Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.19.91 Council Packet AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR FEBRUARY 19, 1991 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. APPROVE MINUTES a. February 12, 1991 - Regular 4. CITIZENS COMMENTS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. LMC Information Relating to LGA Cuts b. Proclaim Week of February 18-22, 1991 as National FFA Week c. Metropolitan Council Hearings - Regional Airport Sites d. Consulting Planner's Contract 7. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS a. Approving Amendment to the VRWMC Joint Powers Agreement b. Senior Center Advisory Council Ordinance Changes c. Amending Therapeutic Massage Ordinance Relating to Change in Location d. Accept Donation of 1983 Chevy Pickup - Fire Department 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Celebrate Minnesota 1990 - East Side of Railroad Tracks b. Garage Rental c. City Survey d. Farmington Industrial Park Storm Sewer Trunk e. Assessment Policy f. SE Area Storm Sewer Project g. Project 87-7 - Fairground Sewer and Water Improvements h. Resource Recovery Facility Siting 9. NEW BUSINESS a. Farmington Green Development b. Dakota County CIP 10. MISCELLANEOUS a. Appointment to Human Rights Commission 11. CONSENT AGENDA a. Final Pay Estimate - Revised - Dakota County Estates Sixth Addition b. Change Order No. 1 - Mini-Pumper Truck - Fire Department c. Public Works Personnel - Budget Adjustment d. Approve Price Changes - Weight Based System e. Capital Outlay Request - Public Works f. Approve Metropolitan Council Grant Agreement - Weight Based System g. Building Inspection Mutual Aid Agreement h. Council Workshop Contract i. Accept Improvement in Dakota County Estates Sixth Addition j . School/Conference Request - Building Inspection k. School/Conference Request - Fire Department 1. Budget Adjustment Finance m. Capital Outlay Request - Finance n. Approve Payment of the Bills 12. ADJOURN Fr ' AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. a. i NAME: Larry Thompson -1Cx u jViL-DEPARTMENT: Administration ,1 ,f}�� DATE: February 8, 1991 1N �Ci MEETING DATE: February 19, 1991 CATEGORY: Petitions, Requests and Communications SUBJECT: LMC Information Relating to LGA Cuts EXPLANATION: 'Consider drafting a position relating to proposed LGA cuts. REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Memo/LMC Information - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Department Heads 1. SI �' 1 MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: LGA CUTS DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1991 Attached please find a letter from the LMC relating to LGA cuts. While I will be able to attend the first part of the Hastings meeting (the ALF retreat is at 11:00 A.M.) I will not be able to attend the "Lobby Day" because I will be at the Blandin Leadership Seminar. I feel this issue is important enough to send at least one representative from Farmington to the February 20, 1991 session. If no councilmember can attend, I would suggest Wayne Henneke be directed to attend. Regarding the recommendation of writing of letters, I have already sent a letter to our State representatives (copy sent recently) . The Council may wish to draft another letter incorporating the points outlined in the LMC information. Earry Thmpson City Administrator cc: Department Heads Jerry Henricks file • FEBU , 1991 183 University Ave.East INIEMME St.Paul,MN 55101-2526 League of Minnesota Cities (612)227-5600(FAX:221-0986) February 6, 1991 Mr. Larry Thompson Administrator 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Mr. Thompson: As you already know, the legislature is considering further cuts in state aid to cities. Governor Carlson's current proposal calls for a cut of $21 million in aid to cities. This proposal has already passed the House and is sure to pass the Senate this week. It is rumored that cities may be hit with an additional $200 million cut in Pay 1992-93. Its time to be heard! The League of Minnesota Cities is attempting to target House and Senate Tax Committee members. It is the League's feeling that if we can better inform these legislators, we may preempt further cuts. But we need your help. I have already contacted David Osberg from the City of Hastings to set up a meeting with your tax committee member. He will serve as the contact person for this meeting. The meeting will be held at Hastings in the City Hall February 15 at 10:00 a.m. If you are able to attend, please contact David and he will provide you with additional information. Additionally, the League is setting up a "Lobby Day" for all tax district cities. On February 20, you are encouraged to come to the Capitol to lobby hometown legislators and tax committee members. We will begin at 9:30 a.m. with an issue briefing in Room 300N of the State Office Building. During the day, you will have a chance to meet with your legislators. Other activities may include a rally, a press conference or public testimony. Remember, the more cities represented, the greater the affect. A third tactic is letter writing. Attached is a list of major points and suggested topics for letters to legislators. You may use this list to personalize your letter while making persuasive arguments. You may want to share this information with the City Council, the Chamber of Commerce, city employees and residents and encourage them to do the same. Mr. Larry Thompson Page 2 Your cooperation in this effort is crucial. Not only will you be benefitting your city, but cities just like yours across the State. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (612) 227-5600 or Dave Osberg (612) 437-4127. Thank you for your time and assistance. Wit Sincere Regards, A-44-1,405 ::- cv-14 m Stigman LMC Legislative Assistant enc. cc: Mr. David Osberg, City Administrator City of Hastings January 28, 1991 . MAIN POINTS FOR LETTERS TO LEGISLATORS A. State aid allows cities to provide services that are essential and vital to the well being of our communities; i.e. safe streets, fire protection, safe water and sanitation services, adequate housing, programs for youth and disadvantaged persons, senior citizen services, parks and recreation and library services. B. Elimination of or cuts in state aid to cities will cause property taxes to escalate dramatically and will also cause cutbacks in essential city services. C. Cities are not the cause of the current budget crisis. LGA and property tax relief have been declining as a share of state spending. LGA has dropped from six percent of the general fund in fiscal 1982 to less than five percent in fiscal 1991. D. The State has already sliced aid to cities. $85 million of aid was taken from cities and transferred to schools in 1989; cities took another $15. 6 million cut in 1990; the state eliminated the $30 million LGA inflation adjustment in Pay 1991 and all future years; and cities are set to take another $29 million cut in local aids for 1992 and 1993 . Now, the Governor is proposing another $21 million cut for Pay 1990 and E. Cities have been frugal spenders. Public employment has fallen and per capita city spending was virtually unchanged in 1989 from its level in 1980. According to the Census Bureau, full-time equivalent employment in Minnesota cities fell by 627 between 1987 and 1989. During the same time period, state government employment increased by 1, 494. F. State aid is critical to low wealth cities. For cities with tax capacities of less than $500, LGA represents over half of their revenues. There are 651 cities with capacities under $500 with nearly one million persons living in those cities. For these cities, large cuts would mean either very large tax increases or large cutbacks in essential city services. G. The elimination of LGA would exacerbate the tax rate. disparities that already exist between cities and adjoining townships. This disparity is caused by the elimination or reduction of LGA because townships generally no longer receive any LGA. AGENDA REQUEST FORM (ob ITEM NO. NAME: Larry Thompson # DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: February 8, 1991 I MEETING DATE: February 19, 1991 CATEGORY: Petitions, Requests and Communications SUBJECT= Proclaim Week of February 18-22 as National FFA Week EXPLANATION: Self Explanatory REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Mr. Turner - Farmington High School REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: SIGNA►j! " r PROCLAMATION * 1991 FFA WEEK Liiiti -4. oital ��r►``►� FEBRUARY 16-23 ,.� Leadership fore growing planet WHEREAS, the FFA with agricultural education is a strong force for America's agriculture; and WHEREAS, the FFA and agricultural education are changing to provide training for the new high-tech careers of agriculture; and WHEREAS, members of the FFA are playing an outstanding role in assuring the future progress and prosperity of our nation; and WHEREAS, the FFA motto—"Learning to do, doing to learn; earning to live, living to serve"—gives a direction of purpose to these students who are Providing Leadership for a Growing Planet; and WHEREAS, the FFA performs the valuable service of developing leadership, encouraging cooperation, promoting good citizenship, teaching modern information and inspiring patriotism among its members, THEREFORE, I do hereby designate the week of February 16 through 23, 1991 as FFA Week. , 1991 Support Agricultural Education AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. e' P'" NAME: Larry Thompson 1(f� DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: February 6, 1991 ,,Qy MEETING DATE: February 19, 1991 CATEGORY: Petitions, Requests and Communications SUBJECT: Metropolitan Council Hearings - Regional Airport Sites EXPLANATION: General discussion, strategy formulation relating to upcoming hearings to be held in Farmington. REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Notice - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administrator Department Heads Jerry Henricks EDC/HRA 721 SIGNA r. . MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: REGIONAL AIRPORT - SCHEDULED MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 1991 Attached please find notices of upcoming Metropolitan Council meetings relating to the Regional Airport Search Areas. It should be noted that I am attending a meeting today to discuss forming a Dakota County Task Force. The notice is being sent for your information and any subsequent action you wish to take on the issue/meeting. 4V1t9 Larry Thompson City Administrator cc: Development Committee file �; METRO DIGEST • service road construction along Hwy. 49. Refining spent-bauxite-facility expansion. The Council approved a Shoreview comprehensive The Council disapproved a request to lift the plan amendment to restrict development of the development limitation on a Hennepin County "park" portion of the Rice Creek corridor into a candidate landfill site in the city of Dayton. golf course. The Council approved a permit application for a The Council revised its planning assistance loan St. Paul facility that would transfer medical wastes guidelines and extended the term of the guidelines to an incineration facility in Fargo,North Dakota. to Dec. 31, 1993. Transportation—The Council approved the The Council found the draft EIS for the Inver scoping document and draft scoping document Grove Heights Resort Community to be decision for Hwy. 100 from Glenwood to 50th Av. incomplete with regard to sanitary-sewer demand N. The Council will encourage the Minnesota and wetland impacts,among other items,and said Department of Transportation to retain the four- these items must be addressed in the final EIS. lane freeway alternative (including meters and HOV by-passes) for further study in the Parks--The Council approved a request to extend environmental impact statement (EIS). the Riverfront Regional Park acquisition grant to June 30 and at that time transfer the balance of The Council approved a Transportation Advisory the grant to the Mississippi Gorge Regional Park Board request that no new projects be solicited in acquisition grant. 1991 for the Federal Aid Urban Program. The Council approved a request to transfer the The Council gave final approval for Eden Prairie's balance of the Central Mississippi Riverfront application for a $135,000 loan to purchase the Regional Park Phase 1 development grant to the Gilk property within the right-of-way of the Hwy. Central Mississippi Riverfront Regional Park 212 alignment. Phase 2 development grant. The Council approved Richfield's preliminary Solid Waste--The Council accepted the application for a hardship loan to purchase Metropolitan Landfill Abatement Account Grant property needed for Interstate Hwy. 494 Financial Audit Report. construction. The Council awarded$119,696 in capital assistance grants to the cities of West St. Paul, Farmington, PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HEARINGS Newport, St. Paul Park and Hennepin County. Candidate Airport Search Areas Meetings--The The Council granted $98,239 in residential Council will hold a series of meetings in February recycling bins grants to the cities of Vadnais and March on the three candidate search areas for Heights, Lake St. Croix Beach, Stillwater, Lino a possible new major airport. The first set of three Lakes, Maplewood, New Brighton, Fridley and meetings will for the Council's New Airport Search Stillwater Township. Area Advisory Task Force, Council members and local officials in each respective search area.These The Council awarded $75,059 in education and meetings are set as follows: technical assistance grants to the St. Paul • Dakota Candidate Search Area - Thursday, Neighborhood Energy Consortium and the Feb.21,7-9:30 p.m.,Dakota County Technical Education Cooperative Service Unit. College,Room 1306, 1300 145th St. E., Rosemount. The Council approved a solid waste permit for •Anoka-Isanti-Chicago Candidate Search Area- construction and operation of the Koch Refining Tuesday, Feb. 26, 7-9:30 p.m., Isanti Middle demolition debris landfill. School Cafeteria, 201 Centennial Drive (Co. Rd. 5), Isanti. The Council approved an industrial solid waste * Dakota-Scott Candidate Search Area - permit for construction and operation of the Koch Thursday,Feb.28,7-9:30 p.m.,Dakota Electric >~j*1 METRO DIGEST Headquarters Lunchroom, 4300 200th St. W., recently by the Metropolitan Council. To order, Farmington. write the Metro Council Data Center,230 E.Fifth The task force and the Council will also sponsor St., St. Paul, MN 55101. These publications are public meetings for the general public in each also available at major public libraries in the search area. These meetings are set as follows: Metropolitan Area. -- > * Dakota-Scott Candidate Search Area - Wednesday, March 13,7-9:30 p.m.,Farmington General Information High School Theatre, 800 Denmark Av. (Cty. Rd. 31), Farmington. Metropolitan Agencies 1990 Consolidated •Anoka-Isanti-Chisago Candidate Search Area- Financial Report: Report to the Minnesota Monday, March 18, 7-9:30 p.m., North Branch Legislature. This biennial report summarizes High School Auditorium, Cty. Rd. 14, North financial information about the Council and six Branch. other metropolitan agencies for the years 1988 * Dakota Candidate Search Area - Wednesday, through 1993. No. 505-90-179; 150 pages; no March 20,7-9:30 p.m.,Rosemount High School charge. Student Center,3335 142nd St.W.,Rosemount. In addition, two meetings--yet to be scheduled-- Metropolitan Council Publications Directory: will be held for communities surrounding the October 1990 edition. Lists current and recent search areas. For more information about any of Council publications with a short description. No. the meetings, call Donna Mattson of the Council 310-90-158; 62 pages; no charge. staff at 291-6493. Metropolitan Council 1991-93 Local Planning STATE OF THE REGION--The Council will hold Assistance Loan Guidelines. Guidelines for a its annual State of the Region event from noon to Council loan program designed to help local 8 p.m., Wednesday, Feb. 20, in the Minneapolis governments carry out activities related to the Metrodome Hilton,I-35W at Industrial Boulevard. Metro Land Planning Act. No. 620-90-181; 9 The event,which will focus on siting controversial pages; no charge. facilities, will feature keynote speaker Peter Sandman, director of the Environmental Comm- Human Services unications Research Program and journalism pro- fessor at Rutgers University in New Jersey. To Medical Technology: A Regional Prescription; register to attend, call Carol Berens by Feb. 15 at Draft. Because of the high cost of medical 291-6447. The registration fee is $40. technology, which drives up health care costs disproportionately, the Metropolitan Health Planning Board is proposing that a voluntary COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE NEWS forum be established to address issues surrounding emerging medical technology in the region. Public Transportation Advisory Board--The Council hearing draft. No. 420-91-005A; 42 pages; no recently made three new appointments and three charge. reappointments to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). Hennepin County Commissioner Living-at-Home and Block Nurse Programs: An Peter McLaughlin, Minneapolis City Council Analysis of Client and Cost Information, 1988- member Pat Scott and Scott County Commissioner 1990. Two years'worth of data from six programs- Dick Underferth have been appointed as new -five in St. Paul and one in Greater Minnesota-- members of the TAB. Dakota County show that the cost of providing ongoing care for Commissioner Don Chapdelaine, Washington people in their own homes is generally far less County Commissioner Dennis Hegberg and Anoka than the cost of supporting them in a nursing County Commissioner Margaret Langfeld have home. No. 420-91-019; 65 pages; $3.50. been reappointed to the TAB. Metro Systems NEW PUBLICATIONS Selecting a Search Area for a New Major Airport. Describes the three candidate search areas for a The following publications have been published possible new major airport. No. 559-91-004; 42 AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. (://;:q1 NAME: Karen Finstuen DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: January 25, 1991 MEETING DATE: February 19, 1991 CATEGORY: Petitions, Requests and Communications SDBJECTi Consulting Planner's Contract EXPLANATION: Contract for the year 1991. REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Proposed contract. REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Charles Tooker Planning • 044.4kft:m 2)N• SIGNATURE MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: PLANNER'S CONTRACT DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1991 Attached please find an agreement relating to Planning Services with Charles Tooker. As noted in a previous memo, recent IRS changes had created a "grey" area relating to defining a contractor versus employee. The City Attorney has redrafted the present contract to address the IRA regulations. The changes basically define the role of the Planner. Also, it is recommended to increase the Planner's hourly rate from $33.30 to $35.00 per hour, to change the renewal date to February 1st and have the contract automatically renew to protect both parties from operating without a contract. The 30 day termination clause remains in effect. It is my opinion that the City has received excellent service from Mr. Tooker at a reasonable cost. My only concern is the "grey" area relating to IRS regulations. While the City Attorney feels comfortable with the contract language at this time, it is felt by Mr. Tooker, the Administrative Assistant and me that the City should start looking at changing the services from contractual to permanent part time status. It is recommended that the Council approve the contract at this time and discuss the merit of changing the status to permanent part time employee. If the Council wishes to pursue that course, staff will prepare job descriptions, salary ranges, budget implications and various options for Council consideration. 4rry7271194.11."--------".Thompn City Administrator cc: Karen Finstuen Charlie Tooker file 02. IL. 91 09 : 40 AM *GRANNIS & HARMEYER P02 PLUMING SERVICES AQREEIONT AGREEMENT between the City of Farmington, acting by and through its duly authorized officers, and located in the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, herein referred to as "City"' and Charles Tooker, Rt. 2, Cannon Falls, Minnesota, 55009, herein referred to as "Consultant". SECTIO ONE City hereby retains Consultant to assist in planning for the City and to render to City and its duly authorized agencies, commissions and officers all advise, opinions and services as the City and its agencies, commissions and officers may request or require from time to time. BECTON TWO In the performance of the services, the services and the hours Consultant is to work on any given day will be entirely within Consultant's control and City will rely upon Consultant to put in such number of hours as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the spirit and purpose of this Agreement. Provided, Consultant shall be available for consultation and performance of services at City Hall a minimum of two days per week (up to 6 hours per day) and shall attend one Planning Commission meeting per month. Coordination of the time spent at City Hall and attendance at meetings shall be done by Consultant and the City's Administrative Assistant. fiECTIQN THREE As compensation in full for the rendition of all services and performance of all duties herein by Consultant, city shall pay Consultant at the rate of $ 3S00 per hour. In addition, City shall reimburse Consultant for reasonable expenses, costs and disbursements necessarily incurred in connection with said services and duties. fiZ I0N FOUR The parties intend that an independent contractor-employer relationship will be created by this Agreement. City is interested only in the results to be achieved, and the conduct and control of the services performed will lie solely with Consultant. Consultant is not to be considered an employee of City for any purpose, and any employees of Consultant are not entitled to any of the benefits that City provides for City employees. It is understood that Consultant is free to contract for similar services to be performed for other parties during the duration of this Agreement. 02. 12. 91 09 : 40 AM * GRANNIS & HARMEYER P03 '$] CTION FIVE The term of this Agreement shall be from January 1, 1991 through January 31, 1992 and shall renew annually thereafter for one year periods from February 1 to January 31 of each year; provided however, either party may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving 30 days written notice to the other party of such termination, and specifying the effective date of such termination. IN WITNESS SOF, the parties have executed this Agreement. CITY OF FARMINCTON By: Eugene Kuahara, Mayor Dated: By: Larry Thompson City Administrator/Clerk Dated: CONSULTANT Charles Tooker Dated: A -2- 4 AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. 611— NAME: Karen Finstuen DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: January 25, 1991 MEETING DATE: Febrtta 99'1 CATEGORY: Petitions, Requests and Communications ---- SUBJECT': -SUBJECT: Consulting Planner's Contract EXPLANATION: Contract for the year 1991. REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Proposed Contract REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Charles Tooker Planning S TURF MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: PLANNER'S CONTRACT DATE: JANUARY 30, 1991 The City Council normally considers the Planner's contract between the City and Charles Tooker at this time. The City was made aware of an IRS ruling which could have an impact on the status of Mr. Tooker. In summary, unless certain criteria are met and incorporated into the contract, Mr. Tooker would be regarded as a City employee rather than a contractor, which would impact City costs. The City Attorney is presently reviewing this matter and will redraft the agreement to incorporate the required language. Since the amended agreement will in all probability not be available in time for the February 4th meeting, I would like the matter tabled. / Jam' Larry Thompson City Administrator cc: Karen Finstuen Charlie Tooker file AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. NAME: James Bell DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation DATE: February 6, 1991 MEETING DATE: February 19, 1991 CATEGORY: Ordinances and Resolutions SUBJECT: Senior Center Advisory Council Ordinance EXPLANATION: See attached memo. REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Memo - James Bell REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration TDRE MEMO TO: LARRY THOMPSON SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 11 - SENIOR CENTER ADVISORY COUNCIL DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1991 The following changes are recommended for the Senior Center Advisory Council ordinance. I am making these changes because of the confusion at the time of appointments. 2-11-3 (Present) (B) Designated Seats: One member shall be appointed from the Parks and Recreation Commission. All other seats shall be undesignated. Member- ship should reflect the specific participation, goals and concerns of the Senior Center. 2-11-3 (Proposed) (B) Designated Seats: All seats shall be undesignated. Membership should reflect the goals and concerns of the Senior Center. 2-11-3 (Present) (D) Qualifications: Members shall be citizens of the United States and shall be residents of the general Farmington area, including partici- pating townships. Members need not be senior citizens. 2-11-3 (Proposed) Qualifications: Members shall be citizens of the United States and shall reside or work in the City of Farmington, Empire, Castle Rock or Eureka Townships. Members need not be senior citizens. 2-11-3 (Present) (E) Terms: Members shall be appointed for two (2) year terms, each beginning on the first day of February, providing for a rotation of 5/5. Members may be reappointed. 2-11-3 (Proposed) Terms: Members shall be appointed for two (2) year terms, each beginning on the first day of February, providing for a rotation of two (2) members one year, two (2) members the next year and three (3) members the next. Members may be reappointed. 2-11-3 (Present) Budget: The Advisory Council shall prepare and submit an annual budget by July 15 of each calendar year for review by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. 2-11-3 (Proposed) Budget: The Advisory Council shall review and recommend the annual budget to the Director of Parks and Recreation. The Senior Center Advisory Council has had a chance to review these changes. James Bell Parks and Recreation Director cc: file JCB U . y I _ 2-11-1 2-11-3 I CHAPTER 11 ' SENIOR CENTER ADVISORY COUNCIL 1 r_ 2-11-1: Council Established 2-11-2: Initial Appointments 2-11-3: Criteria Adopted Oft- WE ii it ., 2-11-1: COUNCIL ESTABLISHED: There is hereby established, a Senior ---_ Center Advisory Council, the purpose of which shall be to make recommendations to the City Council on all matters of broad.policy regarding i _ activities,programs and operations of the senior center. i 2-11-2: INITIAL APPOINTMENTS: Initial appointments were made to i accomplish the rotation of overlapping terms described in Section 2-11-3(E)• ID* 2-11-3: CRITERIA ADOPTED: The following criteria are hereby adopted: i' Members; Officers: The Council shall consist of seven (7) members who shall I choose from among themselves a president, vice president and secretary. (B) Designated Seats: One member shall be appointed from the Park and Recreation Commission. All other seats shall be undesignated. Membership should reflect the specific participation, goals and concerns of the senior 1114111 center. (C) Appointment Members shall be recommended by the Advisory Council for final acceptance by the City Council j (D) Qualifications: Members shall be citizens of the United States and shall be residents of the general Farmington area, including participating townships. Members need not be senior citizens. # w it 1E) Terms: Members shall be appointed for two (2) year terms, each beginning on the first day of February, providing for a rotation of 5/5. Members may I be reappointed. H _ 4 HI is ' , i 886 �.6 w 2-11-3 2-11--3 (F) Compensation: Members shall serve without pay, but may be reimbursed for reasonable personal expenses. (G) Removal: Members may be removed at the recommendation of the Advisory Council and subsequent compliance of the City Council as demonstrated by a four-fifths(4/5) vote of the City Council. iI li (H) Vacancies: A vacancy shall be filled by recommendation by the Advisory Council and final acceptance of the City Council. (I) Oath of Office: Prior to assuming the duties to which first assigned, each member shall take an oath of office. (J) Budget: The Advisory Council shall prepare and submit an annual budget.by July 15 of each calendar year for review by the Park and Recreation Commission. (Ord.086-181, 7-21-86) =5 iWir 11 s , i 886 -A MEMO TO: JIM BELL SUBJECT: SCAC ORDINANCE DATE: JANUARY 24, 1991 As noted at the last Council meeting, the member qualification language in the Senior Center Advisory Council should be cleaned up. Rather than arbitrarily recommending the language changes, I would like you to solicit a recommendation from the SCAC. I am mainly interested in specifically stating residency require- ments; e.g. Castle Rock, Empire, etc. You may also wish to include persons working in the area. I am placing this matter on the February 19, 1991 agenda for consideration. Larry Thompson City Administrator cc: Mayor and Council file I AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. NAME: Larry Thompson G� 3 DEPARTMENT: Administration j lA.Jt� -'7� DATE: February 6, 1991 ALA-, 50ga P �'`"`� '�_� r- T-4-7 MEETING DATE: February 19, 1991 tx.e eL7eGr*^-&-fit a-°. 1, ( 9 I . -La_ CATEGORY: Unfinished Business �a^^�----� C4--r �U.z,� n; z ,, , k,-, 0„,tat 3 ^-- SUBJECT: City Survey u Z 3j /q" EXPLANATION: No action was taken on this matter at the last meeting. REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Memo - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Department Heads kty--00 SIGNITURE t MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: CITY SURVEY DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1991 This memo serves as a follow up to Council discussion relating to a City survey. It appears that the sentiment of the Council is to attempt an in—house survey( As noted, surveys can range from simple, straightforward matters which are generally issue related (e.g. should the City install water meters?) to complicated, which are generally attitude related (e.g. how do you feel about property taxes?) . Due to lack of City resources and training, I do not feel comfortable undertaking the lattet in house. I feel the results would not be very reliable or valid. Given specific direction from the Council, a simple survey mailed out with the quarterly billing could be undertaken in house. Again, I must caution the Council that I cannot guarantee the results. I have attached a recent Rosemount survey and a discussion paper for background information. If it is the desire to undertake an in house survey, a topic (preferably simple and straightforward) should be chosen and staff should be directed to prepare questions for Council approval. A°irry Thomp n City Administrator cc: Department Heads file 1 1 by other cities. There are also similarities in the process should understand that a citizen processes used. All three cities used a project survey will provide information, not easy team to manage the project; all projects were answers or precise mandates. All three coordinated from the manager's office; all three cities acted on the results. Zeeland re- cities used consultants at some point in the pro- sponded quickly with a highly visible pro- cess for technical assistance and public credi- ject; Sioux City incorporated information bility; and all cities prepared public reports of in the budget process; and Sunnyvale the results. approved citizen task force recommenda- tions during the regular budget process. The difference in these experiences emanate from different purposes and availability of re- 3.Those who participate in the survey sources in each city.Both Zeeland and Sioux City process are more likely to use the results. used their surveys primarily for effectiveness The decision to involve various citizens and measurement,but Zeeland used fewer resources, groups in the survey process affects the involved fewer people, and had a smaller out-of- content of the questionnaire,the method for pocket cost. Sunnyvale used its survey for effec- reporting results, the interpretation of re- tiveness measurement, increasing citizen parti- sults, and the action based on the results. cipation, and setting goals. 4.Ask questions where the citizen is the expert. Questions that worked best for all Assessment three cities were those that relied on the general knowledge and experience of the On December 1-2, 1976, a management review citizen or an opinion of a simple statement. team met in Chicago to discuss citizen surveys. Complex questions requiring technical ex- The city representatives were Steve Carter, pertise were the least useful. Questions assistant city manager, Sioux City, Iowa; David on hot political issues were the most diffi Rubinstein,city superintendent,Zeeland,Michi- cult to phrase without bias and they should gan; and Camille Cates, assistant to the city be avoided. manager,Sunnyvale,California.The team mem- bers were William Fisher, Jr., town manager, 5.Public credibility is worth the price. All Porter and Chesterton,Indiana;Leo Nelson,city three cities used consultants at some point manager, Elgin, Illinois; and Rack Fukuhara, in the process to increase objectivity and ICMA staff. A summary of the discussion is pre- thus credibility. Assuring the reliability of pared below. resultsis important. Each city paid for out- side help, although the costs for this help varied considerably. Two of the cities used 1.Do I really want to know? Cities con- consultants even though the necessary ex- sidering surveys must recognize that they pertise existed on the city staff. In all will receive information, some of it three cities this was the first full-scale, new, and some of it unfavorable.Accepting multi-service citizen survey in the city's the risks of asking is an important pre- recent history. Once surveys become more requisite for using the data. Each of the common, this demonstration of objectivity cities varied in the amount of preparation: may become less important.Another aspect Zeeland concentrated on the council and of public credibility is that a random, department heads; Sunnyvale prepared statistically valid sample of residents pro- council, departments, community groups, vides representative citizen feedback which and citizens for the results. is unbiased by special interests. 2.Asking implies a willingness to act. The review team saw a two-edged sword in 6.More comparative information would be asking and acting, "It's dangerous to useful in the analysis of results. If surveys create false expectations about the ability, were conducted regularly in a city, trend desirability, or possibility of a government data would be available. In addition, the to act on all the information it gets from a review team suggested that survey results survey." Conversely, it unfair and un- from different cities be compiled in a cen- realistic to expect nothing to be done on tral clearinghouse and distributed to other the basis of the survey results. Survey data interested cities. These comparative data should be added to the other information would be most useful if the same or very that influences city policy and programs. similar questions were asked in various Those individuals involved in the survey communities. • 21 ., 7.There are surprisingly few obstacles to cost of the survey?" The answer to this question executing a successful survey. There is by one participant was,"I have a$19 million bud- ample technical assistance on survey metho- get; how can I not spend $10,000 to see if we're dology; analytic ability can be bought or spending it effectively." And the cities' experi- borrowed if it does not exist on city staff; ences showed that there was a more important there are reliable but relatively inexpensive issue to discuss. Citizen surveys conducted by ways to survey; citizens respond positively local governments are more than techniques for to the interview experience; and smart, measuring public service effectiveness; surveys initial planning can ease queasiness over are a process and opportunity for involving indi- results and prepare for the use of the data. viduals and community groups in the decision making process. 8.The citizen survey can be used regularly, even annually. Although each of the cities used the survey as a one-time project, all Citizen surveys have proved themselves a saw the value in regular use of a survey. reliable way to systematically collect useful The future of citizen surveys is in institu- information that cannot be obtained as inex- tionalizing the process. pensively any other way. The technical know- ledge for conducting a survey is available to any city. These case studies illustrate that citizen Conclusion surveys can be used by cities of various sizes and for various purposes. The critical factor in the Initially the central issue of the management re- success of a survey is how management focuses on view team was"Did the use of the data justify the the use of citizen feedback. • The following materials were used in the preparation of this report. Kenneth Webb and Harry P. Hatry, Obtaining Feedback: The Application of Citizen Surveys to Local Governments,(Washington,D.C.:Urban Institute, 1973).Carol H.Weiss and Harry P.Hatry, An Introduction to Sample Surveys for Government Managers, (Washington, D.C.: • Urban Institute, March 1971). 2 Harry P. Hatry and others, How Effective Are Your Community Services:Procedures for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Municipal Services, (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, tentative title, to be published). International City Management Association,Productivity Effectiveness Measurement, How Well Do You Serve Your Citizens? (Washington, D.C.: May 1976), draft.materials. 3 A partial list of cities that have conducted surveys includes Aurora and Thornton, Colorado; Arlington, Massachusetts; Nashville, Tennessee; St. Petersburg, Florida; Richmond and Falls Church, Virginia; Randolph Township,New Jersey;Schenectady,New York;Dallas,Texas;Palo Alto,California;Fountain Hill, Pennsylvania; Washington and Charlotte, North Carolina; Winnetka, Illinois; College Park, Maryland; and Cedar Rapids, Humboldt, and Mason City, Iowa. 4 Harry P. Hatry and others. Measuring the Effectiveness of Basic Municipal Services: Initial Report, (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute and International City Management Association, February 1974). St. Petersburg, Florida, Management Improvement Department, 1975 Multi-Service Citizen Survey(November 1975). (This report is available from ICMA's Technical Report Clearinghouse, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Order No. 19178, 55 pages, price $4.25.) s Zeeland, Michigan, Office of the City Superintendent, 1976 Multi-Service Citizen Survey(September 1976). (This report is available from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Order No. BE 259 113.) 6 Sunnyvale, California, New Directions for Sunnyvale: A Process for Participation (1975). (This report is available from ICMA's Technical Report Clearinghouse, Order No. 19151, 44 pages, price $3.75.) Camille Cates,Performance Auditing in Sunnyvale,(Sunnyvale,California:April 1975).Sunnyvale,California, The Conduct of a Performance Audit of the Department of Public Safety(February 1976).(The latter report is available from ICMA's Technical Report Clearinghouse, Order No. 19119, 65 pages, price $4.75). 22 a� 0/1 ' FEB 1 2 1991 DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. ROSEMOUNT FUTURES STUDY 3128 Dean Court December, 1988 ‘ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd. , a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of Rosemount to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because the City is interested in your opinions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1. Approximately how many years LESS THAN ONE YEAR 7% have you lived in Rosemount? ONE OR TWO YEARS 19% THREE TO FIVE YEARS22% SIX TO TEN YEARS 15% ELEVEN - TWENTY YEARS18% OVER TWENTY YEARS 18% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 2. In what city and/or state was your immediately prior residence located? ALWAYS ROSEMOUNT: 6% RURAL MINNESOTA: 16% OUT OF STATE: 15% BURNSVILLE: 4% EAGAN: 9% APPLE VALLEY: 7% MINNEAPOLIS: 7% REST OF HENNEPIN: 7% SAINT PAUL: 11% REST OF DAKOTA: 11% REST OF RAMSEY: 2% REST OF METRO: 4% SCATTERED: 1% 3 . As things now stand, how long LESS THAN ONE YEAR 7% in the future do you expect to ONE TO TWO YEARS 7% live in Rosemount? THREE TO FIVE YEARS9% SIX TO TEN YEARS 8% OVER TEN YEARS 55% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED13% 5 74 . Thinking t bacmto aweyoymoivn edsetlo cRoinmhiwthya?t factors DON'T KNOW: 4% LOCATION: 8% RURAL-SMALL TOWN: 21% JOB: 14% FAMILY HERE: 11% LAND-HOUSING: 14% SCHOOLS: 17% CHURCH: 1% LIFELONG RESIDENT: 5% SCATTERED: 5% 5. How would you rate Rosemount on EXCELLENT 32% that today -- excellent, good, GOOD 46% only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR 9% POOR 2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 11% 6. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT 32% life in Rosemount -- excellent, GOOD 57% good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR 8% POOR 2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 1% 1 When residents are asked what comes to mind when they think of their community, many things can occur to them. Minneapolis residents think of their lake system, Chaska residents think of their town square, and Saint Paul residents think of the State Capitol. 7. What image comes to mind when you think about Rosemount? DON'T KNOW: 4% NONE: 6% RURAL-COUNTRY: 25% SCHOOLS: 9% SMALL TOWN CLOSE TO METRO: 22% FRIENDLY PEOPLE: 9% BEAUTY: 3% IRISH: 4% LOCATION: 1% DOWNTOWN: 2% HOME TOWN: 3% SUBURB: 2% NEGATIVE: 9% SCATTERED: 1% 8. What do you like MOST about living in Rosemount? DON'T KNOW: 4% RURAL BUT CLOSE: 7% LOCATION: 11% SMALL TOWN: 33% PEOPLE: 14% PEACEFUL-QUIET: ° SCHOOLS: 7% BEAUTY: 3% SUBURBAN: 2% SCATTERED: 2% 9. What do you like LEAST about it? DON'T KNOW: 7% NOTHING: 23% RAPID GROWTH: 15% TAXES: 4% NO SHOPS: 17% KOCH: 5% NO DEVELOPMENT: 7% LOCATION: 7% CITY GOVERNMENT: 4% ROADS: 2% SERVICES: 4% CLIQUES: 2% 10. When you think about Rosemount, SMALL TOWN do you see it as a small town 68% SUBURB 227% or a suburb? BOTH (VOL) 6% NEITHER (VOL. ) 0. D.K./REF 0% IF ANSWER GIVEN, #'S "1,2, 3 , " OR "4 , " ASK: 11. Why do you feel that way? NO REASON: 4% GROWTH: 15% SENSE OF IDENTITY: 15% SIZE: 18% LOCATION: 17% DOWNTOWN: 9% PEOPLE: 6% "MY PERCEPTION": 16% SCATTERED: 1% Let's talk about the entire community for a moment. . . . If you were asked to describe the ONE thing that best makes up the quality of your community TO YOU, which of the following statements would you choose? (ROTATE CHOICES A-C) 12 . A. The friendships I have with CHOICE A the people who live there. CHOICE B 19% 35% B. The quality of things such as CHOICE C 10% schools, churches, parks, or CHOICE D (A+B+C) 10% other services. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 9% C. The feeling that I'm living among people like myself whether I know them or not. D. Something else (IF SO, ASK: ) What would that be? 2 13 . Now, which of these two statements CHOICE A 59% comes closer to your feelings? CHOICE B 29% A. I have real roots in this BOTH (VOL. ) 3% community. NEITHER (VOL. ) 9% B. Rosemount is just a place to DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% live. I'd be just as happy elsewhere. IF CHOICE A OR B IS SELECTED, ASK: 14. Why do you feel that way? NO REASON: 18% ROOTS: 22% TIME SPENT HERE: 23% COULD LEAVE: 14% "MY OPINION" : 8% WANT TO MOVE: 5% PEOPLE: 2% "LIKE IT HERE! " 8% 15. How about the following two state- STATEMENT A 47% ments about the future? STATEMENT B 40% A. Rosemount should preserve its BOTH (VOL. ) 10% rural character even if it NEITHER (VOL. ) 2% means slower economic develop- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2% ment and growth. B. Rosemount should aggressively pursue economic development, even if it becomes more sub- urban in the process. 16. Would you say the city of Rose- FOR THE BETTER 51% I mount has changed for the better FOR THE WORSE 8% in recent years, changed for the NOT CHANGED VERY MUCH. 28% worse, or has it not changed DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 13% very much? IF ANSWER GIVEN IN QUESTION #16, ASK: 17. Why do you feel that way? NO REASON: 4% GROWTH: 17% "MY PERCEPTION" : 16% MAYOR: 3% GENERAL IMPROVEMENT: 9% STAYED SMALL: 5% NEW DEVELOPMENT: 22% NO DEVELOPMENT: 8% 18 . Would you favor or oppose an FAVOR 51% I increase in city property taxes OPPOSE 39% if it were needed to maintain DON'T KNOW/REFUSED10% city services at their current level? 19. Do you consider property taxes EXCESSIVELY HIGH 7% in Rosemount to be excessively RELATIVELY HIGH 13% high, relatively high, about ABOUT AVERAGE 55% average, or comparatively low, ? COMPARATIVELY LOW 11% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED14% As you may know, property taxes are divided between the City of Rosemount, Dakota County, and your local school district. 3 20. For each dollar of property taxes UNDER TEN PERCENT 6% you pay, about what percentage do 10% - 20% 20% you think goes to city govern- 21% - 30% 16% " ment? (READ CHOICES, IF NEEDED) 31% - 40% 4% 41% - 50% 2% OVER FIFTY PERCENT 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . .52% I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? EXC GOOD FAIR POOR D.F. 21. Police protection? 24% 58% 10% 2% 6% 22 . Fire protection? 27% 52% 5% 1% 16% 23 . City street repair and maintenance? 7% 59% 19% 10% 5% 24 . Water quality? 8% 32% 22% 25% 14% 25. Snow plowing? 18% 56% 16% ° 7� 3% 26. Animal control? 10% 50% 19% 7% 15% 27. Building and housing inspection? 6% 38% 10% 6% 41% 28. Park maintenance? 27% 53% 7% 1% 13% IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR" IN QUESTIONS 21-28, ASK FOR EACH: 29. Why did you rate as (only fair/poor) ? WATER QUALITY: 22% NO STANDARDS: 7% POOR UPKEEP: 7% LOOSE ANIMALS: 8% WATER + ANIMALS: 2% SLOW: 8% WATER + STREETS: 4% THREE OR MORE: 11% 30. How would you rate the general EXCELLENT appearance of your neighborhood GOOD 32% 61% -- excellent, good, only fair, ONLY FAIR or poor? 6% POOR 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 31 Other than voting, do you feel YEyou could NO S that if you 0wanted to, 65% 23% have a say about the way the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED12% City of Rosemount runs things? 32 . How much do you feel you know A GREAT DEAL about the work of the Mayor and A FAIR AMOUNT 5% City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE 52% 52% fair amount, or very little? . DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6% 4 33 . From what you know, do you approve STRONGLY APPROVE 13% or disapprove of the job the Mayor SOMEWHAT APPROVE 54%and City Council are doing? (WAIT SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE. . . .7% FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. . . . 2% strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED24% IF ANSWER "1" TO "4" , GIVEN IN QUESTION #33 , ASK: 34. Why do you feel that way? NO REASON: 13% GOOD JOB: 24% MAYOR: 10% HEARSAY: 9% ISSUES: 7% COULD IMPROVE: 8% COMMUNICATE: 2% NO PROBLEMS: 4% 35. How much first-hand contact have QUITE A LOT 12% you had with the Rosemount City SOME 25% staff -- quite a lot, some, very VERY LITTLE 39% little, or none? NONE 19% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6% 36. From what you have seen or heard, EXCELLENT 12% how would you rate the job per- GOOD 45% formance of the Rosemount City ONLY FAIR 13% staff -- excellent, good, only POOR 4% fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 25% IF ANSWER "1" TO "4"•, GIVEN IN QUESTION #36, ASK: 37. Why did you rate the city staff as ? NO REASON: 8% HEARSAY: 7% HELPFUL: 18% POLITE: 3% GOOD JOB: 20% COULD IMPROVE: 13% RUDE: 2% NO PROBLEM: 4% 38 . Do you feel that crimes against INCREASED 22% property in Rosemount have DECREASED 4% increased, decreased, or remained ABOUT THE SAME 47% about the same during the past DON'T KNOW/REFUSED28% five years? 39 . How about crimes against people, INCREASED 10% have they increased, decreased, DECREASED 5% or remained about the same ABOUT THE SAME 54% during the past five years? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED31% 40. Overall, how would you rate the EXCELLENT 60% quality of education in Indepen- GOOD 27% dent School District #196 -- ONLY FAIR 3% excellent, good, only fair, or POOR 1% poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 10% As you may know, the University of Minnesota holds 3000 acres of land within the City of Rosemount. 5 41. =n geheral, do you feel that the HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE- 36% University of Minnesota has been HAS NOT BEEN 40% responsible in the administration DON'T KNOW REFUSED25% and use of that land, or not? 42 . what type of use would you most favor for tha= land? DON'T KNOW: 28% HOUSING: 9% AG. RESEARCH: 6k RETAIL: 1% LIGHT INDUSTRY: 9% JOB CREATING: 3% LEAVE _.ONE: 10% =ARMS: 12% NATURE CENTER: 10% VO-TECH: 4% 7AX BASE: 4% SCATTERED: 4% 43 . ire there any uses which you would definitely oppose? DON'T KNOW: 9% NONE: 13% AIRPORT: 52%: WASTE DUMP: 14% =NDUSTRY: 4% CHEMICAL STORAGE: 2% HOUSING: :% OTHER: 2% The =Ziversity of Minnesota land is currently subject to only stae and federal laws. The City of Rosemount can exert no con...--.17.1 over the use of that land. 44 . would you favor or oppose the STRONGLY FAVOR 45% City spending funds to lobby SOMEWHAT FAVOR 24% the legislature for the ability SOMEWHAT C_POSE 8% =o place some controls on the use STRONGLY C_POSE 7% of the University's land? (WAIT DON'T KNOW REFUSED. . . . 15% FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel strongly that way? :F "STRONGLY" OR "SOMEWHAT FAVOR" IN QUESTION 444, ASK: 45. Would you still favor the FAVOR lobbying efforts if a modest OPPOSE 55%9% property tax increase were DON'T KNOW REFUSED 5% required to cover the costs? The nch (COKE) Refinery is also located in the eastern portion of z.e City of Rosemount, commonly called "Pine Bend. " 46. were you aware of the fact that AWARE 78% the refinery is within the city NOT AWARE 22% Limits? DON'T KNOW REFUSED 0% 47. =n general, how would you rate EXCELLENT 6% that company as a corporate GOOD 35% :itizen of the City -- excellent, ONLY FAIR 28% good, only fair, or poor? POOR 19% DON'T KNOW REFUSED13% 6 48. If you could advise the management of the Koch Refinery to make one change or improvement that would help the City of Rosemount, what would it be? DON'T KNOW: 27% MOVE: 2% CONTROL POLLUTION: 43% CONTROL ODOR: 15% COMMUNICATE: 7% JOBS FOR LOCALS: 3% HELP ROSEMOUNT: 2% SCATTERED: 1% Let's talk about economic development for a few minutes. .. . 49 . If the City of Rosemount were to attract more development, what kind would you prefer it to be? DON'T KNOW: 43% HIGH TECH: 4% BALANCED MIX: 8% OFFICE: 14% RETAIL: 20% INDUSTRIAL: 28% JOB CREATING: 2% HOMES: 13% RECREATIONAL: 2% NONE: 4% SCATTERED: 2% 50. Would you support or oppose an STRONGLY FAVOR aggressive effort by the City SOMEWHAT FAVOR 38% 42% of Rosemount to attract new com- SOMEWHAT OPPOSE mercial and light industrial 8% development? STRONGLY OPPOSE 8% P (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 4% Do you feel strongly that way? 51. Would you favor or oppose provi- STRONGLY FAVOR ding development incentives, such SOMEWHAT FAVOR 40% 40% as tax breaks, to attract new com- SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 15% mercial and light industrial dev- STRONGLY OPPOSE 5% elopment? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 19% do you feel strongly that way? 52 . Do you favor or oppose Rosemount FAVOR pursuing additional heavy indus- OPPOSE/STILL OPPOSE35% trial development in the Pine Bend OPPOSE/NOT OPPOSE area? "OPPOSE, " 8% rea. (IF ASK: ) Would OPPOSE/DON'T KNOW 8% you still oppose it if the expan- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 9% ded tax base would result in keep- ing residential property taxes lower? Solid waste disposal is currently a major concern throughout the Metropolitan Area. As you may know, Dakota County plans to build a waste-to-energy garbage incinerator in Rosemount. In addition, two sites within the city have also been designated for development as sanitary landfills. 53 . Assuming that the best technology STRONGLY INCINERATOR. . 32% would be used in the construction SOMEWHAT INCINERATOR. . 30% of either the incinerator or a SOMEWHAT LANDFILL 10% sanitary landfill, which project STRONGLY LANDFILL 3% would you most support? (WAIT FOR DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 26% RESPONSE) And do you feel strongly that way? IF OPINION IS GIVEN IN QUESTION 53, ASK: 7 54 . Why do you feel that way? PREFERENCE: 23% LESSER OF EVILS: 3% MORE EFFICIENT: 6% OPPOSED TO OTHER: 30% SAFER: 9% SCATTERED: 1% There has been some discussion about the placement of a new Twin Cities airport in or near Rosemount. 55. Do you favor or oppose the cons- STRONGLY FAVOR 7% truction of a new international SOMEWHAT FAVOR 5% airport in this area? (WAIT FOR SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 9% RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE 71% that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 8% IF ANSWERS "1" TO "4" GIVEN IN QUESTION 55, ASK: 56. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that way? NO ROOM: 9% WHY HERE?: 5% LOCATION: 3% NOISE: 50% KILL ROSEMOUNT: 3% TRAFFIC: 5% DO NOT WANT: 7% INCREASE VALUES: 4% POLLUTION: 2% 57 . If you had to choose one develop- ANSWER A/EXPAND BASE. . 16% ment priority from the list below, ANSWER B/JOBS 34% what would it be: ANSWER C/PRESERVE 37% A. Expand the tax base to keep ALL EQUALLY (VOL. ) 9% property taxes down; NONE (VOL. ) 0% B. Attract more head-of-household DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 4% type jobs to the city; C. Preserve open spaces to keep a small town atmosphere. Changing focus. . . . On a scale of one to ten, where ten is "excellent" and one is "poor, " how would you rate Rosemount as a place. . . . ALL RESPONSES ARE PERCENTAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK 58 . To find housing which fits the budgets and lifestyles of most people. 1 2 2 3 11 8 22 32 8 10 1 59 . To find full-time employ- ment opportunities for the head of a household. 15 24 24 19 10 3 0 2 1 0 3 60. To start a business. 4 6 10 10 18 9 14 10 2 3 13 61. To find a wide variety of entertainment and dining opportunities for people and families of all ages. 13 22 21 15 12 7 4 2 1 1 1 8 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DR 62 . To raise children. 1 1 1 1 4 2 11 27 24 28 1 63 . To spend one's retirement years. 7 4 3 3 8 7 12 18 14 22 1 Let's talk about the Downtown area. . . . 64 . What do you consider to be the area in "Downtown Rosemount"? DON'T KNOW: 2% HWY. #3 AND 145TH: 59% HWY. #3 : 10% #3 AND #42 : 8% NEAR MALL: 4% NEAR SCHOOL 3% SO. ROBERT: 5% NEAR 145TH: 5% NEAR #42 : 2% SCATTERED: 3% 65. Should the "Downtown Area" even- EXPAND ALONG HWY. 364% tually expand along Highway 3 to TREAT AS SEPARATE 22% include County Road 42, or should BOTH (VOL. ) 3% that area be treated as a separate NEITHER (VOL. ) 2% development zone? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 9% 66. What do you like most about downtown Rosemount? DON'T KNOW: 18% PERSONALITY: 9% CONVENIENCE: 36% CLEAN: 2% SMALL TOWN FEEL: 19% NEW GROWTH: 8% MALL: 7% 67 . And, what do you like least about it? DON'T KNOW: 10% NOTHING: 24% WHITE BUILDINGS: 10% NO SELECTION: 36% PARKING: 4% MALL: 4% RUN DOWN: 4% SCATTERED: 6% 68. Which of the following two retail PRIORITY A 65% development priorities do you feel PRIORITY B 21% should be given more attention by BOTH (VOL. ) 8% city decision-makers: NEITHER (VOL. ) 4% A. Attracting new retail facili- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2% ties in the downtown area to complement existing ones; B. Developing small malls further out of the downtown area. Some people have expressed a concern about maintaining an aesthetically pleasing downtown area. They believe that new building should blend into the existing downtown, even if it increases the cost to developers and might lead potential estab- lishments to build elsewhere. 9 54% " 69 . Should the City of Rosemount YES/STILL ADOPT implement specific design and YES/DON'T ADOPT 10% aesthetic standards for businesses YES/UNSURE 8% in the community, to promote some NO 24% type of common character in down- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5% town buildings? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) Should such design standards be adopted and maintained even if some businesses would not move to Rosemount because of the higher costs to conform to these requirements? 70. Should similar standards be set YES 36% for businesses outside the NO 53% downtown area? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED12% As you may know, Rosemount's park and recreation system is composed of tot lots, neighborhood parks, larger community and regional parks, facilities for passive recreation like Carroll 's Woods, and active recreational facilities such as Erickson Field. During the past year, please tell me if you or members of this household have used each facility. For those you have used, could you tell me whether the use was frequent or only occasional. For seasonal activities, please consider only the appropriate season. USE/ USE/ D.K./ DON'T USE FREQ. OCCA. REF. 71. Tot lots. 71% 14% 13% 3% 72 . Neighborhood parks. 40% 30% 33% 1% 73. Larger community and regional parks. 42% 19% 36% 3% 74 . Passive recreational facili- ties such as Carroll's Woods. 53% 18% 27% 2% 75. Active recreational facili- ties such as Erickson Field. 52% 22% 23% 3% 76. Overall, would you rate the park EXCELLENT 27% and recreational facilities in GOOD 56% Rosemount as excellent, good, ONLY FAIR 8% only fair, or poor? POOR 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 8% 77. Are there any facilities not currently in the parks that you or members of your family would use, if they were there? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? DON'T KNOW: 29% NONE: 42% POOL: 7% TENNIS: 3% TRAILS: 2% PICNIC AREAS: 5% PLAYGROUNDS: 4% ICE: 3% SCATTERED: 4% 78 . Are there any recreational activities you or members of this household undertake, which you would prefer to do in Rosemount if the facilities were better? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? 10 DON'T KNOW: 29% NONE: 48% ICE: 4% POOL: 4% C.C. SKI: 2% EXERCISE: 1% TENNIS: 1% GOLF: 1% ROLLER SKATE: 2% SCATTERED: 7% 79. Would you support or oppose the SUPPORT/STILL SUPPORT. 63% city developing a nature preserve SUPPORT/NO 7% for the protection of wildlife SUPPORT/UNSURE 7% and nest sites? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) OPPOSE 18% Would you still support it if a DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6% tax increase were required to finance its construction? 80. Would you favor or oppose a corri- SUPPORT/STILL SUPPORT.77% dor system of bicycle and walking SUPPORT/NO 4% trails that would connect the var SUPPORT/UNSURE 6% ious parts of the city? (IF "YES, " OPPOSE 11% ASK: ) Would you still support it DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3% if a tax increase were required to finance their construction? 81. Currently, Rosemount's Compre- FAVOR 67% hensive Guide Plan, the long-range OPPOSE 20% guidelines for development of the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED13% community, allows for up to one- half of the city's land to be set aside for agricultural purposes. Do you favor or oppose this large an allocation for permanent farm-related activities? Moving along. . . . Many residents have commented in the past on the "small town" atmosphere of Rosemount. 82 . What does that "small town" atmosphere mean to you? DON'T KNOW: 3% NOTHING: 4% FRIENDLY PEOPLE: 39% PEACEFUL: 9% SENSE OF IDENTITY: 7% SMALL: 9% PLACE FOR FAMILIES: 4% HAS DOWNTOWN: 4% SAFE: 7% "SOMETHING I VALUE" : 10% A NEGATIVE: 5% 83 . Are there things that could be done in terms of future development and growth to preserve that "small town" atmosphere? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? DON'T KNOW: 25% NOG: 22% PROTECT LOCAL BUSINESS: 4% GOOD PLANNING: 16% DEPRESS DEVELOPMENT: 10% COMMUNITY PROJECTS: 10% PROTECT DOWNTOWN: 10% As you may know, Rosemount is 35 square miles and contains 7, 800 residents. For comparative purposes, Eagan has 40, 000 people and is 36 square miles, Burnsville's area of 27 square miles contains 43 , 000, Apple Valley houses 30, 000 in its 18 city limits, Lakeville has a population of 20, 000 in its 38 square miles, while Inver Grove Heights is also 20, 000 people across 30 square 11 miles. 84 . If you could place a ceiling on the future residential population of Rosemount, what would it be? DON'T KNOW: 12% PREFER NONE: 8% UNDER 10000: 18% 10-15000: 20% 15-20000: 22% 20-25000: 7% 25-30000: 6% 30-35000: 1% 35-40000: 3% 40000+: 3% To attract more retail shopping opportunities, commercial development, or light and heavy industrial plants, Rosemount would have to change from its current status. To attract these kinds of opportunities, Rosemount might have to expand its population size, accept more traffic in the area, or some combination of the two. I would now like to ask you about the trade-offs you would be willing to make in order to attract new economic development. Would you be willing to accept a trade-off, in allowing the population of Rosemount to grow rapidly in order to attract. . . YES NO D.K./REF. 85. More retail shopping opportunities? 54% 41% 5% 86. More commercial office developments? 51% 44% 6% 87 . Light and/or heavy industrial plants? 55% 38% 7% How about accepting a trade-off in more traffic on area streets and high:-rays for. . . YES NO D.K./REF. 88 . More retail shopping opportunities? 60% 37% 4% 89 . More commercial office developments? 54% 39% 7% 90. Light and/or heavy industrial plants? 52% 43% 6% Let's talk about past development for a moment. . . . 91. In general, from what you have APPROVE 50% heard or seen, do you approve or DISAPPROVE 14% disapprove of the zoning and land DON'T KNOW/REFUSED36% use decision made by the City? 92 . Do you feel that Rosemount resi- ADEQUATE 47% dents have an adequate opportunity INADEQUATE 22% for input into the zoning and land DON'T KNOW/REFUSED32% use decision-making process? 93 . Do you think that the pace of TOO RAPID 13% development in the city has been ABOUT RIGHT 64% too rapid, about right, or not NOT FAST ENOUGH 20% fast enough? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 4% 12 • 94 . Does the development across the WELL-PLANNED 53% city seem well-planned for the NOT WELL PLANNED 21% future of Rosemount? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED27% 95. Do you think that Rosemount cur- YES 77% rently has a wide range of housing NO 18% choices to offer its residents? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5% (IF "NO, " IN QUESTION 95, ASK: ) 96. What types of housing do you feel the City should allow or encourage to expand the current range? MULTI-FAMILY: 7% LOW COST: 5% MIDDLE-UPPER: 2% MORE OF WHAT IS HERE: 5% 97 . Would you favor or oppose provi- STRONGLY FAVOR 9% ding development incentives, such SOMEWHAT FAVOR 16% as tax breaks, to attract more SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 31% multi-family housing units, such STRONGLY OPPOSE 40% as apartments and condominiums to DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 4% Rosemount? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel strongly that way? Some people have told us they would welcome multi-family develop- ments in Rosemount if they could be aesthetically blended into the community. Others do not feel that multi-family units are consistent with the "small town" ambience of the community and should be discouraged. 98 . How about you -- do you feel that YES, CONSTRUCT 41% multi-family developments which NO, OPPOSE 52% blend into the community should DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7% be constructed or do you oppose any multi-family development? 99 . Would you favor or oppose provi- STRONGLY FAVOR 9% ding development incentives, such SOMEWHAT FAVOR 18% as tax breaks, to attract higher SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 27% quality and more aesthetically STRONGLY OPPOSE 40% pleasing multi-family units? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel strongly that way? The National Guard intends to build an armory in Rosemount. The armory will provide the community with meeting rooms, classrooms, banquet facilities, and activities rooms. Other communities have used the opportunity to add on to this structure to provide additional recreational and community facilities. 13 100. Would you favor or oppose the con- STRONGLY FAVOR struction of additional recrea- SOMEWHAT FAVOR tional facilities as an extension SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 32% 41% to the armory, (WAIT FOR 8% STRONGLY OPPOSE 6% RESPONSE) And do you feel DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 13% strongly that way? IF ANSWERS "1, " "2, " "3, " OR "4 , " GIVEN IN # 100, ASK: 101. Why do you feel that way? NO REASON: 8% NEEDED: 41% FUN TO HAVE: 11% GOOD FOR CITY: 10% DEPENDS ON WHAT IS IN IT: 6% COST: 2% I would like to read you a list of facilities that could be included in an expansion to the armory. For each one, please tell me if you would strongly favor its inclusion, somewhat favor it, somewhat oppose it, or strongly oppose it. STR. SMT. SMT. STR. D.K./ FAV. FAV. OPP. OPP. REF. 102 . Community theatre? 17% 53% 15% 11% 4% 103 . Band shell? 16% 48% 20% 11% 4% 104 . An indoor swimming pool? 27% 27% 27% 16% 3% 105. A gymnasium? 31% 29% 23% 12% 5% 106. An exercise and fitness room? 27% 37% 21% 11% 5% 107 . A whirlpool bath and spa? 16% 27% 30% 22% 5% 108 . An indoor ice arena? 25% 35% 20% 16% 5% 109. An outdoor wading pool? 24% 37% 22% 11% 6% 110. Indoor tennis courts? 12% 28% 35% 19% 6% 111. Racquet ball courts? 13% 32% 32% 17% 6% 112 . Day care and latchkey facilities? 31% 40% 14% 8% 8% 113 . Are there any other facilities you would like to see in a Community Center? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? DON'T KNOW: 4% NONE: 83% SENIOR CENTER: 2% ADULT ED: 1% OUTDOOR POOL: 2% LIBRARY: 1% SCATTERED: 7% I would like to briefly re-read that list of potential facilities for an expansion to the armory. 114 . Please tell me which one you would most strongly favor for inclusion? TURN PAGE TO CIRCLE ANSWER. 115. How about your second preference? 116. Is there any facility that you would oppose including in an armory expansion? 14 MOST SECOND OPPOSE A Community theatre? 10% 10% 5% Band shell? 5% 8% S% An indoor swimming pool? 12% 9% 6% A gymnasium? 9% 12% 2% An exercise and fitness room? 7% 11% 1% A whirlpool bath and spa? 2% 2% 14% An indoor ice arena? 16% 8% 12% An outdoor wading pool? 6% 7% 5% Indoor tennis courts? 3% 2% 8% Racquet ball courts? 0% 3% 4% Day care and latchkey facilities? 16% 8% 4% All of them equally. 4% 4% 8% None of them. 6% 8% 20% Don't know/refused. 5% 6% 8% The building of an armory extension might require passage of a bond referendum. Taxpayers could be asked to pay for the construction of the facility and to share in the cost of underwriting the additional facilities. User fees would also underwrite its operation to some extent. 117. How much would you be willing to NOTHING 22% pay in additional property taxes $25 22% to support the construction and $50 23% partial operation of a Rosemount $75 7% Community Center? (START WITH A $100 8% RANDOMLY SELECTED CHOICE) Let's $125 2% say, would you be willing to pay $150 1% $ per year? (MOVE TO NEXT $175 1% CHOICE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 14% ANSWER. REPEAT. ) On a different topic. . . . Dakota County will soon require all cities to separate recyclables from their trash. The City of Rosemount is currently reviewing alternatives to comply with the county recycling requirement. 118 . Do you currently separate YES 43% recyclables from the rest of NO 57% your garbage? IF "YES" IN QUESTION #118, ASK: Which of the following materials do you recycle? YES NO D.K. 119. Glass? 22% 22% 2% 120. Newspapers and cardboard? 34% 8% 1% 121. Metal and aluminum? 36% 7% 1% 15 122 . How and where do you recycle them? HECYCLJNG CEU'TER: 11.% KNU'TSUN I'JCK U1': 12% WORK: 1% GIVE AWAY: 7% PAPER DRIVE: 8% STILL SAVING: 2% One way to meet the county requirement is for the City to establish a curbside pick-up of separated recyclable materials. Households would be asked to separate recyclables from the rest of their trash and haulers would carry them away. 123 . If the City instituted a pick-up VERY LIKELY 67% system, how likely would you be SOMEWHAT LIKELY 20% to use it -- very likely, some- NOT AT ALL LIKELY11% what likely, or not at all likely? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2% 124 . If your present garbage bill WOULD IF 10% INCREASE. 39% would be increased by ten percent WOULD IF NOTHING MORE23% by participating in the program, WOULD IF SAVE 10% 16% would you do so? (IF "NO, " ASK: ) WOULD NOT AT ALL 10% How about if it cost you nothing DON'T KNOW/REFUSED12% additional? (IF "NO, " ASK: ) If it would save you ten percent on your hauling bill? Moving on. . . . 125. If more frequent and expanded pub- VERY LIKELY 14% lic transportation were available SOMEWHAT LIKELY 23% connecting Rosemount with Downtown NOT AT ALL LIKELY 61% Minneapolis, Bloomington, and DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2% Downtown Saint Paul, how likely is it that you would frequently use the system -- very likely, somewhat likely, or not at all likely? 126. If more frequent and expanded public transportation were available, are there any times, such as for shopping, transit to work, school, entertainment, or visits to health professionals, when you would be very likely to use it? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) When would that be? WOULD NOT USE AT ALL: 53% USE TO SHOP: 11% WORK-SCHOOL: 17% ENTERTAINMENT: 6% ERRANDS: 4% SCATTERED: 2% 127 . What is your principal source of information about City government and its activities? NONE: 2% "COUNTRYSIDE" : 15% WORD OF MOUTH: 13% LOCAL PAPER: 54% "THIS WEEK" : 9% MEETINGS: 1% TV: 2% STAR-TRIBUNE: 1% DAKOTA COUNTY TRIBUNE: 1% MAYOR'S LETTER: 1% Rosemount is served by three regional or local papers. For each one, please tell me whether you receive it. For each you receive, please tell me if you generally read it. 16 A DON'T REC./ REC./ D.K./ GET READ DON'T REF. 128 . "This Week News"? 11% 85% 3% 1% 129. "Countryside"? 12% 84% 4% 0% 130. "Dakota County Tribune"? 89% 10% 1% 1% 131. Would you favor or oppose the FAVOR 71% City publishing a quarterly news- OPPOSE 22% letter to residents, covering DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7% government activities, special notices, and park and recreational information? (IF "FAVOR" IN QUESTION 131, ASK: ) 132 . Would you still favor it even YES 57% though funds would have to be NO 9% reallocated for the project DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5% in the current city budget? 133 . Are you aware of the Bi-Annual YES 60% Town Meetings held by the Mayor NO 38% and City Council, to receive DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .2% citizen input? 134. Currently, the minimum lot size in LARGER THAN 10000 27% Rosemount is 10, 000 square feet, SMALLER THAN 10000 3% or about 80 feet by 125 feet. In KEPT AT PRESENT LEVEL.60% general, do you feel that this DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . l1% minimum lot size should be larger than 10, 000 square feet, smaller than 10, 000 square feet, or kept at its present level? Do you support or oppose further SUPPORT4111111 58% rural residential development OPPOSE 22% of at least five acres in Rose- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED20% mount that allows no tie-in to city sewer and water; that is, allows wells and septic tanks? 136. Do you feel that daycare and YES 32% latchkey needs are being ade- NO 25% quately met by current providers DON'T KNOW/REFUSED42% in the city? Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes. . . . Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to youngest. . . . 137. First, persons 65 or over? 0: 91% 1: 4% 2 : 5% 138 . Adults under 65? (including 0: 6% 1: 12% 2 : 68% yourself)_ 3 : 9% 4 : 3% 5: 2% 17 A . 139 . High school aged? (Grades c 10 - 12) 0: 83% 1: 13% 2: 4% 140. Junior high aged? (Grades 7 - 9) 0: 90% 1: 10% 2: 1% 141. Elementary school children? 0: 72% 1: 19% 2 : 9% (Grades K-6) 3 : 1% 142. Pre-schoolers? 0: 76% 1: 18% 2: 6% 143 . Do you own or rent your present OWN 78% residence? RENT 22% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 144 . Which of the following best SINGLE FAMILY DWELL. . .71% describes your residence? APT/CONDO 10% (READ CHOICES) TOWNHOUSE 8% FARM 4% OTHER: MOBILE/MANUFACTURED. . . .7% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 145. What is your age, please? 18-24 7% (READ CATEGORIES, IF NEEDED) 25-34 37% 35-44 24% 45-54 13% 55-64 10% 65 AND OVER 8% REFUSED 0% 146. What is the occupation of the head of this household? PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL: 19% OWNER-MANAGER: 20% CLERICAL-SALES: 13% BLUE COLLAR: 32% RETIRED: 12% SCATTERED: 2% 147. Could you tell me the city where the job of the head of this household is located? ROSEMOUNT: 15% RETIRED: 13% MINNEAPOLIS: 8% RURAL: 5% EAGAN-BURNSVILLE-APPLE VALLEY: 19% REST OF DAKOTA: 6% BLOOMINGTON: 9% ST. PAUL: 9% REST OF METRO: 5% SOUTH HENNEPIN: 6% ALL OVER: 6% 148 . How about the city of the full-time jobs held by any other members of this household? ROSEMOUNT: 16% RETIRED-DO NOT WORK: 42% MINNEAPOLIS: 4% RURAL: 2% EAGAN-BURNSVILLE-APPLE VALLEY: 17% REST OF DAKOTA: 3% BLOOMINGTON: 5% ST. PAUL: 2% REST OF METRO: 3% SOUTH HENNEPIN: 3% ALL OVER: 1% 18 1 . 149. What is the last grade of school LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL. .4% you completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE31% VO-TECH SCHOOL 13% SOME COLLEGE 27% COLLEGE GRADUATE 18% POST-GRADUATE 7% REFUSED 0% 150. Could you tell me your approximate UNDER $12 , 500 3% pre-tax yearly household income. $12,500-$25,000 18% Does the income lie. . . . $25, 001-$37,500 30% $37,501-$50, 000 27% $50, 001-$62 , 500 8% OVER $62,500 8% DON'T KNOW 1% REFUSED 5% 151. Sex (BY OBSERVATION: DO NOT ASK) MALE 48% FEMALE/AT HOME 21% IF "FEMALE, " ASK: Do you work FEMALE/WORKS OUTSIDE32% outside the home? 152. Residential Zones WARD ONE: 24% WARD TWO: 24% WARD THREE: 19% WARD FOUR: 33% 19 4 4 AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. AAAA, —no NAME: James Bell DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation _ PAA 44,4-cr Pte. 44 0144-4_ DATE: February 11, 1991 — riNcti MEETING DATE: February 19, 1991 wwr4-7 11- 16-1"1"-"L",/ .c ' — 5f14-4_47/00 paw Pa44_ CATEGORY: New Business — SUBJECT: Farmington Green Development EXPLANATION: REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Wayne Henneke Finance Jim Bell Parks and Recreation Charlie Tooker Planning Jerry Henricks HRA -40 MILiTURF :` l;i MEMO TO: LARRY THOMPSON SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT OF FARMINGTON GREEN DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1991 I approached the HRA at their February 6th meeting about doing some landscaping on the Farmington Green Area. The HRA indicated an interest in improving the property with certain stipulations: 1. If a developer is found, this property shall be used in the way the developer wants. All items placed will be removed if this occurs. 2. If the Council approves the funding through the Parks budget, they will help also. I fully concur with this approach. All items on the landscaping plan (see attached) are ones that can be removed and used elsewhere within the Park system. The work will be done by Parks maintenance crews. Volunteers are not being considered because of the temporary nature of the project. It will be widely advertised as temporary. Funding for this project is approximately $2,700.00. This can be funded out of the Parks Maintenance Materials and Supplies Budget as follows: Trees $ 1,375.00 Equipment 1,310.00 I recommend that the Council approve this project. It will definitely continue our downtown beautification project and improve the looks downtown. 1 James Bell Parks and Recreation ;Te r"S 1 I II' 1 r• Co.sl- 3zoo .��vatO iro2SAl�c S\�N Jam.a+L�i - M� ••0 0 0 Wry 0 18 lilac 5 summit ash (41H3 , V • • ..�_ 1 flowering crab . annuals •' 2 picnic tables r : :s...:::.:::: brick walk 1 oloih,.. •:.!.,•••:-... • .• ' colerado spruc O ., 6 hughes juniper fq r1n.Jk O OO •• f .annuals • 4 AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. NAME: Karen Finstuen a/ DEPARTMENT: Administration P‘( U 0J1 11V DATE: February 6, 1991 1 � _ MEETING DATE: February 19, 1991 YY — 4F1' CATEGORY: Miscellaneous SUBJECT: Appointment to Human Rights Commission EXPLANATION: The ordinance was amended at the last meeting to create another "At Large" seat. This appointment should be made at this time. REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Application sent previously. REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration I TUBE � ff February 6, 1991 Wayne Martz 301 Main Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Mr. Martz, This letter is in regard to the City Council appointing you to the Human Rights Commission. I inadvertently neglected to add this item to the Council's agenda. I will place it on the February 19, 1991 agenda and will update you immediately following that meeting. I apologize for any inconvenience caused you and thank you again for your interest. Sincerely, Larry Thompson City Administrator cc: file 2/19/91 agenda City a FanntiKgftUU 325 Oak Skeet • Fatuaiagtex. KUl 55024 • (612) 463-7111 r January 31, 1991 Wayne A. Martz 301 Main Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Mr. Martz, Thank you for your interest in serving on the City Human Rights Commission. It was noted by the Council that the City had two excellent candidates for the position but, unfortunately, only one seat to fill. At this time, the Council has decided to select another candidate to fill the vacant "At Large" seat. The Council has, however, directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Human Rights Commission membership which would eliminate the Parks and Recreation seat and add another At Large seat. It is anticipated that the Council will make the amendment this Monday evening (February 4th) and appoint you to fill the position. I will update you next week on the status of the position. Again, thank you for your interest. Yours truly, ear Lrr Tho son ry P City Administrator cc: Mayor and Council Karen Finstuen file Cibj 4 Fwuiwcg6AJI 325 Oak She • Faav" f.s. IKit 55024 • (612) 463-7111 AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. \A (3 NAME: Karen Finstuen v� / tgiW DEPARTMENT: ��fU Administration �" Wiy-)r- ,,,, tb (4)) 1)t _i tali( 4)' DATE: February 1, 1991 MEETING DATE: February 19, 1991 .A '� or," \c-iir CATEGORY: Consent Agenda SUBJECT: Building Inspection Mutual Aid Agreement </j) :VSjj;941j7 ()'` EXPLANATION: See memo REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Sample attached REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration John Manke Building Inspections 4•44Ah- 2'w%- 4°314D°44 .--• SIGNATURE MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT - BUILDING INSPECTOR'S SERVICES DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 1991 Attached is an agreement covering a proposed Mutual Aid Agreement for Building Inspection Services with Rosemount. It involves no changes from current practices. Dave Grannis has reviewed it along with Brian Lundquist for insurance purposes, and both give their approval to the agreement. If you have any questions, please contact me. 4:4144046.0... Karen Finstuen Administrative Assistant cc: John Manke file MOTUA?, AID AGRZEXZNT for BUILDING INSPBCTIOB SERV/CBS This Agreement made and entered into t1, s 'Jay of 1991 , by and between theCity of Farmington and theTty of Rosemount, each being a municipal corporation. That in consideration of the mutual covenants, agreements and undertakings hereinafter set forth, each of the parties hereto agree to furnish building inspection services to the other rty when called upon by the City Administrator or his designee, subject to the following: I. DEFINITION: City Administrator - The chief administrative officer of a city as appointed by the city council. II. CONDITIONS: 1.) This Agreement is applicable to inspection services only and excludes any services required for plan review and permit issuance required under each citys' ordinances or code. 2. ) If for any reason or event, the City Administrator or his designee decides that no building inspectors can be spared, that decision inion shall be final in such matter, , and no party hereto shall be liable in any way to any other party or to any other person, firm or corporation for failure of the inspector of said City to make such inspections. 3. ) That the party requesting and receiving assistance from the other party hereto shall not be held liable for any damage, injuries or losses to persons or property arising out of the act or failure to act of the party providing assistance. 4. ) This Agreement shall be in effect upon approval and execution of this Agreement by both parties. The Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by either party after giving 30 days written noti. _ the other party. CITY OF FARMINGTON CITY OF ROSEMOUNT Mayor of Farmington Mayor of Rosemount city Administrator Eity Administrator AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. NAME: Karen Finstuen DEPARTMENT: Administration / 11/ DATE: February 11, 1991 Q3j) A.P1(itiY:%r9);)(1 MEETING DATE: February 19, 1991 CATEGORY: Consent Agenda (1p) SUBJECT Council Workshop EXPLANATION: Contract needs to be approved and signed REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Memo dated 2/12/90 - Sent Earlier Contract - attached REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration ciWeit3114. . MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: COUNCIL WORKSHOP DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1991 I have just confirmed the plans for the Council workshop with the facilitator, John Vinton. The specifics are as follows: When: Friday, March 8, 1991 - 5:30 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. - Council and Administrator Saturday, March 9, 1991 - 8:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. - Council, Administrator, HRA and Planning Chairs Where: Farmington Area Senior Center Meals Provided: Friday Evening - Dinner Saturday Morning - Continental Breakfast Saturday Noon - Lunch Mr. Vinton will be phoning each of you for an interview. He will be calling you in the evening sometime between now and March 1, 1991. If you prefer a specific time frame, let me know and he will adjust to your schedule. Following is the list of names and phone numbers I provided to him. Babe Kuchera 463-7865 Mayor Norm Derington 463-4864 Councilmember Chris Galler 460-6785 Councilmember Donovan Mayer 463-2456 Councilmember Leon Orr 463-8739 Councilmember Carol Sprute 463-7030 HRA Chair Ken Hanson 463-8888 Planning Chair If you have any questions, please contact me. Karen Finstuen Administrative Assistant cc: John Vinton file f •1 Government Training Service I Suite 401 480 Cedar Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 . 612/222-7409 February 7, 1991 • Ms. Karen Finstuen Administrative Assistant City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Ms. Finstuen: This will confirm our agreement for Government Training Service to conduct Goal Setting sessions with the City Council, Department Heads and Commission Chairs for the City of Farmington. Sessions will begin the evening of Friday, March 4), and continue all day Saturday, March g, l991.($-a:oo) Sessions will be conducted at the Senior Center in Farmington and facilitated by John Vinton, consultant under contract to GTS. By this contract, the City of Farmington agrees to reimburse GTS in the amount of $1,500, plus consultant's mileage at $.26/mile. This fee covers all costs associated with: o confidential interviews with the Council and selected others o design and preparation for the session o facilitation of the one and one-half day session o written summary report It is understood that the City of Farmington will assume all facility and meal arrangement responsibilities and provide audiovisual equipment as needed. In the event of program cancellation by the City of Farmington after February 19, 1991, GTS will be reimbursed for staff time and expenses to date. If the City of Farmington would like to use the services of John Vinton as a consultant within one year, it is understood that you would make arrange- ments through Government Training Service. If you agree with the terms and conditions set forth in this letter of agreement, please sign one copy and return it to this office. .'-WS,;i cerely, Approved: li ' - ' i ' 14:, xte-ge---e. /49-e-iiie-e),-L_ _ Mary Saba ke For Governme Training Service Program anner t N Organizational Services For e City of Fa ington Member Organizations Association of Minnesota Counties Minnesota Association Minnesota Community Colleges League of Minnesota Cities of Regional Commissions State of Minnesota Minnesota Association University of Minnesota of Townships