (a) continue this policy? (b) reduce the requirement to 35~ of the residents must be in favor? (c) proceed and pave all alleys even those where abutting property owners are not 100 in favor of the project because of its cost? 10. Other comunity issues that could be surveyed are: (a) need for a community bus (b) upgrading shopping districts (76th at Lyndale, Penn at 66th Street, East 66th Street) (c) seek major redevelopment such as motels and restaurants along ~9~ (d) evaluate the job your city council is doing (e) evaluate the job your professional city staff is doing (f) support for a separate teen/youth center facility (g) support for recycling (h) best way to finance storm sewer projects and maintenance (i) traffic (j) airport noise • -6- THE THREE TRADITIONAL WAYS OF CONDUCTING CITIZEN SURVEYS 1. Personal Interview. The face-to-face interview is generally believed to produce the best return, but is generally the most expensive. Advantages are: (a) visual aids can be used; (b) flexibility in the interview; (c) high rate of response Disadvantage: (a) high cost Conclusion: Not recommended by city staff. 2. Telephone Interview. The University of Minnesota Center for Social Research recommends the telephone interview. For persons who have unlisted telephone numbers, the market research people obtain numbers from the Polk Directory (or Cole Directory). It is estimated that more than 9$~ of the Richfield population has a telephone. Personal interviews are made to persons selected in the random sample who cannot be reached by telephone. Arrangements can be made to call the responder at a mutually convenient time. The advantages are: (a) have trained interviewers to handle grumpy or negative responders (b) can eliminate business phones (c) respondent is at ease in their home (d) less expensive than face-to-face interviews Disadvantage: (a) cannot send out an advance letter Conclusion: (a) Recommended by city staff (also recommended is mail survey). 3. Mail Survey. The self-administered (mail) survey is recommended by the market research firm of Anderson and Berdie Associates. It is estimated that a 75-$0~ response rate can be obtained by professionals such as Anderson and Berdie. They use such techniques as advance letters, follow-up questionnaires to those not responding and _ emphasis on follow up. Without this type of follow-up effort, mail surveys may only achieve a 40~ response. • _7_ Advantages: (a) it can have more candid results because it is completed in one's own home; (b) no interview stress (c) less expensive than face to face interview Disadvantages: (a) mail surveys require a high motivation to respond Conclusion: Recommended by city staff (also recommended is the telephone interview). GOAL SETTING - MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES - CITIZEN FEEDBACK If a citizen's opinion survey is made, the city manager recommends that the process be followed by a joint council/staff goal setting effort. Once council and staff are armed with community opinions relevant to decisions facing city officials, the process of setting goals should be strengthened. This is not to say that the survey is the only tool. City officials also have to take into account budget constraints and the experienced judgment of those involved in city issues. After the goal setting process is completed, the city manager would work with the staff to implement management by objectives (MBO) to help meet the goals set by the Mayor and City Council. Department Directors would be encouraged to prepare their annual budgets by incorporating into their respective budgets the objectives to meet the agreed upon Mayor/Council goals. This entire process would be aided by the input received from Richfield citizens participating in a survey of key issues. Another added benefit of opinion surveys is to repeat the process several years later to measure community opinion on the actions taken between surveys. In this way, constant feedback can be an effective tool in decision making. DEKALB, ILLINOIS SURVEY OF CITIZENS The city manager participated recently in the March, 1982 telephone survey • of 801 residents who were randomly selected to represent a full cross-section of the DeKalb population. The survey explored four major areas: (1) citizen satisfaction with present city services: (2) citizen contact with city government and utilization of city supported services; • (3) citizen opinions about alternative ways of reducing city services (4) citizen opinions about alternative ways of increasing city revenues -8- • Some examples from this survey are included in this report. (See appendix) RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION 1. Approve the undertaking of a citizen survey by Bob Nelson of School District 280 at an estimated cost of $5,000; 2. Establish a committee of community leaders to suggest topics (issues) to be included in the survey. Community leaders can be selected from (a) churches, (b) civic and private organiza- tions, (c) advisory boards and commissions (d) school officials (e) Chamber of Commerce leaders, etc. APPENDIX The following materials are provided to supplement this report. 1. "Marketing Research for Decision Makers by Anderson and Berdie Associates, Inc. 2. 2/77 MIS Report known as Municipal Innovations 15, "Using Citizen Surveys: Three Approaches," 3. 1983 Burnsville Opinion Survey. • Examples from DeKalb, Illinois Survey, March, 1982. 5. Sample questionnaires prepared by Bob Nelson of the Richfield School System. i ectfuYly-,s fitted, ~ ~ ~ .i C~~GL~~ John G. G'art fight 'City Manager JGC/eja • Marketing ~ Research i i i i i i i for ii~iiii ~ Decision Makers Anderson & ~ert~e Associates, ~r~c. _ • Anderson & Berdie Assoces. A„n~~~~~n ~ ~e~~~~ ~ a national marketing research The ~ firm, helps eliminate the guesswork from strategy decisions. Our clients depend ~O~ ~ on us to provide reliable infor- mation that is directly related • • • to -their decisions. To do this, 't ~~c~~~~n we listen. We establish a direct line of communication with each client at the outset The more competitive the of every project. We want marketplace becomes., the more to thoroughly understand your needs. important it is to make the right decisions the first time. PROJECT SAMPLING QUESTIONNAIRE ! N fr DESIGN DESIGN DES G ..''Asking the Asking the Asking questions in- right questions right people the right way Obtain input from Select representative Design easy-to-complete decision makers samples questionnaires Identify decisions Define appropriate Construct valid and to be made subgroups or segments reliable questions Design study to collect Choose appropriate Pretest to eliminate relevant information sample types potential problems Choose correct sample sizes :3 Careful project design and early planning Our clients' decisions are based on Asking questions in the right way is prevent later headaches. Our professional information collected from representative essential to your decision-making process. staff works closely with clients to make samples of people. Using scientific ~Ve are experts in the creation of reliable sure that we understand exactly what is methods, we select samples that and valid questions. Our questions are needed. If you wish, we'll help define accurately reflect each client's target skillfully designed. They are easy for the the problem and its ramifications to audience. We utilize all types of sampling respondent to answer and obtain all the insure that our marketing research designs, so we choose groups that are information you need. One way we answers the right questions. large enough to provide reliable data, insure quality is to pretest questionnaires Unlike others who rely on "off-the-shelf" yet small enough to be efficient. carefully to eliminate any possible research designs, we develop intelligent, problems. well-planned projects that are specific Jack Anderson and Doug Berdie have t `~ch client. You can rely on our co-authored the book entitled ;tise to provide the answers Questionnaires: Design and Use. you'need to make sound decisions. Our exceptional response Anderson Sc Berdie Associates 'i rates (over 90%) and expert will identify the information statistical analyses mean that you need, gather it using the you can depend on the data latest research techniques, we collect. We are unique carefully analyze it, and because we carefully analyze communicate it to you in the entire research project usable form. You'll be con- and make recommendations fident you made the right that relate to your decisions. decision because you acted The results you receive are on the right information. practical, usable, and straightforward. ` ~ DATA DATA RE PO RTI NG COLLECTION ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ` Obtaining answers Relating answers Communicating to questions to client needs results effectively Use data collection techniques Match computer capabilities Translate information into appropriate to project to project needs easy-to-understand Match skilled interviewers to Apply expertise in language project requirements statistical techniques to meet Tailor resulting report to Compile accurate data client needs client needs Achieve response rates that Analyze data for pertinent Make recommendations exceed 90% information relevant to client decisions Conduct formal presentations if needed Our response rates routinely exceed Successf 90°J°. This is because we take the time to carefu develop good questions, and follow kno through to, get the maximum numkyer of t responses from the original sample. Our broad-based knowledge of data collec- tion techniques eliminates misinformation that causes costly mistakes. Services HEALTH CARE RESEARCH Anderson & Berdie Associates is an t Patient Surveys expert in locating and analyzing : 4e rovlde the information you need. Community Surveys .lerson & Berdie Associates has Image Studies broad-based experience in many areas Physician Surveys DATA COLLECTION of marketing research. We are also Market Research TECHNIQUES recognized as a national leader in Interpretation of Data Reports Mail Surveys marketing research training. Readership Surveys Telephone Surveys Personal Interviews INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH SOCIAL RESEARCH Focus Groups Corporate Image Studies Community Surveys On-Site Observations Market Share Studies Public Opinion Polls Innovative Techniques New Product Research Program Evaluations Corporate Planning Research Needs Assessments CONSULTING Employee Attitude Surveys SERVICES Market Research EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Data Processing Feasibility Studies Public Opinion Polls Data Analysis Sales Force Needs Analyses Evaluation Studies Questionnaire Design CONSUMER RESEARCH Community Surveys Sampling Design Market Research Educational Needs Assessments Compilation of Existing Data New Product Research PROFESSIONAL TRAINING Contact us for your entire market- Product Image Studies ing research project or any of .Readership Surveys Custom Designed Training its parts. You'll be confident you Advertising Testing On-Site Workshops made the right decision because Preference Studies Regularly Scheduled Seminars :you acted on the right information. ~ Anderson & Be~~.ie Associates, tnc. 1885 University Avenue / St. Paul, Minnesota 55104 612/645-5577 Clients we serve National Urban League, Inc. City of St. Pau! Greenwich Public Schools Blue Cross & Blue Shield National Education Association The Guthrie Theater Procter & Gamble Co. ~~finnesota ~~lining & Mfg Co. (3M) St. Paul Public Schools Gould /nc. Metropolitan Council Finance and Commerce Holiday Inns, Inc. State of Minnesota Minneapolis Children's Health Center Eastman Kodak Co. Northwestern National Bank Groin, W Cable, lnc. Harvard University Metropolitan State University City of Minneapolis Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc. Northern Cablevision Standard Oil Company of /ndiana U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Hallmark Cards Inc. Northern States Power Co. Welfare (HEW) Metropolitan Medical Center H. 8. Fuller Co. ,t4innesota Energy Agency Cerveceria Cuauhtemoc, S.A. St. John's Hospital Houghton Mifflin Co. Clark County Community College College of $t. Thomas lBM The St. Pau! Foundation St. Paul YWCA St. Pau! YMCA The Minneapolis Federation for The College Board G~Ilette Children's Hospital Newish Service Control Data Corporation gill, lnc. Knott's Berry Farm Metropolitan Transit Commission .imbia University Bell Canada Chisago Lakes Hospital Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. Sears Roebuck & Co. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. U.S. Navy Xerox Corporation . ! i F :t I s } ~ 3 { c. tr :J r~ t }ii I x ~ 9 t j, ~ ~ . ~ ~ y r . ~r r~ 'r ~ YS.~~ Y n.. r!t Nr. c_•.-~ KSr: ~.'~1' ~1t a:.y. 3~tS , t ,'s i , ~ I ~ ~ r ~ n+r Ir, tr 1S •'t t ~~qt ~-L,+ m r ~ i!~- ~ ' T -~y -~t~ ± ',i 71 h ..t ~.wr Mx4c rR s.~. `,.a~ ~R.. ~~,~t p~~ ~ _ t= ~ 1 ~ { ! ! i L ~ • J5 J Y+J J ( gg .I ~ 8 8 , 4 r ~ 1 1 1 1f r~ ,i ~ ' ~t r ri i eCt r e ~ y r! ~1 11 ` 9 ?.c :'.5 ! ~ ~ ~ ~ . g a ' .~._t_ + r e^ N t c t ~ + r ' Z ~ ~ 11 i r ' {!'t at~'~ r ~ ~ ~ t` ~ .r ~ tj r r.. ~~t't1 _~3~led ii 1 f.~~t ~~(::iUr:,13~., Jr.. i =~-It r ~ - t. C y~ , VF t ~ ~~~pp6 .lli~i ~'~,r. ti.~.,~N~,'i ~ g~ ~ , I~ > i i i ; r ?~r t ~ j r:~~ ~ C.~ ~ yy ~ Y#• y ~t 9~ 1 ~.t: Irrp a ~ , ~a ; ~.R. - S ' ~ 1.' j r w.~`~,,t; tr ~~t •ys5 ~_•7 j2,.~~. )C~ It1~~I,~ _8<`. ! ~~~y~~.d ..,:f ; _ ~r 1 ~ ! 1"x"7 r1~ ~ ~~Y Y 8 I f fir„) ~ rj ~ q _ ~ ~ ps' + I ' ~ .'~f iir 'F~I.zV~~'J~~~! 7,,~j 'd~p~~8~i~tklr a.`•~~'u'Z• y;~1v~;r !a"',~3t1~p~t ~rj,`t - 1 I ~ - ~ ~r{`sb~~ '~g~~~~~~~s.r} t~o''IE ~{rAi 3 ~J UL's ~ r ! y~Q +a't r t. .F rt,`'C.ri.. ~.r 1., ytx 1 ~ r.r 'r0l'. p ? I -'--1-- - - e ~ ! ~ r ~ L. w~ ^p~- t yIt r i~r.Mw w:.n 1t. 1 rtd~ e 1 y r `d F~ i be ~4 -~t}«.w.4tii Hs ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ r ~ I ~ - rti ~•7 'R.t it tqo '.ad d.bW~ 1y .uc~ it i > > i rr a' ty{; ~a1``,# ~r~ ~y r .i ! ~ t ~ ~ t} # ,w t, 1~1 a 3 _ t I • ~ ~ ~ e ` ~ rc" S 4~ a r ~ ~ ; o d!>` i~ t r~V~~ E~ W~ t} ~ ~1 1 r ,~;i'1.~`~/ttt'~' 9~y51. ~,w; lt~~ rte..+•1..a.~~~~s~'tLr~•r.~.a r. '7 i t~ • 1 i... J j U'r t~r`~ ,pq & g 9 ~ ~ a ~ ~i ( r o 1~~_[~-~ ~~-(.r rA+~ f ,l ~~..11 r ^ti ? itr.6: ii IW ~y did E~~ )C. ..el J.1 ~ r:~"`H ~Y,~~ ~.W ~'J_ Fy ,r-, r. ~:~„tii. ~ •o ~.8"t ~ 1 X 1-~•-+, ..~f. ir•~M t i v'• a .r. ~ t. t, t, ~~'''11 Q ~~r~v v ¦p 1p. y~ ppy t ,.r R, ~ t r 'r ea rIt I l ` ~ FI • ~ r •'4yR l ~i ~~I, f.0 ~~~~~~'.Qr. ~ t~~l~it ~~'~S~yI~Y ~~~J ti '~K~ :~'.U ~ 1S ~ 1 .j ~ S 9 RRR ( C 4, r I '~1~ a a ~ ~~s~~~~r~'`' ,gam: :,1;~ t~~ ~ ~~~~~p't; ~ c ~ --a-- pV v 'y ~~~:r t ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ro o t r~~ ~ .IL}~(1.~ if 9 ~ ~ }t r~ ~ v: ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ? it ~ tk . ~ ~ i; r} t~.~ r ~ ~ ~ t ' -1--- ,(1y~{ ~,~t ur x.~( ~ ~ •j~y~~ ~ Via' 1~Qtt ¦ apt t ~ 'tpi,~ ,t r ~~q{{ ~,s t~ti.:,~~ g `~1~It x i ~'1 vJ ' r .~i",,, .H'.r 7 ~ ~ ;.L,~~ `d 'S3 ~r O ~f. , r ~51: 'L ,~~~~U~~~~ 9~ ,'~~6 1 I - ' ~ .~~'~Yd,~.~ ~Iy }'1 rt1~ `rt i ~~y,~'i /t y. r .t~. }it~~~i~ktr ~ ~ .~,g 'p. p t ~ ` ` ' l ~yI Y a = try' (~i. o ~ ~ g ~ r ' p ~ a ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'fir ~ ~ ~ - t', ' s OI .p ~ ^ ~ ~ s " o ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ a e ~ s y E ~'(~_.:r.~ ~}u~~ V~:.~ ,.~,..,~r'~:. ~ ~ 'fi'r: i I r, _ _ S1(S Inrwvatioas Setter . s{gttre t _ Stale in me suewy vroeese proposing a survey was ro improve public rela• linos, i.e., a desire "ro elimimra the communiu- I t. o<c:w on rooms. Crocco ~ don gap bttwr_n the people and cry hall." Zee• t da;:es or aauuey: ana toad •araa also in[ecested i4 reeeivirtg catrununiry lIDar I appou,eata wives cox ~ opinion on various city iuues. i Tha piaaning phase of the ?roiect, the period i M~. ~ j L-omi-ebtuarydueugh,apn119%6,incit[ded:asrab• Select cr , u+•ey ~ ~ lishiag. a timetable of cr.[ical dates. gathering ram- . ! ~ ~ pia surveys from ocher cities. aril discussing tha Oesisn :tit yuestioanLR - S. Oatgn trd safie1111a Proirt with tha cry couneit during budge[ ses- sines. During ttte technical appiicuion phase. Slay and June 1916, the city supedntendem hired an ( ~ j iatera ss project caortt{nator. I?e also secured the ' ( assistance of tha Caeter for Pt:bfic .>dtainisrranan 3. Recrt,k wed ,nix „aer<,ewaa j i • ~ ~ of Weseetn Sfiehigm I/niveniry. Tl:e e:ncer peo- ~ ~ I videdteehaipt help on sample xiection wad ques• Tecneieaa ~ 6, t4tiorR p,mrr I lino design and data ptoeessing services. itrcluaing tppucatioe ` _ a graduate student programmer and computer dine p~sK - to tabulua [he resulu. 7. Gemu I - The sample of 320 odor[ residents was selected .1 i:om the voter mgis:ruioa {istt96°e of the residents arc registred votee). Interviewee averts hired ' ~ s. Edit. eodt. >ad typ,iate data ~ - rorough a newspaper adveitisemea[ wad city ;calf • ~ owe-day training sessions for chem. lust ~eforc roe in[etviewutg began. a two-week media 4. rnasyu aM i,[tetpat itadinas ~ cunosign announced the survey to !lie city. Views- ! - ~ ~ papers well radio, iacfuding a +S-minute public i atone rm. ~ ta. Lx u i.... t« a<drwn tttakatt r s`r"1CD r"'a-"-'° discussed we survay and the is- sues it addressed. { ~ - ~ Tha qu«.:._....:._ covered most city savicas ~ ~ ~ - and was lugely borrowed from the Crban . •...-tu xc kennaa weee w Fta,n Xan, Oa,<w<r C:,Cn frNirrt. twymaam.. D.G: t.'roar Lam,re. t9r), P !asdtntdlCSSA ;alley developed in St. P:rae- btttg, Florida acrd `isshviile, Tennessee.' The ma- - jority of the questions elicicad measures of eifec- iur:eyscanaiaoaa?rorci:tzenopinionsoa various Survsy Proeteas tiveness, although soau quesdoes tested cidzea ' '»ues. such as: Re=acdless of the type of survey, a sunilar ptrxess demand foe new services. add . peioruyoiezisdag a., .,,v uer :oe,J trove o ma whoa rK wv rM rrrv it used to implemem ir. Threw geaerai phases art services.Otherquesdotuaslcedforopinionsonciry ...<,ne<r a ~woaee t6u,n ,);aa .~aer<d col Yea ( I; planning, teeM„in+l applfead0n, and atrial. (See issues. Since mos[oitha survay quesdoas had been ?oa-t iw.-( i. Figure - ~ - used sueeasstuily etsawherc, the questionnaire was ' • Initial planning shapes the purpose of the survay not prctesced. Residene were i..._. as during a C::rtan awareness of proaams wad services wan ~ who will be {nvoived u who: stags. The rxh- two weeks in July, and the tesoooses were entered aiw `a :sled by a,tes[iom such ss: sal of eortdtsetiag a survey (desigtriagthe ' into the computer on a daily basis. The inarviaws + questionnaire: xlecticg We sarapia,.7ainiag inctt• were compleud .august s. 1916: the tntdn were i - a< .+ra :r<r.:,:,s<;.w ,w urrc ~<e+,oerr of ~~o,v viewers, coaductiag in[erviaws and taautauag cabulued by .august t8: aria tae analysts of the - .-raw, -vraeer ~eurmp v; r„y commit yy) as deram!¢ed largely by the type of survay tz•ults wet eompitted the following weak. . ~ ...,.„,e .:,va,~,: ~,erar,er: res i is `:o ( I: Ooa'r and resources available. Consultants are often T?u aedoa phase ixgan two weeks loot in early ' ~ hind for the tectmical application phase. Stanace- September. •+vhen the published results were pre- . mate decisions an aztremeiy imponartt in the ac- leered ca the couaci( wad 5:aff. ° Department bends - .,;r .m., ,r.+tv .r¢w,. ,or raw r ro ra aiw ties p6tua to determiaa tits uses of the data col- were asked co review the results and :otttmen[. ;acted, These wnnCa comments were given to the ~uncii ,inumberofcidasbaveconductedsurveysinthe foreonsidentionduringtheseudysessions.wbic:t ~a':,a ::nee>t<,,.•.ano .one um<a e:iae (I pas[ three vars,° The Following sections disctus were conducted in (ace Oerober and warty v:l :o .m ;a,.t ~ 1 the aaolicazion o[ citizen s[mays in :brew cities: `+avemlxr. The counesi took arioa on ;as'eml • ~ •-ew~,enut aee,mys Zeeland, Stiehigan:Sioux Cicy. Iowa; aria Sunny- items by mid-YOVember 19i6..~s a nsuic of !.•.e ..ric:ar ~rcai. weal grout oraoNrna vale. Calitomia. Thex eider suecessfuliy [red survey the couircii changed priorities inative•veat -aoi< a •;a...v :-a,sooea„an. xor surveys for varying purposes and with different road resurfaecng play and bagaA a S3d.;~r6 tesur- ..r.-. ~.or,. f ! ezpenditutes of resources, facing project in a neignborhood scheauied ar ~ 2a'•^'-„ _ , ,.Cra :A Y.O,'K'lEeVa (I imr.. ~ _..._..t several veacs facer. The council also ?cro,:a :ancern m :se an :a anuutr. vay f I Zeeland. Mklllgan aurhortzed a study of the feastbiiicy of proviuing a '''et--0<"`~' ~ Zeeland Ipopuiauon :.000) conducted its :inc municipal swimming roof and has Circe:ad :.".e mul+i-service citizen survey in Juh 1976. The our- installation or several new street lieitts a locations P^miv. c:nz:n +urvess can help derina concepts Dose of the surrey project was ro improve comma- by the msula. The ;tirvey also provided extol :-:^cram ru ;::y x,i~y .ratlne..~n asampie of ,!n• relations and measure the effecnveness or city information regarding what ;egmac:ts o(the eoou- ~ J4O11Ja .a. [GN{era. TAG project included an in-person. lotion were not :,ached on an important cent issue. i0•mmure imerv::•+v ~.vrch 3.0 c:tizeas. a staff ~ Tie sun'ey irfomanon was a!w used as suooca- - , ..••acrr .,.mw..v, n ..arrow „r. ~ ~ port. :ounctl duds sessions. and a. ton on ;:com•• ing Cates ter sanoas proposals :o :ee coq :Donal. ~ .renda[ions. T`e proles was condtured from flay mctuatr.¢ a oosvbie iibt727 asoanvon wad an aCCi- • ~ ,aa m:~ c-cx. to Sosember ;976. 'rlth an outoi-pocxet :ost Jr ::on :o the an caraee. reu t i 53.000. Zeel~no Cemonstn[es the ability of a small Tte Zeeland survay h;u '.c:a Weil received b :in~ ws[b m[mmum rsoures to Y_netit from a :ouncil and cinr_ns. but some iaoanmen[ hcaCs r+n:c; :c,• ~ : nz:n >un'ey Zealand's >un~n~ ptolec[ ased mn• base :apressed contr... ~•~htcr. the supen:n:ndcre j [mum stalling. survey aueu:uns from other aces. • .xh ~s !u stied cecause in his •+vrds. "l •+~as so a--~~:u:,: .rs +nd computer eosources u a ;c~a) unives:n~ ;oncar.,ed wttn tea mtet:.p i and objsasiq•; of ;ha ..,.c<a tea. _nvca i 1te ca. supeantendent ut Zee:and •niuuad ehe ;ur••as :eat [ vne:icoin ~ammatad ex :ar.:e:aa- ~ - ~ survey crorrt Cunne :"e r:¢uiar hues:: r:sx•• ::on of !".a staff." >rd ~-e ouid recamma.^.d :n- .~e-r. :.ar:w ..,an pn,cess. Tie au:DUSe Jt the •u~eq wan to ~;a:h¢: cols,rg the dapa^.mc::r oaaonaei :arh :n lha ptan- .ystemane. rcitan;e :nG:rnauon on tea eu:c:::sa atng roe:sa. ;nu eirecuae.^.e».~i ;::a •er.,;ce Tie:^:r..t -were +eveml tacnniuues that woA:ed ~+~eit Tie Im?ORaft '„LLa :a ~:e.,e'l~: a ~u:~C•. ;'t .'lUf.^}at:,t^ :~~rrt`a' .a. s^a a.^.u-aes•e ~r ^e csuurcas. ;zcra:tai a,+:na for a n+v a.e; ..-men , c n iC - e a1 cr a t e •.al ^tl:tt ~:el.a -t^..- C• C. ae.^. II:e Gtizm Surveys Fabntaty 1977 compkdonof the imerviaws anti the ouhGption of males sate a proportionara number of multifamily, sWnat was responsible for (!)assisting the city iR the .60 pages of tasuhs kegs the iafomratioa cur- renal dweiiings were included N chs sample. They question design, preaesting the quesrionnaite. :ctrl and increased in impact. The ;overnmem would revix some gcrastions and also reduce cFi f3) xi«ting the xientifie sample. la) cpadueting - demonstrated its tsedibiGry wad mponsivenass by time lag between eompietioa of interviews and :be :0•minute interviews. (J) veritying the inea- • beginning a Aighly visible projec te.g., sttsa m- peesamacon of resWn. Ia addition, similar sunny views. and (6) tabulating tAa «suin. [n Ocbbar. iuciaping) imatediatsly. questions wad comwnbk dam .'rom other cities the cowulnnn aaromplished [hs trier three ;asks. ! The Zeeland apQroaeh ro a citiua survey was would bs sought ro nuke tier analysis of :esuin Alw drat month, [Act 33 member of :he cir man- :hu too much wpittsticatioa eaa sidemek chs clearer. A major lesson Teamed wa3 that the crow- agemeat grouQ held a Ct[ee•day retire ro discuss ? :paned wad the staff: la additba, Zeeland miai• Diction of chs survey lofty begins another prpcess issues thaz were to be included in the survey..atur . ~ mi~-d tAa ntxd for ounida tssourcss amt still kept -the analysis of city saviea anti caanges in :Aaz meeting, they pmpard detailed "Teem pa• C:e demands on tAS internal tsources minimal. programs, pen," i.e.: background repoas including the i~is- Zeelaad's ecperisnee shows char a email city can Stethads tAaz worked well in Sioux Cary in• cory, rsrrnr ;term, and furore options on exh • successtuLLy use surveys as a te)atively sii:tpls, cfutled: (I) team managtmtem of the pros«c and issue. quick. ineaanstva, and «liabk way to ;artier working with the wosWtant to build m in•hpux The t«httical application phase leered two - needed and axial iniomudon on city servirxs. aQarcv to conduct regular citizen surveys: c2) months. [n `JOVembet twenty incerviewets con• Sbsr: Ctt)r, Iowa ittvolviag `-:'-.._:nt directors ro ineeease their dared 633 thieryminute interviews iaeluding ..,ceding and acceptance of tesWts: and (3) questiowon:etT«dvrnessofcityservices.Qriority Siouc Ciry :pppulatioa 36.000) eoaducted a staging the and release of :auin for of services, concept deimition, opiniowoa issues. mWti•aervics titian survey ialuna 1976. Tht pur• maximum media coverage. and tktaaad for clew services. By Deernber 1916. rox or ms saner project was ro measure the ~ the coasWtanc finished the tabulation of «tsulu. A ' :itecaveaess of tin servicm. The project lased 8stnnytralss CalNomia sevea•member, multi-deparrmennl team analyzed i from Apti! 19;6 ro January 1977 and included as Sunnyvale f.popula[ioe 104.000) conduced a and publishsd cesuln, prepared airport to citizens, in•peeson, JO•minum intavisw of 34( citizens, multi-service citizen stervey is Yovember 197x. contacted and visited each commuairy group ro :eporo on thssewln. amiwutteil attda.r_.........1 Ths purpose of the survey project was ro increase explain initial. city-wide resuln, utd planned a n~sw sessions. Ths out•ot-pucka con m the city tidzan r_..:..Y.,att in community seam and worksboQ oa the msWn. 3~ g • was a ximatel 53.700 wi a PPro Y b pproximazely :o vide etTt:eiiveness measures f r ' !n Jaauarv 1973 chs x ' o pro o wry servirn. as hose be an. Tha P g 53.Ct)V supplied by s U.S. Department ai Housing The yearlong projec began in Jape 1914 and wu c'uy srnc every household in the city a report of the and :-ban v C De eloQmant 70t ..~..,.__tensiva plan- completed in Jum 1975, and iacluded.depatrmen• resuln sad invited citizens and community groups ring geactt. nl work sessions,. uo mestia Y g P ~ Siouc Cicy demonsrtates the ability of a tial mail-outissms~~ry~ g'ini- ~ toaturtdada •!an worftsho .Abouc600citiuds t ey, a maaagemem reawt, attended tits workshop ro discuss survey main and _ ateu:um-sized municipality to bead as ittramal bukgsoueb papers on issues, 633 in•petson, bakkground informacioa. At ti:a end of the day :.SO l ;toff :apaccy :o conduct citizen surveys. Ths sur- 3,Pmiaurs interviews, aday)ong touacil briering, people had signed up ro pamciparo oa :ea cidua set -.vas cotbmted with minimum ass of corral- a dawlonq rows workshop on mWn, citizen task task forces. From January ro March these task rants. Several people were initially intatesisd ip a forces. , _.W -adadoro, and action. The our-of- forces held 94 maecngs. A city comcil member citizen ,urvey: a muacd member, the city oleo- parka cwt, ixludiag cowWtam and meetings acrd city scat? weer: assigned to exh task Tome. k :;er. and :our department heads. Tha planning corn, was approximately 520.000: The "`)ew Di• March, all cask forces peexntW theiriectlmmenda- :vse..•torii 1976. included looking az what other for Sunnyvele," projec demowttares ate titles and proposed budgrs and funding sources ro :Tries hart done, teeanical teseaech. and diseussipg abiiiry of a mediuat-sized city to inceasa partieipa- cha city council. Also during March. a summary of idea calm departmenuF slat( and the council. T'x ripe of variow groups !a evaiuatiag the etf«rive- atl rule force ptoposab and tequeu for commenn :ouncii approved chs survey proQosal in April acrd cress and daermiaing. the- dimtion of air were rem ro each home in the city. Monthly enter j :::^.e matu;er appointed asix-member survey team :...:t - repoen ro community groups. news media. rule [o organic the project. The team included a local The. survey was aspin-off of Suanyvale's per- force members. and imemted citiuns continued ~ suney consultant as advise :o the projec alb fotmanca auditing project.' The initial pumox of throughout the projees. ~ .upernsoc of interviewee. tits stltvey wsx ro compare ett«dvettas neasutes !n April, in staff pcepartd daaifed badger for f Toe :echmcal application phase began in stay. is tits budge ~witi! thtrss obtaimd directly iiom task force ceeommsndadow alb submtaea them servo tier xat a ropy or t)ts Urban Iwti• cilium. Outing the pianaiag phase from June to wim the tegWareiry budge, The couaeil evaluated ^:tc IC~IA survey co aic'erab 1eQartmenn with October 1973, city staff, city canncil. eommuairy orb took action oa tech peoposa! during budget ~ a ::guest for iuggeated questiow and Creels b grouQs, and individual citiunt were involved in hearings. The mWn were a child care center, a ~e :nciuded. These weeks Leer, chs ;cam stet with mearch ro identify city isms. 1o Stay wad Jurrc; neigh:.,:-.. ~centerl:ecrcation. library and public x:artments xpamtaly !O RY[aM quastiow aqd d.,,..„......, ditecors and all supervisor ma in safety tee"/I;ea de«nttaiized ro an isolated s«don • ag,esaons. in lune.:he team drafted a trial suer weekly ssssiom ro their :valuation of of t.':e ctv). and variow adjusrmean in programme l ::urnaire. pre-tested a. and :Ana gave it co tas service wiat whaz they knew about the needs of miag. Almon all the cask Porce teeotnmentianons ' :nuncil foc revkw. The tine! questbanaiee was people in Suaawals. ware imQkmenred irr soma farm. _ .a:_ety , tram the Urban Iawatrs sutYey Drain; !Wy and duguu, the project dilate, a Ice evalttadag tAe proj«t,.cin staff indipm :hey gad rttcludeu iniortnuion on eifeetivenas wad use member of tits taanager's stat7, contacted 30 eom- had diffuulry rnmQating eff«dveness measures in tin iervirs..~lso in Jutta, the survey ;cam muelry groups ro calk about the survey. People is r!M budge -.vim those they obtained from the sur- ' :-:rid and :noted start-n :Deal imervkwen and exh group Ailed out a preliminary gvesdonnaite sty. (n addition. staff feirtheycould have involved •ti:c:rla:amoteof'10adultrotdenn:romche about theirgeaeralconeernsandapiniow.TAaJWy cityemQioyeeseariiaandmomwllyintheoeocess l tci:n' btiliag list. issue of the city nawslettet cook the same peelimi- cad thaz some of the questions .eking the :mpor• 1 In:erviewsbeganJunaJ.atbtooktwoweeksco nary questionnaire form to exb household in raace otcity sanees were not very aural. `o ' :amotete. dear. cs attesaonnaiees were coded. ~ Sunnyvale for atlditiona) input. Citizen suney ex- provision was made for furore follow-uo surveys. , ..:::n wed its own Sea pspcessmg rxilities ro hibin were also sa up in tin hall the library, and The me[htsds that worked well included me oro• :acma:e the wW. but personnel vaancies Selayed t,7e Commumn Center. These displays explained css for seeping the community inrotmed ;hrougn :~e +a.Wr.:on for r+o months. until November the purpose of the quesnonnatts and :roveded status reports. the aty cewsieaer. commumcv F^.:: •uney :cam :nee prepared a pnasetl forms ro rill out. [n addieioa. wry scarf inten•rewed meeane. and media coverage. TAe ux of consul -'•-a-t far aaalyttng and 'epomnt :re -seas by :acct coerce memi7er andcantacted membea or al,' :ants added :u :he ••aiidin~ and :edibility of :tie :op:c area a: ore•.eei, intenali. boards and commissions to find our cnetr eoneems. survey ud :educ:d me scarf woriaoad. T'.te issue • j T.`.e xron phase:exan to Dec:mxr !9'5. Scr- Over 1.000 tropic direcay pameipaeed:rs idennry'- pare prepared soft anti:ounnl to inttroret anti r: results rut ea;b :iptc area were. d:i:used tier mg city issues. work with me results and ro provide needed inior- .nn dr•_armrtn, men re!eaed care media and The neat step in Ne plamm~e phase wu ro derive matron :a the cozen ax !ones. T'.:e design or ::•te dncncucN:o:ne :i:r.:d.irfiaaii in preparation for me issues :n such a war :au racy could be zsced cmz:n :ask (ores also worked ~.vell. because is cr.: council me:ergs. Some of :u uses ar ibe and acted upon. Tha decartmemal zrcups net ;rcvtded ter. sp«itic fobs, adequate :nfornaaen. sun'ev kne:udr. ~ t+ devdootm: efk:aveness race- again to compatt: the issues rased b} iauividuals, caunci! and staff support. buacazs and iunrirg •ur_s inr :ne .9-3 i+udgr.: ~.1 carter^g problems community :trouQs. wad :ouncd ro chs¢ own per- sources were required rural! propasais. and limited rwwnn_ cnaags m sentce :etiver~°. , 3i confirm- :e^,tions. They taco .ieveioped 1: aft quesuon~ ter :enure. i.a. the rule 'orr_s disbanded once pm- tag ,time capital p%ece decatons: gat provrdtnt muimton :n :ne carrot Many atizens ai;o •+~arced ;onus wr._ sabmtned. T::e ;ask rorce dest¢n a• a.•eater cndentandtna or Ne :tn ~enmes by me rn ,cos msaised m tae >urve+ prices;. ;o cne counged :uars.:oupcii. and stair :o -+un; ro• _ publie.:he couperl. and the staff: ardc 5i erosrdma .enc cut -ir.•ih' status -7otrs :o :m:r:•rcd :nm• cirri :o desig.^.:easonab!e procosals. Tne cost name posan~e iea:bacr :o :i:y emgloyr_s. vr„uair. n.:ammumry droxs:;rt::_:::7 dur:a_ :rte ucerri;ant prates wa;:ne ~rvilvemem of varuus In:ae:ewr..g tie Banes :ro•:r.. me ^n• ,ur^mtr. and nee: ^.:eu:u. ....-rested rdirduas and groups T'nis c!azen ear• tir!sesenl:.^.ir._, • - ..J St..:...Y.... ..:a . c '.,..._..;.a_s.saxc'`r ,:oaa;aid:ng ard acrp- w0uid :nanM ".t aN:n_ nw: ` M .u;;s. e r_...._~- ~ = SITS Iaaovattom Series Citizen Surreys Febmary t977 _ Summary were [bola that rciied oa :he genersi itaowl- s..+.em rw.reeeme, o.c: cna reromte. unmw+;w. m er Tfs a.r._,.:.as is Zeeland. Sioux City. arm Sun- edge otM ezperieaee of the eitizea ar as opm• wtereas.:. eay .~ts..r.teearwsw.iaoe. P . . nyvala were similar to many tespeea. ,ill three ion of a simple sntemeae Complex questions •Neaeurewrir, x°' weu rov s.ve ter ciss.• ' cities viewed :be titian survey as as innovadvr rcquitiag techniat atpetvx ware the :east `wi°'OP°'' p.e: Hw t9TA, yye aamta. project, something new sad in addition w rcgulu uxtW. Q»esdons on hoc polideal issues were '.a Gaut ra a ctwe mar em nor m wn.r. ~,u~a.s,wnn city xavities. All tlitee cities used a multi•setvice the mos duTicWt to phrase without hint and as r..weroe, Caltraa.werma Na.xcemuc Nyevtue. rem survey [hat contained some eifeetiveness men- '~Y ~Wd be. avoided. ~ ~ a..~cse.wf.,aur.Etot,a~xmnmwamg~u.a a. v;eso».; ;aces. Varwus :eeiaieai upecu of :ha three sdr- 3. Public emdibitiry is worth the price. all throe ao.aa9e re.mme, v.. f.nq; k~r. vrr ra,c gYla. dries used cottsWtaon u sortie point in [he T°Y P'i1o ^uO- C,Gra.a: Favwau wu.: , c w>wee• vet's wetrr Ltrblar. including: using a sample of the ate Cantor. v,,,a Cvaiee w-,naca, miewc eetlep Poe. adWt resident pooukcioa. using non-city employ. ptoass w incense abiectiviry and [has etedi- ~ttevla.e>m t:.mr x+meeyt..an uses. air.:e... :es as interviewee, conducting in-peeson inter- ~ry• ~~8 ~ rcliabiliry of rasWts is un- f taws. sad bortvwing questions developed by portane Exh city paid ipr outside halo, eta ,n,,,v P. Has .vm aetn. .Nearinr :w f~.nn w ame ,;[.tar cities. These air also simiiuities in the pro- though the cosy for this halo varied considers Nwe,+Pel ser+w,: /naa X.aon. ;waait(rete, o.c.: rnsa talus used..1f1 three cities used a project :cam ro obit. Two of the cida used coasulmrtts oven maaa , u ra~ wssgemmtAUOOStae. P.efa.o 19:+,. f.., . manage the all projecn were coaedinated - though the accessary expettisa existed on the t97T. - ..'.......197s Tres apga r aura. i»m the mane;er's aft3cr, all [hcea aides used city staff. Tn alt tlttee tides this au the rtrst. ,et.aamtcwn'.rwn~alwraaa... t.l[+ocoaecoc~s :onsWtants u soma poim in the process for techai- fait-scale. ttttdti•xrviea citizen survey is the heetttr.:r.w...u~~ a.e. zcoss. sta. Ito. 19ns. ss - tai assutaace and public eredtbiliry: and ail dries dty's recent history. Oau surveys baome ;sp, rar.ss.sa prcpaced public tappets of the resale. awte commons this deatonstndon of objettiv , The difftteaa in these expetiaaces waaue try may : less impormt.:iaother aspect' 'z..+.m. Hluep.. Deno. of te.aa s~ , . ~ 9rs .w~- ;iom dif!etmc pun, ores anti availability of :a of poblie cxsdtbiliry is that a nadom. stadsti- sore. a .e. st.v.. iseetetaew [9+a:. This fepon u ,.,trey sources is each airy. 9ah Zttlarm and Sioux Ctry ally valid satnpia of taideats provides tap- aamuwu.s. c ntcemmttxs. v,cowr:twetterae,. used ~he~stmars primarily lot:ffectiveaess men tesmtacive ~itizea Feedhuk which is unbiased daa i.vo. 3~a Pan sera aaa. spfte~wa. veeata a:st. oraer ve. a[ ~ [ us surcmam, out Zeeland used fewer rcsoutces- ia- qc intatasts. , vowed fewer pmook, and had a smaller outof- 6. Jtoro __...,....::.+s inforaution would be useful ey,~.V areeeme, freste....a: A Prxmj i pa:kttcosc.Suaayvafeusediusurveyfore!fee- ittthaanalysisofcesWts.Ifsutvayswetacon- ct9rn.tt>isaxtr~..w,et.nmtcw,t'sr..mal :;seness meuurcmeat. iactteasirtgeitiun pardeipa• dtteaed rcgWuly in a city. [tend data woWd bs a.tote e..n.reoo... Otda vo. 191st. Sew. 7'Re u.TS.> :[on. and setting goals. available. Ia addition. the eeview team sag. f Bested thu survey raWe from differcm cities 'Caneue cats. i'^a.°"r. A.rmq . saw..a.. litttm.ror. Gliratme Ma t91A. S~tm~ +y. Gliiuntr The eowmrr o: u j AaaaaarnerK ~ betbatpiled in s CaaCal clearinghouse and dis• P... , Ara. M ~t oenwn+.e y PoMie saJar ,Feemtary ~ On Deeemoer 11916. a atanagernem review ttibuted w other iruetested .:itiaa. Theses toms . ;y;~. tTke lar~am a avWaeta tens tC.\tA•s retmia a.pam I ~ :cam tact in C2tlcago to discuss eidua surveys. The e-.--~ don world ba most ureter if the soma o,,,r .y.:guy. m Pye, a,c, s,,.-s:l i ::p~ ; eptesenudves were Steve Cotter. ,..:~..r oe very sirnilarq[uuions were asked is various 1 manages. Siouc Cry. Iowa; David Rubiaxein, commurdties• ~ . ( tilt' supetsntertdeat• Zeeland. ~fichigaa: arm Ca- Then ace surprisingly few obstacles w exacta- . -[Ile Cates. assistant w the city manager. Suoay. tag asuceaziW~snrny. Tbeteis ample teciuti- .ale. California. The team mttabae were William _ cal assistaxe oa survey meMadobgy; aaalytie `nshat. Jr.. rows manager. Porto and Ctesterma. ability eaa be ftott;hror Sorrowed if it does aoc The iadividuatt listed hoe ats falailiu with the !adiana: t.eo Edson, city manager. Elgin Illinois: -axis oa city stab: theca ors reliable but rc!a- cirizea survaY process. Cmnee Hasa foe forever i :nd Rack Fukuhara. iC~f,i staff..isutttmatyoftha lively i.._.r_..W:-a ways w sutxy: citizens m 4scusswn is oeea:utrd blow. _ spond positively ro the ~ experieax infattttatioa. avdstvatt• initial pUaaing can ease queasiness i ~ David A. Rubinxein. Gry Su nteadem i Do I realty warn to know? Cider cortsiderrag - • _.,,.lts and prepare iar the uses of the don. 2I South Elm Stteac P~ cttiz:n surreys tiros rccogaiu that they vitf 8. Ths dtizaa survey can bs used regularly, even j Zeeland. Sfkhigaa 39dt64 i :ece:ve iniomauon. some of it new. sad some aonuallY• Aldtottgh oath of the cities used the (6I6) 77Z-x833 I of is uniavorabk. Accepting the risks of rifting stuYey as a oae•tims project, all saw the value j :s an important pretegttisita for using the don. in regular uses of a stttvay. Thn t5tture of citizen Exh of the cities varied in the amount of preps surnys is is iastittrdonaliang the process. Steve Cotter. Assistant City Yfanager 1 amtion: 2rland concentra[ed on ebe city 6N and Douglass Sheers _ I ~ council: Sioux City the council and ' ~ ~ - P.O. Box id? ~ department :reads: Sunnyvale 'qua. Comduaton Sioax Ciry, fovea it 102 :il. Jepaetments.:ommuairy groups, andcid• IttitiallythsttetralissueoPthemanagetrtentreview (?I2) 279-6t02 :.ens iard[etasule. a:amwas"Didrheusaofthedamjvsifytheeoscof Camille Cates.ASSistaactothaCiry .asking implies a willingness to net. The te• the survey?" The answer ro [his question by ono :few team saw a [wo•edged sword is asking pattieipm[was, "I havea5l9 mi1Gon btmgtt: how Hanaga env acting. "It's daageroua ro Yeue false ez• can [nor spenQ310.000 m sa if we're spanning it '36 wax Olive ,r_tauons appal tee ability, daitabiliry, or edeesiveiy." And the cities' experieaea showed P.O. Sox 601 ' puss:biliry of a govemmene to acs an all the that there wu a mots imporaat issw [o discuss. Sunnyvale. California 93088 iniarnattan it ,ets from a sutvry." Con• Citizen surveys rnnducted by lanl govenmtents !a081 ~9-0331 ~erxiy. ;c is unfair sad unrealistic :o expect are mote than ceciudques for meastmag public sets -oohing w to Sone an the basis of the survey viaeSectiver.ass:suneysareaprocesaaadoppor- resorts. Survey don should be added :o the lanky to involving individuals sad community ' ~;..^.r. ;afornanon [iwt intluenas dry policy Stoups k the decision making process. .ad o:oaraas. Those rndividuak involved in Citizen surveys have Droved themxlves a rcti- :he curs:y ;rxess should undeetand that a sole way to systematically collect useful informs- Credits citizen sunray wdl provide iniortmuion. ra uon ;eat Gamut a obWned u :nexpensnni}' any This report is a produr, of ;he intttnauonai Ci[y I asy answers or ptecix mmdates..>ll :hre: ocher way. T.`.e technical icnowledae for cpndtict• Management .>ssa[:uion's Lxai Guvemment Re• ::zees aced on the results. Zeeand msponded ing a sunset' is available to any try. These tax search Guliza[ion and Innovanun P%ec[ funded yu:exh• with a highly visible project: Sioux studies illusrnte trot cinzen surveys can be used by by ;he Office of In[e:~ocerttmentai Sc:r..ce and Cie incotporseed information in [he budgtt cities of various sizes and for various purposes. The Pablic Technology of the rational Science Foun• process, and Sunnyvale approved cioua task critua! factor in the success of a sun•ev is how dation. Grant Yumlier {SR1i-:1a89. Gtateial ap- for-.e rxommendations during ;.te regular management fatales on the ate of titian feeds prcciatipn is repressed w the city otfcciais ~~+'to Sudaet ;recess. back. supplied inr'otmu[ton forthis repot. Serial ehanfcs J. TSox who parinpate in the survey proceu are are gi•ea to Har.•: Harry of the C: can taxitwe and Tore liiteiv ;o use ;tt results. The .:teuion :o Louis Bloir of the Executive Office ai :he Ptesi• _ involve vaneus ciizens and 3mtiv: in ;he sur• s.n.,eu vr.:e as if.n. P N,e..o~v+. c::,;,, ve.:eor.: T"• jeer. Offix of Science and Technoioay Policy for vet' placers affects rite content of :he gaeu:on- '0"' '"O1 M1 ^ pmvidint: commeau and materais contained her.. v `l Mn Infntwe. C.rari we,..:1.1'AJfn ~ aairc.:he method for mparing rosc!s. 'ae a• - ~ .•r , - ~ Susestec ;::anon: Ca.^ii!e Cams. "Cling Ci:i• :erpmtanon of results, sad :he ar.:vn Sz..e_ ~f ior~-~ Aooro,c:=.e<.~' t;umcioai ;he RSWIS - 1':"^.. t..... f ~ 1~t.^.g. • a >Sw gUCSnOr.. '+`,e!~ .::Ziff :[tail _ _ - . ~ . _ >a•.kr- QueSUJrtS ::af ac~hca '_•t .~f ~ ` •t••S r _ . _ t • \ 1 DEAR BURNSVILLE RES{OENT: We are conductin a second annual o ini n rv g p o su ey to help us measure our erformance over last ear and to continue P Y providing you with the kind of programs and services that meet your needs. Your responses to these questions will provide a major source of information to the City Council when we establish priorities, programs and projects for the 1984 Budget and the five-year Capital Improvements Program. , We need to know what you think of our performance and how you want us to spend yourtax dollar. Please take advantage of this opportunity to express your feelings and offer your suggestions. We appreciate your time and assistance on this survey. -The Burnsville City Council DIRECTIONS: WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE QUESTIONNAIRE, DROP IT IN ANY MAILBOX BY MAY 31. NO POSTAGE IS NECESSARY. THE POST OFFICE ASKS YOUR COOPERATION IN STAPLING ORTAPING THE FOLDED SURVEY RESPONSE WITH THE RETURN ADDRESS VISIBLE. - - ~ ~ - = ~ ~ 8. Compared to other cities I've lived in, crime in - - - - - ~ Burnsville is: Check one answer in each of the following: A greater problem About the same A lesser problem 1. I have used a Burnsville park or recreation area in 9. My neighborhood is safe to live in: the past year. Yes ~ No Yes No 10. My main concern is: (check only one) 2. The level of maintenance in the park system is: personal safety Excellent Good Fair Poor burglary 3. The recreational/leisure time programming meets traffic/pedestrian safety the needs of the community: vandalism Yes No drugs 4. The appearance of the boulevards along our major juvenile problems roads is: I have no concerns about crime Excellent Good Fair Poor ethers not listed above: 5. I have used the services of the Bumsville Police De- partment in the last year: Yes No 11. I have used the services of the Burnsville Fire De- If Yes, partment in the last year. a. The service was: Yes No Excellent rood Fair Poor If Yes, b. The response time to my call was: a. The service was: Excellent food Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor_ c. The officer was courteous: b. The response time to my calf was: Yes No Excellent Good Fair Poor d. The officer projected a professional image: c. The firefighter was helpful: Yes No Yes No 6. The overall service of the Bumsville Police Depart- d. The firefighter projected a professional image: meet is: Yes No Excellent food Fair Poor 12. The overall service of the Bumsville Fire Depart- . 7. I think crime is a major problem in Burnsville: meet is: Yes No Excellent Good Fair Poor 13. tf your business establishment received a fire safety 25. I have contacted City Hall in the past year: inspec#ion in the past year, it was handled: Yes No a. In a professional manner. If Yes, the response was: Yes No Excellent Good Fair Poor b. In a thorough manner. 26. The City's overall performance in communtc Yes No key issues to the community is: c. In a courteous manner: Excellent Good Fair Poor Yes No 27. To me, a good street system is: 14. The removal of snow and ice from public sidewalks Very important Important is: Not important Excellent Good Fair Poor 28. The overall street- system in Bumsville is: 15. The snow and ice removal from city streets is: Excellent (very I'ittte congestion) Excellent Good Fair Poor Adequate (some congestion) 16. The maintenance of city streets is: Poor (extreme congestion) Excellent Good Fair Poor 29. The Burnsville street system is safe to drive: 17. Street lighting is adequate: Yes No a. At major intersections: If No, the City should consider these improve- Yes No meets: b. In residential neighborhoods: Wider Streets Yes No Additional. Signals 18. My neighborhood currently has stree# lighting: More Sidewalks & Bike Paths Yes No More Speed Control If No, I would support and pay for the installation Additional Striping & Signs and maintenance of such street lighting: Additional Streets Yes No ether. 19. The control of animals is a problem: Yes No 20. I have used the city's animal control services in the 30. Add other comments or suggestions you have past year. about present services: Yes No 21. I am a pet owner: Yes No 22. The overall quality.. of commercial and industrial development in Burnsville is: Excellent Good Fair Poor 23. Overall, the appearance of Bumsville is: Very attractive _ Attractive Average Unattractive 24. Burnsville receives about 20% of your property tax 1. I'm in favor of charging a "users" fee for recrea- dollar (see diagram below). Please rate the value of tional facilities that need special maintenance (i. e. city services you get for that money: baseball, softball, soccer, hockey, etc.): Excellent Good Fair Poor Yes No DAKOTA COUNTY 17.8 PERCENT ~ POLICE AND FIRE ~ 10.0 PERCENT YOUR CITY OF ~ SCHOOL BURNSVILLE ~ DISTRICT 20.0 ~ PUBLIC WORKS - {i 91 ~ PERCENT ~ 5.0 PERCENT 58.4 PERCENT , ~ PARKS ~ 3.0 PERCENT METROPOLITAN ALL OTHER CITY TAX DISTRICT 2.0 PERCENT 3.8 PERC>=NT This diagram shows how your property taxes are spent. The City receives 20 cents of your property tax dollar. " 2. Si'ncethestatenolongerfinancesthediseasedtree street cleaning program, I'm in favor of local tax dollars supporting Storm drainage maintenance this program: - Snow and ice removal (streets) Yes No snow and ice removal (sidewalks) 3. I'm in favor of local tax dollars financing tree main- other tenance on parklands, boulevards, public property, and right-of-ways: Yes No 13. If cutbacks in present City services become neces- 4. To eliminate overlap and standardize pickup days, sary, these three services should NOT be cut (list the City should sign an exclusive contract far gar` three; with #1 being the last to be cut, #2 being the bags pickup: second from the last, eta) Yes No nark maintenance 5. The City should enforce the existing ordinance recreational/leisure opportunities requiring property owners to remove snow and ice forestry program from their own sidewalks: zoning and environmental enforcement Yes No animal control S. I would support and pay for a program to improve fire suppression the water quality of fakes, ponds, and streams: fire prevention Yes No ~mbuiance service 7. City Hall needs new office space: .rime prevention Yes No ~riminai investigation If Yes, the City should considerbuiidingnewoffices police patrol in the Civic Center Complex: .Street maintenance Yes No Street construction 8. The City should initiate a voluntary home fire safety street cleaning inspection program: storm drainage maintenance Yes No snow and ice removal (streets) I would participate in such a program: snow and ice removal (sidewalks) Yes No tether 9. List other recreational facilities you think the City should provide: (check the two most important to you) Municipal Swimming Pool 14. Add other comments or suggestions you have Cultural- Facility/Community Theater about the future direction of Burnsville: Pedestrian/Bike Traits Golf Course Other (please specify) 10. Improving the appearance of boulevards along major roads should be a top budget priority for the City: Yes No 11. The City should offer incentives to encourage eco- nomic develo ment: P Yes No (If you operate a business in Burnsville, but don't live 12. If cutbacks in present City services become neees- here ski p questions 1-11 and go on to question 12.) sary, these three services should be cut (list three; with#1 beingyourfirstchoiceforcutting,#2beingyour 1. I've lived in Burnsviiie~ second, etc.) Less than one year 1-5 years park maintenance ~-10 years 10-20 years recreational/leisure opportunities ever 20 years forestry program 2. Sex: zoning and environmental enforcement Male Female animal control 3. Age: _ fire suppression ~ _ 18-25 26-35 ?6-50 fire prevention 51-64 65 and Over . ambulance service 4. Marital Status: crime prevention Single Married Widowed criminal investigation Separated/Divorced police patrol 5. People living in my household: street maintenance 1 ? 3-4 S-8 9 or More street construction 6. Chiidrert under 18 who live with me: Age Category How Many 0-5 years BURNSVILLE s-12 years NEIGHBORHOODS 13-18 years 7. The principal income provider is: JER Employed Unemployed Retired R~ 8. The principal income provider works in Burnsville: Yes No , f 9. My family's total income for 1982 was: EgO~ P ~ Under510,000 $10,000 to 525,000 ~,p\NN ~ X25,000 to $50,000 550,000 or more ' ~ , 10. Housing: ~ ej a. nwn Rent ~ b. Type: Z 2 Detached Single Family duplex . H~G/yH,gY = ~ _ Townhouse/Condominium Apartment ~,i _ 11. Please refer #o map. 1 reside in Sectar: H f' 1 2 4 ~ R 3 0 12. For non-resident business owners oNy - - - - - - - _ M _ ~ . v r' a. I have operated a business in Burnsville: 4 less than 1 year 1.5 years y~i 5-10 years 10 years or more ~ b. Refer to map. My business is located in Becton COUNTY 1 ? 3 4 5 6 - R~ Bulk Rate ~ c,,••~ U.S. Postage 5 Q V PAID 3~ f Bumsville, MN = Permit No. 44 ~ Thank you for your cooperation. Please. remember to fold, tape or sfapJe and return this pre-posted survey prior to may Postal Customer 31, 1983. Bumsville, MN 55337. PLEASE FOLD. TAPfl OR STAPLE AND RETURN -------------------------------------------------------------vv NO POSTAGE NECESSARY IF MAILED IN THE BUS1 N ESS REPLY NlA1 L UNITED STATES FIRSTCLASS PERMIT N0.2 BURNSVILLE. MINNESOTA POSTAGE WILL 6E PAID BY ADDRESSEE City of Burnsville 1313 E. Highway 13 Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 e I SERVICE EVALUATIONS AP:D POLICY PRIORITIES: A SURVEY OF D~KALS CITIZENS - L. Douglas Dobson Center for Governmental Studies Joseph E. Grush Department of Psychology Center for Governmental Studies Herbert J. Rubin _ Department of Sociology Center for Governmental Studies i;orthern Illinois University EXECUTIVE Str,~IARY SERVICE EVALUATIO:S A"~D POLICY FRIOR TIES: A SURVEY OF DEKhLB CITIZENS i At the reque of the DeYalb City Council, the Cer. ~r for Governmental Studies at tdorthe c Illinois university surveyed 801 ci ~ residents who were randomly selected :o represent a full cross-section of ie De Ka lb population (excluding Northe z Illinois University students residi ~ in on-campus facili- ties). The surve explored four major areas: (1) citi 'r. satisfaction with present city serv ,e s; (2) citizen contact with city gc ~rnment and utilization of city supported services; (3) citizen opinions about ~ternative ways of reducing city ser _ces; and (4).citizen opinions about ~ternative ways of increasing city r• =enues. In general, citizens were sa ~_sfied with services, wanted only increr ~ntal changes in either the taY struc ire or service levels, - and were willing ~ 2ccept some specific changes to red ~e governmental expenditures. Maior Findings Citizen Sati: action. Citizens evaluated city ser -ces related to (1) transportation, public safety, (3) water quality, solid waste disposal, and (5} city clear iness. Overall, the results indicate that - With the e: option of selected transportation se: ices, there was a high level of c: izen satifaction with se n=ice provid• by the city. - Within the rea of transportation services, citi: ns were least satisfied with the cc dition of city streets. - In addition more than a majority rated sidewalk onditions, downtown traffic flc and downtown parking as "fair," "p• r," or "very poor." - Comparisons ,etween various types of Dec:alb citi; ns did not modify the - abo~ae finds in am= substantial caay. Students, enters, and those not registered o vote in DeKalb County tended to be lightly less positive about city ~rvices than were permanent residents homeowners, ar.d registered oters. i • Citizens were also asked to provide an overall assessment of city government. Results indicate that - Evaluations of the city manager, city staff, and city council were gener- ally positive. - A majority of citizens felt that city staffing levels were "about right," but a sizable minority (just under one third) thought that there were "too many" city employees. - A majority of citizens reported that wage increases for city workers should be about the same as the rate of inflation. Contact with City Government and Service Utilization,. A substantial frac- tion of DeKalb citizens have had direct contact with city government. Many others have utilized services funded in part b y the city, such as the Voluntary Action Center (VAC), PeKalb Community Coordinated Child Care (4C), the Senior Citizen Center, the Youth Services Bureau (YSB), and the bus system. - Over 40 percent reported having at least one contact with the Police Department in the last year and about 16 percent reported direct. contact with the Fire Department. About 16 percent also reported having called city offices. ~ - Among citizens reporting contact with city government, evaluation of services provided was generally as high or higher than in the total sample. - About five percent of the sample reported having used the services of VAC, 4C, and I'SB, and just under ten percent reported having used the Senior Citizens Center. - More than half of the sample reported having made use of the bus system. Students, renters, and those not registered to vote in De Ka lb were sub- stantially more likely to have used the bus than were permanent resi- dents, homeowners, and registered voters. Alternative G1avs of P.educinQ City Services. Citizens were asked whether city services should be reduced to balance the budget or if city services should be maintained even if a tax increase would be required. They were also asked specifice questions on how the city should reduce services. - Overall, a slight majority reported that present service levels should be maintained, even if some additional tax revenue would be required. However, citizens who wished to maintain services Supported only Small i increases in taxes. ii - Across different categories of DeF:alb tesider.ts, there was some variation of opinion. Both permanent residents and registered voters .split about evenly in their judgments as to whether services should be maintained or reduced. Among homeowners, the majority felt that services should be reduced. A majority of students, renters, and those not registed to vote in De Ka lb supported maintenance of current service levels. - Ar.~ong those citizens who wished to reduce services, most felt that reduc- tions should come in the area of public works. There was much less willingness to making service reductions in either police, fire, or social services. - Within Public kTorks, the fall leaf pick-up program and street cleaning were judged to be primary candidates for service reductions. There was virtually no support for reducing services related to street repair er snaw removal. - Although there was little support to reduce community social services, respondents indicated that if the Council is forced to make some reduc- tions, they should be made first in the Youth Services Bureau. Several specific proposals were considered as potential ways to save money. - Across all categories of citizens, a substantial majority endorsed - A proposal to require alternate side of street parking after snowstorms to speed up snow removal. - A proposal to increase police response time in non-emergency situations. - A proposal to reduce the frequency of street cleaning. - A proposal which would require drivers involved in minor accidents to report to the police station rather than having the police appear at the scene. - Across all categories of citizens, proposals which were regarded as unacceptable included - Increasing the time it takes to remove snow from residential neighborhoods. - Eliminating city support for the bus service. - Increasing police response time in emergency situations. ` Alternative Wads of Increasing Citti* Revenues. Pssuming general tax increases to be necessary, citizens were asl:ed to choose between a vehicle sticker fee, a real estate transfer tax, a gasoline tax, and a utilities ta_~t. - Across all categories of citizens, the two favored methods to increase revenues were iii - The imposition of a vehicle sticker fee, and - The imposition of a tax on the sale of real estate• - There was little support for a gasoline tax to increase general revenues and even less support for an increase in utility taxes. 'In addition to the possibility of tax increases for general. revenue, three proposals for ea marked tax increases to support specific services were considered: All categories of citizens supported a two cent per gallon gasoline tax earmarked exclusively for the maintenance of city streets. - All categories of citizens opposed having special assessments on home- owners for streets and sewer repairs near their homes. - All categories of citizens rejected imposing a flat tax on each household to support a "free" bus service. iv S Table 1 • CITI7.E`3 EVALUATI0:7S OF TR.'L:SPORT.nTIO:: 9 S[:iiVICLS: SF.LEC'CL'L~ CROi:FS (PF.RCE21'CA(: E:S ) . ~ U U 1' SERVICES ResiJ~nc Stucier.t H~+neo~ner Renter Voter ::.~n-VOtrr SN01! REb:OVAL - Excellent/Good 67.U 53.0 72.9 53.5 66.8 5:,.3 Fsir 24.5 31.2 20.7 3I.9 23.0 3:.c Poor/Very ?oor 8.I 15.8 b.4 i4.6 1G.2 12.3 Total 100.0 100.0 lUU.O 100.0 lU;,.G lOt;.U (n~ (515) (2,R5) (362) (412) (53G~) (.'0) STREET REPAIRS Excellent/Good 15.:. 16.3 1A.4 10.5 16.U » Fair 36.5 42,4 39.9 3i.6 3~.(i jl.~i Poor/Very Poor 45.3 41.3 41.7 45..9 43.~~ 'S.: Total 100.0 1C+U . 0 l OG . 0 100.0 l OC . 0 . 1 t::r, G (n) (512) {283) (35S) (»31) (526) (?b~) 5IDLISALK CONDZTIONS Excellent/Good 42.4 47.b 42.i 45.». 43.6 Fsir 43.2 44.7 45.5 :2.9 »3.» Poor/Very Poor 14.4 7.7 i2.6 11.7 13.0 10.T f Total 100.0 1C0.0 1G~~.U :00.0 100.0 i~ai.U , (n) (49S) (234) (349) (~•27) (526) ("luc.) Ix~t.:ITG~I.".i T:LIFFIC FLOU Excellent/Cool 4b.a 43.8 »3.4 43.F> 4a,6 G7.7 Fair 38.1 42.0 3G.5 »2.0 79.0 ~ Poor/Very Poor 15.1 i».= 15.1 14.3 1G.4 Total lOC.~ IU0.0 lUU.O lUU.O 1GC.U 1nn.G (n) (4£.S) (281) (337) (42G) (;U2) ( i:EICf3E0Rii000 Ti'v1FFiC FLCa Excellent/Good 16.4 73.6 17.0 7».7 '0.7 '_.S Fair 16.1 21.8 23.8 2i.1 16.2 X1.9 Puor/Very Poar 7.5 4.6 9.2 ».0 ..1 5. Total iCQ.U 100.0 1CU.0 100.0 1GO.U 10U.0 (n) (503) (285) (35b) (431) (52.) (2L~+) A01.^.:T01.^.7 P+LRKI:iG Excellent/:,ood ~ 49.7 33.7 51.2 33.1 »8.7 Fair 31.b »1.6 30.0 39.3 :t.~~ 3?.b Poor/Very Poor 13.7 2».7 18.8 22.6 iS./. 25.7 Totai 100.0 100.0 IU0.0 100.0 100.6 if+G.U (4137) (279) (3»0) (»20) (501) (2~5) j ~ Figure 2 ~ CITIZEN EVALUATIONS • OF PUBLfC SAFETY SERVICES (PERCENTAGES} EXCELLENT/GOOD ~ ~ FAIR POOR/VERY POOR FIRE PROTECTION :i}`,~.:~..:;{..~x ~ SERVICES •'~f~<.jr4•:,[~~'~~,y%,,#~~ ~r y~~~'~•~.. ^%rY ~'S}~': ~[ti.V; ,~i,:f~iiv • ".'Pr,.iY'• v ~ •{+\{~,r~~~F:;~h' 90 9 1 ` POLICE PROTECTION +:.•x:>~~~ • S R V I C E S '{:~,:;{,;,{r ,.,;•~>c... ~ ~ry~~~,{ ~3~.{::~• ,t ::y~•:ti{S~~rrr"'{F~{:, r• ~,.cG~.'i/~~C+•..~.••,:~ "~i~:i`i'~•~{~•r• •r~ 82 16 2 . ENFORCEMENT'•~•:-~ffi;7~:;''•~;.'':4 y}~;°:>,~.:.;._~`~:5j::~ i y'r.:::;v sry ~:?t :•`•:~Y•~>:~ OF PARKING IAVVS s6~3~~~ {•r' 75 19 6 ENFORCEMENT ;:may; tio-••~;,;y:r•:<i~Y' ~ u~ ~F'y.~~C~"`~~`(~~i %~':•~:;o :o. y O F TRAFFIC LAWS • ~.~::{~'~••••'n.; w y{~s~w. : , ~ r r~, • 72 22 6 NOISE C 0 N T R O L s:: ~>:;;c~~:''•:,,•i".,~r: ~x:.. ~::2~:;.•.r-;::;, , rwsr~..:5~ / B Y POLICE ~ •:'~;%•ti ~ r. ~as~:. . r :vc,~`.r.?•:u:;.•5\c~iiw~.:2.{{~;.•~r,.~.?`~:`i~S~`.~3}ti~i~~Y~'•~~r'~••~.::<•~§~d:+.?<~::; 72 20 8 ^d E (GHQ 0 R H 00 D Utz;{.;,.; ; K • :•L.~.. ~ • ~ {mss 3,::~• • ~::~~:~i f~,<:, / / P O l i C E PATROL {Y « ;.s c;•.,.a;~:::: •f:~{'{ m:+}9.0.^v.{•~ ' rW: 70 23 7 E I G i•i B O R H O O D ~~..~~,'::?=s ~:~;y.:_~yy~~~,~~~ ti yv'~t;;{:~;;:~xe:~~;:: V ...ice. •.~,~sf.~~•5:;;>vl;.:.,7?2'y~~+~i~~:{~~yr.'~+x,;?;+~{' STREET l i G H T ~ N G ;.:4?•,;^r,~ :u~t;:~:~w L~KS+~ ~"r 56 27 17 24 Figure 9 BUS SYSTEM USAGE BY SELECTED GROUPS INFvf~ T t ''F I OL ~t ~Nr alOUi NtI~ ~",y 15.80 i fif dt:f N r1+ EvEt++O•+ FREQL'ENTLv fK NEVER 70.5''0 24.2°.~o EVERYDAY 56.2% RESIDENTS STUDENTS y9~ , a s^~ i o n NEVER - ~ G, - . ~R ooFOU[Nrtr ~~a AfCb`c'~A 27.9~s ~y cr~` e•+ FRE(]UCt:TLY NEVER 72.4°,~o t8 94l EVERYDAY 36.3% HOMEOWNERS RENTERS ~ 13.9% rnEOUfNrlr ti° to 9E. a 14 2~' ,~d~l EVERYDAY r cREnUENT.r NEVER ~NrnEOUFNt'lr 35.9°Jo 55.7°k ' EVERYr~ar ,e 2°5 NEVER 33.0% VOTERS NONVOTERS 1 , 32 Figure 13 CITIZEN PREFERENCE FOR MAINTENANCE OF CITY SERVICES AND FIRST CUT AMONG SELECTED GROUPS ].a% 7 9% CVt i:aE CUi Ira( ] Z% CVt SOCUE SEawCES 6 2% CUt ?GUCE Wi ?OUCE T.1% t d% CUT SOG~M. SE avrCES CUT PUBLIC MAINTAIN CUT WORKS SERVIC'cS PUBIC -14.6% WORKS 50.0% MAINTAIN SERVICES 32.6'/0 . 71.5°.'0 RESIDENTS STUDENTS. tp J~ ^Ut i+aF ~ CUT SOCttI SEavrCES t~% ~ ee~ CUi SOCUE SEnv+CES MAINTAIN CUT SERVICES Pueuc MAINTAIN WORKS ' CUT PUBLIC 17.99'0 42 9~' WORKS SERVICES 35.39'0 69.3°6 HOMEOWNERS RENTERS GUi i+af CUT fIR£ - CUt IOUCf - CL'i SOCrt! SEav:CES ~ . CUi SOUAI SERVICES ~ .r CUt ?OUCE o ~ n ~ ~o • CUT FAINTAIN CUT PUBLIC SERVICES PUBLIC MAINTAIN WORKS WORKS SERVICES .19.5% 53.3'/0 29'4"° 65.5% VOTERS NONVOTERS figure 15 . RENT pF CITIZENS PE pF Vp,R1OUS APPROVViNO PROPOSES coS~' S~ sa.~°~ 1 1 7 5°/° 65.3'° 50°f° ' ~ 33.9% 21.9°I° ~ t1.Q"I° 1 ' ~ Oetayed ~~{aYed bus Service onse- peportsny Snow RcsP nelayed Reduced pwn Mrnor EmefgencY Street Recnovat Approval Alternate ponce ~ Accidents Parking Response- Cleaning {ndex (Si~owl Routine J~ X1 C 1&ure 2~ SLY 1~1G pR ST'R MENTS CENT 5Uppt3 ECIAI. p~SSES.~E~pR1E~ P UPp~RTiNG p~E ANQ 6Y'CA S N1 w ER A~t~ s A 7 5°~° 42,3% . 43.5°~ 45.3% 50% 3g.0% 30.3% 34.7 °/O 28.3°~ 22.5% 27.5°k 250 NON _VOTER . RENTER VOTER ~ RESIDENT OWNER o STVDEN MAIN _ RA REDUCE APPROVAL O AMpEE SERVICES S~~VICES INDEX