Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Packet 05-23-1994 Special
Y2 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MONDAY, MAY 239 1994 7:00 P.M. Public Safety Conference Room I. Discuss settlement of pending litigation in closed session - Plymouth v. W. J. Cavanaugh H. Approve settlement agreement III. West Medicine Lake Park IV. Employee Survey V. Summer Study Session Schedule This will be an open meeting with the exception of discussion of pending litigation, item L CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DATE: May 18, 1994 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Discussion Outline for May 23rd Special Council Meeting PURPOSE for items 1 & 2: Review and approve a settlement agreement with W.J. Cavanaugh on pending litigation. 1. CLOSED SESSION. Discuss settlement of pending litigation -City of Plymouth v. W.J. Cavanaugh. The City Attorney and Fred Moore will answer any questions about a proposed settlement of a condemnation case concerning five acres of land at the northeast corner of Highway 55 and Vicksburg. The land was originally condemned for construction of a County Library. 2. OPEN SESSION. Approval of Settlement Offer in Cavanaugh case. If no major questions or concerns arise in the closed session, we are requesting that the Council take official action to approve the settlement agreement. Action is requested for timely settlement of this long-standing legal matter. PURPOSES for Item 3: Discuss the Concept Plan for the proposed West Medicine Lake Park. Informally approve the concept plan as presented or direct modifications to it. Official action will be scheduled for June 6 or June 20. Discuss and informally approve continuation of design work on project to allow for bidding on road project early in 1995. 3. West Medicine Lake Park Plan. A. Informal approval of concept plan B. Informal approval of continued design work on project PURPOSE for Item 4: Confirm need for an employee survey with Council members. Review proposals and sample employee surveys received from several companies. Determine which survey approach and which company best meets our needs. Decide if Council should meet with company. Informally direct staff to negotiate an agreement with the preferred company. 4. Consider initiating an Employee Survey. A. Confirm Council interest in an Employee Survey B. Decide which survey and which company best meets our needs C. Determine need for Council involvement in development of survey. D. Informally direct staff to proceed with the company of choice. PURPOSE for Item 5: Generally plan our off -Monday meeting schedule for the Summer. 5. Discuss meeting schedule for summer months. (Requested by Council member Lymangood) . A. Review need for study session on June 27 for wetland ordinance B. Informally approve budget study sessions planned for August 8, 22, and 29. C. Determine need, if any, for other study sessions during summer months. D. Identify possible schedules of Council members for any special meetings for overflow business. CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DATE: May 19, 1994 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dwight Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Summary of Events The TwinWest Annual State of the City meeting was held last Tuesday morning in City Center. Several dozen business people showed up. City staff made a series of short presentations about major projects and developments happening in Plymouth. We also showed the video on City Center. After the presentations, several questions were received about Plymouth's attitude about business and the historical perception of our hostility. We pointed out that we are doing our own survey now to find out if there is a problem and what might be causing it. Afterwards, several people came up to me to say things have been better lately. We also had one question about City Center and the need for expansion, in light of downsizing by many businesses in recent years. We observed that the community as a whole is not downsizing and that we are already behind in the space we need today. We also had a question about the amount of developable land left and the plans for Northwest Plymouth. I will be having another round of employee chat sessions this coming week. I will be telling them about Council goals and objectives and soliciting their input and ideas for the 1995 budget, including ideas for saving money. At the monthly Municipal Legislative Commission Operating Committee meeting on Wednesday, we learned that our state aid funds should come in exactly as planned for 1994 and should remain exactly level in 1995. We also received an interesting report on affordable housing in 10 suburbs including Plymouth. It is included in your packet this week and is worth scanning. At this week's meeting of the Government Advisory Council (Robbinsdale District 281 municipalities), we learned that they are completing a study which shows they have a need for renovating all of their existing buildings that may run to $60 million or more over the next ten years. If and when they renovate the schools in Plymouth, we may have an opportunity to add some recreational facilities for general community use. They plan to submit an application for an athletic facility at Armstrong within the next week to help replace Mielke field. Agenda Number: DATE: May 19, 1994 for the City Council Meeting of May 23, 1994 TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: CONDEMNATION OF CAVANAUGH PARCEL NORTHEAST CORNER HIGHWAY 55 AND VICKSBURG LANE FORMER LIBRARY SITE CITY PROJECT NO. 103 ACTION REQUESTED: Make a motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the settlement agreement in the Cavanaugh condemnation suit. BACKGROUND: The City Council has established a meeting for May 23 to consider a proposed settlement of the Cavanaugh condemnation suit. This settlement was negotiated last Friday when this matter was scheduled to begin jury trial. The settlement has been placed on the court record and will be final if agreed to by the City Council. Attached is a letter dated May 18, 1994 from Allen Barnard, City Attorney, giving background and detailing the proposed settlement. This condemnation matter has a long history with the City beginning in 1990. Since all members of the City Council have not been involved in this matter since its beginning, the following are actions which preceded this settlement agreement: Between 1978 and 1990 the City of Plymouth had several discussions with the Hennepin County Board and the Hennepin County Library Board on the construction of a library in the City of Plymouth. Specifically, the City was trying to get a library constructed in the downtown Plymouth area. In 1990 the Hennepin County Board stated that they would provide funding to construct a library in the downtown Plymouth area if the City of Plymouth gave the land to the County for the site. They further stated that the site must be acceptable to the Hennepin County Library Board. SUBJECT: CONDEMNATION OF CAVANAUGH PARCEL May 19, 1994 Page Two The City submitted three proposed sites in the downtown Plymouth area for the location of a proposed library to the County. One of those sites was currently owned by the City of Plymouth and the other two sites were privately owned. One of the sites was the Cavanaugh parcel. The Library Board selected the Cavanaugh parcel as the only one of the three sites which met their criteria for the location of a library. During January and February of 1991 the City contracted with an independent professional to negotiate the purchase of the Cavanaugh parcel from the property owner. This person was unable to have any negotiations with Mr. Cavanaugh. On April 22, 1991 the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing condemnation of the property by "Quick Take." In accordance with Minnesota law, the City obtained title and possession of the property after the courts approved the City's petition for condemnation. Also at the end of 90 days, the City paid into the court our appraised value of the property. The date of City possession was October 18, 1991. During the court proceedings on declaring the taking of the property for public purpose, Mr. Cavanaugh made objections through his legal counsel. An agreement was reached and approved by the court that this was a taking for public purpose. As part of the agreement, Mr. Cavanaugh had the right to buy any excess property not needed for the library back from the City at the same amount the City paid for the land. Mr. Cavanaugh had 90 days to exercise this option after receiving notification from the City. Condemnation hearings were held before the three commissioners beginning July 7, 1992. I am attaching a July 13, 1992 memorandum from me to the City Manager summarizing four days of testimony for the condemnation commissioners. On September 1, 1992 the commissioners made their award. They established the value of the property at $963,000. Shortly after the commissioners' award, the property owner appealed the award to the district court stating it was too low and the City counter appealed stating the award was too high. SUBJECT: CONDEMNATION OF CAVANAUGH PARCEL May 19, 1994 Page Three After receiving the commissioners' award, the City was made aware that another site that was for sale would be acceptable to the Library Board. This site was at the northeast corner of Vicksburg Lane and 36th Avenue. The City began negotiations for a purchase agreement for this property with the property owner. The City was able to reach an agreement with the property owner to purchase the property for 485,000. In October or November of 1992 the City and the County entered into an agreement for transfer of the second site to the Library Board for the construction of a County library. On November 16, 1992 the City Council declared the original library site (Cavanaugh parcel) as surplus property and notified Mr. Cavanaugh that he had 90 days in which to execute his option to repurchase the property. March 15, 1993 the City Council canceled Mr. Cavanaugh's option to repurchase the property since he had not made payment to the City in accordance with the terms of the option agreement. Between March, 1993 and May, 1994 there were several attempts to negotiate a settlement with the Cavanaugh's. None of these attempts were successful since Mr. Cavanaugh was still requesting at least 1,600,000 for the property. This is only a brief summary of the events in this matter. If Councilmembers have specific questions, I would suggest they contact either the City Attorney, the City Manager, or myself. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has the option of rejecting this settlement agreement. If the settlement agreement is rejected, I would suggest that specific direction be given to the City Attorney on what settlement would be acceptable. The other option available is to let this matter proceed to trial and a jury will establish the value of the property after hearing testimony from both parties. Either party would then have the option of appealing that award to a higher court. BUDGET IMPACT: If the settlement is accepted, it is my opinion that there would be no direct impact on the City budget. The City would be able to sell the property for at least the amount of the settlement. If Mr. Cavanaugh would exercise his option, we will receive the amount of the settlement plus $50,000. SUBJECT: CONDEMNATION OF CAVANAUGH PARCEL May 19, 1994 Page Four RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: It is the recommendation of both Allen Barnard and myself that it is in the best interest of the City to accept the negotiated agreement. Fred G. Moore, P.E. Director of Public Works attachments: Resolution Letter Memorandum CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 94 - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CITY VERSUS CAVANAUGH, ET. AL. CITY PROJECT 103 WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth undertook a condemnation proceeding to acquire a site for a proposed Hennepin County library at the northeast corner of Highway 55 and Vicksburg Lane; and WHEREAS, The condemnation commission made an award on the value of the property in September, 1992; and WHEREAS, both the City and the property owner appealed the award to the district court; and WHEREAS; as part of the district court process, the City and the property owner have reached a proposed agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA: The negotiated settlement between the attorney for the City and the attorney for the property owner which provides for the following is approved: 1. Deposit of the unpaid balance of the $963,000 award with the Court along with interest at a rate of 7.5 % on the unpaid balance. 2. Deposit with the court the sum of $90,000 for Cavanaugh expert and other expenses of this proceeding. 3. Grant Cavanaugh an option to repurchase the property at an option price consisting of the total amount paid to the court together with $50,000, such option to expire unless the total sum is deposited with the City of Plymouth on or before the close of business on September 30, 1994. Adopted by the City Council on May 23, 1994. BEST & FLANAGAN ATTORNEYS AT LA« ROBERT L.CROSBY CHARLES C. BERQUIST 4000 FIRST BANK PLACE CINDY J. LARSON OF COUNSELLEONARDM.ADDINGTON GEORGE O.LUDCKE CARYN SCHERB GLOVER JOHN R.CARROLLROBERTR.BARTH E.JOSEPH LAFAVE 601 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH CLARY E.SHEAREN JAMES D•OLSONN. WALTER GRAFF ALLEN D. BARNARD GREGORY D.SOULE CATHY E.GORLIN MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 -4331 CATHERINE J. COURTNEY KEITH J. NELSEN ROBERT M.SKARE RICHARD A.PETERSON PATCICK B. HENNESSY TELEPHONE (612 ) 330-7121 BARBARA M. ROSS ARCHIBALD SPENCER WARD B.LEWISROBERTJ. CHRISTIANSON, JR. TIMOTHY A. SULLIVAN TRACY F. KOGHENDORFER FRANK J. WALZ FRANK VOGL BRIAN F. RicE DANIEL R.W. NELSON TELECOPIER (0121 330-5697 JEA\NICE M. REDING SARAH CRIPPEN MADISON MARINUS W. VAN PUTTEN, JR. TRACY J.VAN STEENBURGH ROBERT D•MAHER DAVID B. MORSE DAVID J.ZUREK DAVID H. JOHNSON JAMES I.BESTJOHNA. BURTON, JR. STEVEN R.KRUOER WILLIAM J. MORRIS 1802-1988 JAMES C. DIRACLES JAMES P. MICHELS MICHAEL L. DIGGS ROBERT J. FLANAGANROBERTL.MELLER,JR. PAUL E. KAMINSKI Direct Dial: 341-9715 MICHAEL H. PINK 1898-1974 JUDITH A. ROGOSHESKE JOHN P. BOYLE SCOTT D. ELLER ROSS C. FORMELL May 18, 1994 CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION Mayor Joy Tierney Mr. David A. Anderson Mr. John W. Edson Mr. Nicholas P. Granath Ms. Carole J. Helliwell Mr. Chuck Lymangood Ms. Sheryl G. Morrison Mr. Dwight Johnson City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 RE: City of Plymouth v. W.J. Cavanaugh, et al. Court File No. CD -2215 Original Library Site Condemnation) Dear Mayor Tierney, Council Members and Mr. Johnson: As some of you may know, the above case was scheduled for jury trial before the Honorable Harry Seymour Crump, judge of the District Court, on May 9, 1994. Since it was the third case on his block of cases, the parties were asked to present themselves for trial on Thursday afternoon, May 12, 1994. After some able assistance by Judge Crump, the parties tentatively agreed to a settlement of this matter which we submit for your approval. BACKGROUND Since this is a complicated matter, a little background information is in order. In early 1991, the City of Plymouth commenced the above condemnation action to acquire the site which the Hennepin County Board had indicated at that time was the only approved site for the library. It is the site located at the northeastern quadrant of the intersection of Vicksburg and Highway 55. It is approximately 5 acres or 220,000 square feet in size. After a lengthy dispute over public purpose, the Court Mayor Joy Tierney City of Plymouth Council Members Mr. Dwight Johnson May 18, 1994 Page 2 found that there was a public purpose and appointed commissioners to determine the value of the land. The Court also entered an order transferring title and possession of the land to the City of Plymouth on or about October 18, 1991. The Court's order incorporated an option agreement between the Cavanaughs and the City of Plymouth which provided that the Cavanaughs would have an option to repurchase any part of the land not used for a library. Lengthy hearings were held by the commissioners on the value of the site and they entered their award on September 2, 1992 in the amount of $963,000. A copy of the Award is attached as Exhibit A. Robert Lindall of the Holmes & Graven firm handled the condemnation matter before commissioners. He advised the City of the Award and whether an appeal to the District Court should be taken. A copy of Mr. Lindall's letter is attached as Exhibit B. Thereafter, the Cavanaughs filed an appeal to the District Court for a jury trial on the condemnation award. They felt that the award of $963,000 was inadequate. We were substituted as legal counsel for the City of Plymouth and we filed a cross appeal to preserve the City's right to argue for a lower valuation. The City tendered the property back to the Cavanaughs under the Option Agreement mentioned above, but they didn't exercise the option. THE SETTLEMENT Since the City had tendered the property back to the Cavanaughs, we suggested the same as a possible method to settle the case in our conversations before Judge Crump. After much discussion, Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that he would settle the case on the following terms which we recommend to you: 1. Deposit of the unpaid balance of the $963,000 award with the Court along with interest on the unpaid balance. 2. Deposit the sum of $90,000 for Cavanaugh expert and other expenses of this proceeding. 3. Grant Cavanaugh an option to repurchase the property at an option price consisting of the total amount paid him together with $50,000, such option to expire unless the total sum is deposited with the City of Plymouth on or before the close of business on September 30, 1994. For the most part, the interest and expenses are items which the condemnation law requires acquiring agencies pay landowners. Interest on the unpaid condemnation award is payable from the date of taking. If the landowner can show that the statutory interest rate is less than the long term corporate bond rate, the land owner is entitled to the long term corporate bond rate. We agreed on a rate of 7.5% for the entire period which we believe to be below the long term corporate bond rate and in line with the borrowing rate of the City over that time period. Once an appeal to the District Court is taken, the land owner is entitled to recover his or her expenses of the proceeding including expert witness fees, appraisals and all other miscellaneous costs, except for attorney -fees. The $90,000 figure is approximately half attorney fees and half expert fees, expenses and miscellaneous costs. In addition, an argument can be made that if Cavanaugh took the property back, he would be entitled to all of his fees and expenses, including attorney fees, under a provision in the law which provides for dismissal of condemnation proceedings. As you can see from Mr. Lindall's letter, attached as Exhibit B, this is a good result. The City has acquired the land for a midrange price and removed the possibility that the jury would have accepted Mr. Cavanaugh's estimate of value or his appraiser's estimated value. Mr. Cavanaugh's appraiser is a good appraiser with whom I have worked in the past. He is especially adept at presenting his position to juries. I hope this information is helpful in your review of this matter. I will be happy to discuss it further with you in a closed session of the council. Very truliyamours, J . l Allen D. Barnard ADB:kn\4710.1tr cc: Fred Moore 416tjl_ G 3 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN g2 SSP -Z UR H JUDICIAL DISTRICT rlf COURT FILE NO. CD -2215 S" R t City of Plymouth, a Minnesota Case Type: Condemnation municipal corporation, Petitioner, V. AWARD OF COMMISSIONERS W.J. Cavanaugh and Jeannine Cavanaugh, Respondents. IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING A LIBRARY The undersigned Commissioners, appointed by the above-named Court, having qualified according to law, met as directed by the Order of the Court appointing them as Commissioners, given notice in writing of the time and place of their meetings, heard the allegations and proofs of all persons wishing to give evidence with respect to the matters committed to them, heard testimony publicly under oath from those persons wishing to be heard in connection with said taking, and in their presence viewed the lands hereinafter described, completed such hearings as were requested by parties appearing with respect to said lands, now hereby make the following award of damages, which in their judgment will result to the owners of the premises described in the Petition and to any party having an interest therein by reason of the taking of said premises by the Petitioner. CARLSK39679 PL100-107 1 Exhibit A I The total award of damages to all persons or parties interested in said premises is in the sum of $ 9 (o_5,0W Said award is made as follows: TO: W. J. Cavanaugh $ Jeannine Cavanaugh We hereby allow to the respondents W. J. Cavanaugh and Jeannine Cavanaugh, in addition to the above -awarded damages, the sum of $500.00 as reasonable appraisal fees pursuant to Minn. Stat. 117.085. The aforesaid award of damages is made subject to the following: T'I\., ow n e -r5 obl i F -i o,-, U pow - o X e -s c u cvru Pa+ ab t, 4-In rou9P Oct- off' 1 I lei 1 QUry - r-ol 0a w;- ff_y Q }i -e—S o.nmy , cid OW n e r:5 Oki o,'n A al 1 o6 -{i, V n po 4 sPPGia- G S5 2ss vrvzm LJh iUC. W eA_a { e,\/ i eA a S Ob Or oben 1 l ) tcR n e"r Do Itok:l m A -D po'y su c-, Sl -r- e.- ry-,c,- e-\+ ey-a n e -P— a44\z r am nu OJ J_\0IY_ J e -S U.S W 'U12 C\,f i eon 115 ob 040beI- 11 baa( , b Unless otherwise stated, this award reserves all public street easements and all public alley easements in favor of the City of Plymouth. We further report that each of the undersigned Commissioners viewed the property described in the Petition and that all the undersigned participated in hearing all testimony of the interested parties which was offered for consideration by the commissioners CARISK39679 PLIOC-197 a: and participated in ascertaining, determining, assessing and awarding damages for the taking of said premises. Dated: '7 — 1992 t This document was drafted by: HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (RJL) 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 612) 337-9300 File PL100-107 CARLSR39679 PL100-107 3 JXmes' tariiel-s ,/Commissioner Scott Rupper ',-Commissioner Nelson (Bud) A drus, Commissioner Wff 6E MWIE b A. ant4 Y 0; HtNNE!lG F&Ii1.1 io be a five ana curr3ct c^n9 of the, EF{ginal 011 file and of record in my offlcc. SEP W tD, y , G Aart;lhlsktetaf ay / Deputy HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED Attorneys at Law JOHN M. LEFE-*"RE. JR. 470 Pi1Lcbury Center, Mlnneapolk, ,finnesota 55402 ROBERT J. LINDALL ROBERT A. ALSOP 612) 337.9300 LAURA K. %IOLLET Ro\ALD H. BATTY BARBARA L PORTWOOD STEPHEN J. BUBUL Facsimile (612) 337.9310 JAMES M. STROMMEN JOHN B. DEAN JAMES J. THO SSON, JR. MARY G. DOBBINS LARRY M. WERTHEIM STEFANIE N. GALEY BONNIE L WR.i:INS CORRINE A. HEINE GARY P. WI\TER JAMES S. HOLMES WRITER'S DIRECT DLAL DAVID L. GRAVEN (19:9 1991) DAVID J. KENNEDY JOHN R. LARSON OF COLISEL WELLINGTON H. LAW September 11, 1992 ROBERT C. CARLSON CHARLES L. LEFEN ERE ROBERT L. DAVIDSON CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION Mr. Frank Boyles City Manager VIA FAX City of Plymouth 550-5060 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 RE: City of Plymouth v. W. Court File No. CD -2215 Our File No. PL100-107, Dear Mr. Boyles: J. Cavanaugh Library Site Condemnation Enclosed herewith is a copy of the Commissioners Award in this matter in the amount of $963,000. At hearings before the Commissioners, the owner testified that the damages should be in the amount of $1,899,000. He is a lifelong real estate developer and investor so that he had greater credibility then a normal owner because of that. The owner's appraiser, C.E. LaSalle, testified that the value of the property taken was $1,470,000. The City's appraiser, Al Carufel, had prepared an opinion in the amount of $600,000. However, because of a later sale of a parcel near the subject property, he updated his opinion for the purpose of testimony at the hearings to $575,000. The award of $963,000 represents 50.7 percent of the owner's testimony of $1,899,000 and 65.5 percent of the owner's appraiser's opinion of $1,470,000. The award represents 167 percent of the City's appraiser's opinion of $575,000. If you consider the difference between $575,000 (the City's appraiser's opinion) and $1,899,000 (the owner's opinion) to be a range of potential damage amounts which the -Commissioners could have awarded, the $963,000 award is 29.3 percent of the range between these two potential outcomes. The midpoint of this range is $1,237,000. If you consider the difference between $575,000 (the City's appraiser's opinion) and $1,470,000 (the owner's appraiser's opinion) to be a range of potential damage amounts which the Exhibit B Frank Boyles September 11, 1992 Page 2 Commissioners could have awarded, the $963,000 award is 43.4 percent of the range between these two potential outcomes. The midpoint of this range is $1,023,000. The Commissioners spent a great amount of time hearing evidence about the following subjects: 1. Whether it is reasonably probable that, upon the request of a buyer, the City Council would reguide the property to permit B-2 or B-3 business uses, rather than simply B-1, the current guiding. 2. The type of access and conditions under which access would be granted to Vicksburg Lane. 3. The purchase price and circumstances surrounding the purchase of the "Streeter Parcel" (located on Lots 3-6, Block 5, Plymouth Hills). The owner made extensive attempts to force us to disclose the identity of any other appraiser who had rendered an opinion to the City concerning the value of the property and the amount of his appraisal opinion. We were successful in resisting those efforts. We have the only copies of the appraisal report in our file. To assist you in considering the reasonableness of the Award, I will disclose the amount of that second opinion. However, it is important that you not disclose this amount so that we are able to continue to protect that appraisal report, in the event of any appeal. We are reasonably confident that we should be able to continue to protect that opinion as being confidential under the Data Privacy Act and not discoverable under the Rules of Civil Procedure, so long as we do not compromise that protection by disclosing the information to any other person or party. Therefore, please admonish the City Council to respect this confidentiality. The amount of the second appraisal opinion was 820,000. Particularly in view of the amount of the second appraisal opinion, I think that the amount of the award was not unreasonable and I don't recommend that you appeal the Award. I am also enclosing a copy of the option agreement that was entered into between the City and the owners as a condition of the owners' acquiescing to the entry of an Order Approving the Petition. Under the option agreement, after the City and the County Library Board have agreed upon the site plan for a new library and related access, the owner has a right to purchase any surplus acreage on the site so long as the surplus contains at Frank Boyles September 11, 1992 Page 3 least one acre. The one acre minimum was to assure that the site would be buildable and therefore would not end up "going to weeds" because of not being developable. Furthermore, the City did not wish to be forced into the position of permitting development of a site which was illegal under its ordinance. The option price is to be the amount of the Award divided by the acreage of the site acquired from the Cavanaughs, multiplied by the number of square feet purchased by the Cavanaughs pursuant to the option. It was also anticipated during those discussions that the library board would insist that the library be located adjacent to TH55 and Vicksburg Lane and that the north part of the site would be required for access so that any excess which may exist would be located at the east edge of the site adjacent to TH55 but would need access in order to be developable. The Commissioners also awarded the Cavanaughs the sum of $500.00 in reimbursement of appraisal fees incurred by them in the condemnation. Please arrange for issuance of a check in that amount to the Cavanaughs. You may mail it directly to them at 2015 Aquila Avenue N, Golden Valley, MN 55427. Please send me and Thomas Humphrey, attorney for the Cavanaughs, copies of the check and your -letter of transmittal. If there is no appeal of the Award, we can expect a request from the owner for payment of the unpaid principal balance of the Award plus interest to be made shortly after expiration of the Appeal period. If there is an Appeal, the owner is entitled to request payment of the unpaid balance of the Award up to 75 percent of the Award plus interest. To date, the City has paid $600,000 by way of deposit with the District Court Administrator. Thank you for the opportunity to represent you in this matter. I would be happy to represent you in an appeal if you decide that you wish to appeal the Award. In that event, please contact me. Yours very truly, 1 Robert J. Lindall RJI, : dh cc : \,l Fred Moore Jim Thomson P.S. I'm sorry, my schedule won't permit me to attend a meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, September 14, 1992. If another time is possible, please advise me. MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: July 13, 1992 TO: James G. Willis C'ty Manager FROM: Fred G. Moore Director of Public Works SUBJECT: LIBRARY SITE ACQUISITION CONDEMNATION HEARINGS CAVANAUGH PARCEL CITY PROJECT NO. 103 The Condemnation Commissioner Hearings on the City's taking of the Cavanaugh parcel to be used as a library site began Tuesday morning, July 7. The hearings continued for four days last week and concluded at noon on Monday, July 13. The following schedule was established at the conclusion of the hearings by the chairman of the three member commission panel: 1. The'attorneys for the property owner and the City are to exchange written briefs of the testimony presented at the hearing on or before July 27. 2. The chair of the commission stated that the commissioners would then be meeting and should be reaching a decision on their determination of the value of the property within about 30 days. 3. In accordance with the appointment of the three commissioners by the district court, they must make their ruling by September 30, 1992. Mr. Cavanaugh was represented by Tim Keane and Tom Humphrey with Larkin, Hoffman, Daly.... The City of Plymouth was represented by Bob Lindahl with Holmes and Graven. As the representative for the client, City of Plymouth, I attended all of the hearings with the exception of approximately one hour at various occasions where I had other commitments representing the City which I could not change. Also in attendance at the hearings were Bill Cavanaugh, his wife, his brother, and his son. The key question in this condemnation matter is the expected "highest and best use" of the property. Depending upon the answer to this question, qualified appraisers for each party reached greatly differing conclusions. The property owner used the following witnesses as part of their direct testimony: Blair Tremere (This was done under subpoena since he would not voluntarily attend the hearings). SUBJECT: LIBRARY SITE ACQUISITION July 13, 1992 Page Two Ken Anderson - Traffic engineer Peter Lasalle - Appraiser for property owner Bill Cavanaugh - Property owner The following people testified on behalf of the City of Plymouth: Fred Moore - Director of Public Works Scott Hovet - City Assessor A. Chuck Dillerud - Director of Community Development Dennis Eyler - Traffic Engineer with Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch Al Carufel - Appraiser for City. The following is a very brief summer of, in my opinion, the major testimony in four and one half days of hearings: 1. The existing zoning of the property is B-1. 2. The City's Land Use Guide Plan indicates the use of the property as CC (Community Shopping Center). 3. In the text of the City Guide Plan, it states that the zoning designation for the property could be as follows: All business districts, subject to the approved development plan. 4. Mr. Lasalle testifying for the property owner owner stated that in his opinion, the highest and best use of the property would be either B-2 or B-3 zoning which would allow either retail or service business. He relied on the City's Comprehensive Plan which stated any retail use is permitted in the CC Guiding. 5. Al Carufel testified on behalf of the City stated that he believes the highest and best uses are the uses permitted in the B-1 Zoning since there must be an approved development plan for the property. 6. Mr. Lasalle further testified that the value of the five acre parcel was $1,470,000 ($6.75/sq. ft.). 7. Al Carufel testified that the value of the same parcel was 575,000 ($2.60/sq. ft.). 8. Bill Cavanaugh testified that in his opinion the property value was $1,900,000. SUBJECT: LIBRARY SITE ACQUISITION ' A 0 ?0V0July13, 1992 Page Three ' At the conclusion of the testimony this morning, each attorney was given a 20 minute period to summarize the facts before the Commissioners. The following are key points which each attorney made in their summary: Tom Humphrey for the property owner. 1. Bill Cavanaugh has held onto this corner until the time is ready for development. The time is now since Cub has built their store on the adjacent property. 2. The most important factor is the highest and best use of the property. B -2/B-3 is consistent with what the City thinks could happen relying on the Land Use Guide Plan. 3. The west one-half of the property is worth $11 per square foot and the east one-half is worth $6.40 per square foot in accordance with the testimony of Bill Cavanaugh. 4. The most likely land sales which are comparable to this property are in the Rockford Road Plaza Shopping Center have been at $10.55 per square foot. There is less traffic adjacent to the Rockford Road Plaza Shopping Center. 5. The current zoning of B-1 is not proper since it is intended to be a buffer to residential properties and there are no residential properties immediately adjacent to this parcel. 6. The City and their testimony indicated that there would be major hurdles to overcome to have this parcel approved as a PUD. Why would this be a problem since the remainder of the downtown Plymouth area is a PUD. 7. Does the property need to be rezoned? To which Mr. Humphrey gave the answer of "Yes." Does the property need a PUD if one building is constructed? Mr. Humphrey gave the answer of "No." 8. Peter Lasalle (property owner's appraiser) only assumed a right- in/right-out access to the site from Vicksburg Lane. 9. A request was made to the commissioners if they should establish a value for the east one-half and the west one-half of the property because of the option agreement with the City. Those parts of the property which are not used for a library, Mr. Cavanaugh has an option to purchase back. Bob Lindahl for the City: 1. The burden of proof to establish the property value at these commissioner's hearings is the responsibility of the property owner. SUBJECT: LIBRARY SITE ACQUISITION July 13, 1992 Page Four 2. This is a desirable parcel as regard to visibility from Highway 55, but it does have a down side. The down side is access. There is no access from Highway 55 and the testimony has been that the only possible access from Vicksburg Lane is right-in/right-out. This access would also have to be in conjunction with the current right- in/right-out driveway to Cub. 3. Why in 1980 would the City pay $90,000 as part of the taking of the right-of-way on Vicksburg Lane and then give it back to the property owner by allowing an opening in the current median on Vicksburg Lane. 4. In order to have a right-in/right-out on Vicksburg Lane, the owner of this property will have to acquire these rights from Cub. 5. The Day parcel in downtown Plymouth was purchased for $2.38 per square foot with B-2 Zoning. 6. For the highest and best use to be legal, it must have the proper zoning. 7. When Blair Tremere testified, he was under subpoena. He was not Community Development Director on the day of taking, October 11, 1991. Mr. Tremere is currently a consultant for property owners within this area advocating a change in the current PUD plan. 8. Chuck Dillerud stated that a Conditional Use Permit and a Planned Unit Development Plan must be submitted for this parcel. q. Chuck Dillerud further stated that it would be purely speculative to state what plan would be approved and what rezoning would be approved by the City Council. 10. The offers for other property for sale in the downtown Plymouth area are between $1.50 to $4.00 per square foot. The RTC, within the last two weeks, sold a parcel of land along 37th Avenue for 69 per square foot. 11. The Streeter parcel along Highway 55 was purchased for $3.00 per square foot. 12. Mr. Lasalle, in his appraisals, used comparable sales along Interstate 394 in Minnetonka and St. Louis Park. These are all superior locations. Further, Mr. Lasalle stated that the Streeter sale was of no consequences and ignored the other offerings for the sale of property within the downtown Plymouth area. 13. All of Mr. Carufel's comparable sales were either in the downtown Plymouth area or within the City of Plymouth. 14. Any reasonable purchaser of the property would use the current zoning of the property as of the date of taking, October 11, 1991, which is B-1. SUBJECT: LIBRARY SITE ACQUISITION --; July 13, 1992 i y Page Five If there are additional questions regarding the hearings, please let me know and I will try to answer them. FGM:kh Agenda Number: `-7- For Expenditures Exceeding $15,000 TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager g FROM: Eric Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation ,- - SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION MAY 23 - WEST MEDICINE LAKE PARK REVIEW DATE: May 19, 1994, for Council Meeting of May 23 1. PROPOSED MOTION (This motion would come before the Council at their June 6 meeting.) In order for this 1995 project to proceed according to schedule, the Council needs to adopt the following motion. Move to approve the West Medicine Lake Park master plan as recommended by PRAC and authorize the consultant to begin work on construction documents and authorize staff to submit 1995 park grant application. 2. STATEMENT OF PROJECT: Reconstruction of West Medicine Lake Park using the entire 65 acres that has been acquired during the past 24 years. The attached May 19 memorandum further describes the project. Site plans are also attached for Council review. 3. NEEDS ANALYSIS: This project is proceeding in accordance with the adopted comprehensive plans for parks and trails. There are no developed parks lying north of Highway 55 between West Medicine Lake Drive and Northwest Boulevard. The residents of this area have been requesting the development of this or other park facilities for many years. No section of the City has waited longer or has a higher definable need for park facilities than this area. These people have paid taxes and park dedication fees and to date, their only return has been the construction of the West Medicine Lake Drive trail. Medicine Lake is the second largest lake in Hennepin County, and thus is a tremendous recreational draw for the entire citizenry of Plymouth. I anticipate that this park will enjoy the same success and community support as Parkers Lake. Further needs analysis is reviewed in the attached May 19 memorandum. 4. ALTERNATIVES: The only alternative other than construction would be indefinite postponement of the project. 5. DISCUSSION: Attached for Council review are copies of memos, reports, etc., outlining in detail the specifics for this project. The attachments are as follows: A. May 18 memo reviewing project description and needs analysis. B. Copy of site plan C. Traffic study for West Medicine Lake Drive. D Site analysis maps. E Names of people attending first public meeting. F. List of focus group individual G. Three letters addressing the park subject. There are four things that are required to have a successful park project: Acquisition of property. Financial plan. Master plan for park. Development of site. Items one through three are the most difficult portions of any park development program. I am pleased to say we have accomplished the first three tasks. Last Monday night, Council authorized the acquisition of the final piece of property for West Medicine Lake Park. During the past 24 years, the City has purchased approximately 17 homes and businesses to create the vacant property for this park site. West Medicine Lake Drive, which was at one time, a county road, has been turned over to the City in exchange for Northwest Boulevard. Past City Councils created tax increment financing programs which currently have a balance of $8,000,000. Two million dollars of those funds have been budgeted for the acquisition and development of Phase I of West Medicine Lake Park. The Park Commission and the staff have conducted numerous public meetings to gather consensus of the community with regard to the future development of this park. Hundreds of individuals have participated in meetings held at City Center and at Medicine Lake City Hall. A focus group of seven residents living immediately around the park was convened to work directly with the consultants on the preparation of the final master plan. The focus group unanimously recommended adoption of this master plan to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. The Park Commission, after receiving many favorable comments at their meetings, voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council the adoption of this proposed master plan. The fourth and final phase of the project, site construction, although it is the easiest to implement, will be the most time consuming phase. Barton-Aschman is estimating that it will take approximately three months to prepare the basic construction documents for this project. It is estimated that an additional four months will be required to secure permits from the following agencies: DNR's protected water permit. Corps of Engineer's wetland permit section 404. MPCA storm water permit for construction. Bassett Creek Watershed draining permit. Wetland alteration permit from the City to meet requirements of the wetland conservation act. Con6&onal use ptr-mit iur work in flood pi tin issued by the City. Following this timetable, the project would be available for bid sometime between late December and March, 1995. Once construction begins, it is estimated that we will need approximately eighteen months to complete the project. 6. BUDGET MWACT: The estimated cost of Phase I construction is $1,495,000 (see attached preliminary construction estimate). The estimated annual operating expense is 68,000 a year (see attached operating estimate). 7. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the City Council endorse the West Medicine Lake master plan as recommended by the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and that they further direct the City's consulting engineers to begin the preparation of the detailed plans and specifications and proceed with submittals for permits to the necessary agencies in a timely fashion. I also want to make the Council aware that the grant application deadline for park projects is August 1 of this year. Because of the shortage of money made available by the Legislature, the DNR has put a cap on each grant to individual cities of 50,000. I think that we have a high probability of receiving funding. This grant would be enough money to pay for a very nice playground structure. Therefore, I would recommend that we also make application to the Department of Natural Resources for a park grant. Barry Warner, of Barton-Aschman and Associates, will be at the meeting to answer any detailed questions the Council may have with regard to the project. EB/np 3 CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 5544' DATE: May 19, 1994 TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Listed below is a brief description of each item in the capital improvements program for the year 1994-95 and the rationale for the project. Generally these projects are listed in my priority by year. It should be noted that the Park Commission has not prioritized them within the year. 1. West Medicine Lake Park Description: This park will be developed in three phases. Phase 1 consists of the land acquisition of three single family home sites and the development of the realignment of West Medicine Lake Boulevard between 18th Avenue and 23rd Avenue. This will also involve underground utilities such as storm sewer, sanitary sewer, electrical, etc. Additional development will probably include bridges over the creek, some creek cleaning and dredging and lake access. The funding for this is currently allocated in tax increment funds of $2,000,000. This money is on hand as part of the $8,000,000 tax increment pool at this time. Phase 2 will consist of the development of the park, such items as swimming beach, trails, picnic shelters, volleyball, children's playground, tennis courts, etc. Funding for this phase of the project is shown in 1995. Part of this funding is contingent on the City receiving a state and federal grant. Phase 3 which is unfunded at this time would be the addition of a permanent building at the park site. The Park Commission, in the development of future budgets, will review the need, timing and funding for such a structure. Needs Analysis In the City's comprehensive plan, Walking Neighborhoods Nos. 27 and 39 currently have unmet deficiencies of neighborhood park land, ranging between 13 and 19 acres. Because this is one of the oldest original developed areas of the City, no neighborhood park land was set aside. For this reason, approximately 25 years ago, the City set out to acquire homes and businesses along West Medicine Lake to create a park. The 1982 park system plan contemplated a city park on the west shore of Medicine Lake. The purpose of this park is to meet city-wide needs of all our residents. A very small park consisting of simply the lake shore for a beach and a small playground area has been in operation for a number of years. The playground equipment had to be taken down a year ago because it was so dilapidated, it was too dangerous to leave up. The Park & Recreation Advisory Commission has hosted five public meetings on the development of this park. They also set up a citizen focus group of eight residents from the area surrounding the park to work in concurrence with the consultant on the development of the park. The overwhelming sentiment of the residents has been for development of the park, keeping in mind the issues that wanted to have addressed. Some of those major issues that we've attempted to address involve no new boats on Medicine Lake, improve the water quality in Plymouth Creek going into Medicine Lake, bring back the swimming beach that was closed three years ago, slow down traffic on West Medicine Lake Boulevard, and provide a safe and clean environment that they can use within a reasonable distance of their homes. The Park Commission and Planning Commission have both previously approved this project as part of the CIP review. The City Council approved this project as part of the 1993 Capital Improvements Program allocating the funding in 1994 for Phase I development. Because of the extremely long history and deficiency of developed park land in this area, the staff believes that the development of West Medicine Lake Park should receive a high priority. np I FOR li l iii s S. FOR I ihN I ---- JF==iL-----JF=l 0 50 100 150 010 M-0 PARK MASTER PIAN 4AZr0H-ASLX9j.N AMOCLx-,M, jNc. BTI 1.0 r— S--% sw 3w W-1P..— Aub =-"Zl WZ) 1w41w Zry/ elf TENNIS COUM AND MVEM&UL Hoof VN smTER/mcH WFROVZI) LAKESHORE VEGETATION PIAYGROUND CONCRETE OR STONE REACH WALL LARGE PICNIC SULTER UJ BEACH MODBUD TO A 1-3* DEPTH PICNIC SEmTmm COUNCIL Mc Y1911ING DOCK SAND VOLLEYRALL. COURT zwrR&Ncz siciucit wrrH TILFwvn PLANTINrs XIXX TRAM BOCE TRLTL It" ME AVL ALIGNMENT NV NEW CUL VE SAC WEST MEDICINE E PARK SEASONAL BOAT/ICE HOUSE ACCESS X= TRAM MESTRIAN TRAIL PICNIC SBZLTKRS FAMONG FOR 05 CARS BOAT DOCKS COMMUNITY BUILDING WITH DECK PARKING TURN AROUND/DROP-OFT FOCAL POINT VTM SCULPTURAL SIE PIAYGROUND CONCRETE OR STONE REACH WALL LARGE PICNIC SULTER UJ BEACH MODBUD TO A 1-3* DEPTH PICNIC SEmTmm COUNCIL Mc Y1911ING DOCK SAND VOLLEYRALL. COURT zwrR&Ncz siciucit wrrH TILFwvn PLANTINrs XIXX TRAM BOCE TRLTL It" ME AVL ALIGNMENT NV NEW CUL VE SAC WEST MEDICINE E PARK SRFSTRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & PLANNERS TRANSPORTATION CML STRUCTURAL ENVIRONMENTAL PARKING SRF No. 0942023 MEMORANDUM TO: Eric Blank Parks and Recreation Director City of Plymouth FROM: Dennis Eyler, P.E. Principal DATE: March 23, 1994 SUBJECT: WEST MEDICINE LAKE DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY As you requested, we have completed an analysis concerning the traffic impacts due to the proposed improvements to West Medicine Lake Park and realignment of West Medicine Lake Drive. In the proposed project, the segment of West Medicine Lake Drive is a major collector street between 26th Avenue and T.H. 55 with a posted speed limit of 30 mph (see Figure 1: Project Location). The west shore of Medicine Lake runs along the east roadside, with the park grounds and parking lot along the west roadside. There is a traffic signal at West Medicine Lake Drive and T.H. 55. All cross streets along the study segment are stop controlled at West Medicine Lake Drive. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Municipal State Aid (MSA) counts for the study segment of West Medicine Lake Drive were available for 1991 and 1993. New traffic volume data (ADT) was collected on March 15, 1994 on West Medicine Lake Drive, north of 18th Avenue and on 18th Avenue, west of West Medicine Lake Drive (see Figure 2: Traffic Volumes). A seasonal adjustment was applied to the recent traffic volume data taken in March 1994 to generate the midsummer background volumes for West Medicine Lake Drive north of 18th Avenue and 18th Avenue. A comparison between the generated Suite 150, One Carlson Parkway North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447-4443 612) 475-0010 FAX (612) 475-2429 28TH AVE.N.28TH PLS 9 a N J 3 28TH (0 AVE.) 27TH PL. 3 Y oo ¢ J c h , N. ? UJ 7T 27TH AVE w C z Z u o P z 2 u 2ILJl J ¢ 27TH S ¢ tL J AV.- 26TH AVE MEDICINE 26TH AVE. 59 a J a J 25TH AVE. N. " 59 . S Q la J a 24TH AvF N ¢ s zPROJECTLOCATIONe o4. J LAKEO 23RD O z x o23R AvE; / \ a y `\ AvE 2 aa w yG EDICINE IT IvE LA. 9 \LAKE i IsTH AVE. 1990 POP. 385 a Al AVE. N. Ao j IZ OQ' • Y a . PSE • nF- o w N tiLAZ aLu 2 fly `, y4t 9¢ o INV I Y w '¢ t rti COLONIAL Cl .; qIF• p T J I TH 1 J AVEtit N LA N N`f zz vJ fig. A E. N. Q0 0 zQ90 \ w E v o n rnO y pv tj ¢ U coo o a , o I ITH AVE. O c 1 1 TH AVE. N. Y ¢ may. — 10TH AVE. RAV WOO j LA. NX In U J y vuj 9TH I RESDEN o J RD AVE. N. ¢ 9TH A\ 2 z 9' z O m WIrGEMEP 172 =w' o ....... ...... 73 l72 OZ 26. EVERGREEN L}s'$ TH ? BOO Thy qvE a 'pBTH l OG tR • A E Z Y 9 r 26. o ,P. RO 0gLSP s u UAKER LA N w z 2' z 73 H NSE X90 AVE. N. Q z z TRFNr z SERVrCE R a SJ J pZ a ¢ J 0. q F J QQUJ p J ¢ D 2 7 C wpw • 1: V y z F N w aLm paRIDGEMOUNTAVE mNI Z _ SHELA P,D, / 160-, I PKWY. 73 SR STRCAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC CITY OF PLYMOUTH FIGURECONSUMNGENCUV"MU PROJECT LOCATION a7-, i i7iClw, 4.,;AKE DRiVC ®_.,. _ SRF NO. TRAFFIC STUDY 28TH AVE.N2*37H PVE j N. J IF _— 28TH c^ vE27THPL. 3 o a a Q N. 2 JUNE 1991 - 960 Zit Y = Z z 27TH AVE > ¢ a o o 27ry x P P JUNE 1993 - 1020 Rct o v aPP' ¢ 27THZpzu ¢ s Z °P O FP a - A V. 26TH qvE a o a N' MEDICINE 26TH AVE' a 59 .a f J J 25TH AVE. N. 24tH AVE, N. ~ w s ¢ - J N O O a a u' WS . _ • J LAKE 23 QA cD y JUNE 1991 -4105 BARK \\ 2 S' JUNE 1993 - 3805 \ Fy MARCH 1994 - 3315 z ti SGS r'IEDICINE IVE LA. \ v LAKE 1 6 p 18TH AVE. 6 I /19,Q0 POP, 385 • 3 aj I 90 lC\(. Al AVE. N._ `\` Q P o: MARCH 1994 - 640¢ N • y O u7 OJZ til AOti L A W N I YL f l w¢ JCOLONIAL ClCI q F s AVE N qL 1; g " ' 12TH JUNE 1991 - 5555 w N J g. 0 LA N. Y Q w EVE AVE. JUNE 1993 - 5415 J o $ z j op " - tw D m U. / S 11TH AVE. cr LLJJ m O 0 11TH AVE. N. Y w RAV NWOOD - - J` Z 10TH AVE. ti2LA. NX (n O. O ¢.. a RESOEN 7 97H op \ _ Z 6 ^ rJ RD. - AVE' N. Zz a 9TH A\ 2 ¢ u 0O J \ W wItDErtEe o............ (72 55 =cc BOG .. ................... E 172 oy 26. EVERGREEN LL`iS r ,1O° 6 T AV a 'pBTH AV H Ow E. OU G s ER LA. w z ' z 73 Q w 5E X90 AVE. N. z z Tp A,, Z SERVICE a > SVN S 7R0 OZ a s c RO J J Q 0- D J¢ a 7 p x - , Q w J N p O w ¢ a o \x w a = Paa RIDGEMOUNT AVE O m N 60 Z N 2 160 v1 R PKWY L2n2NW,= TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE WEST CITY OF PLYMOUTH CONSNC WEST ANE l; CINE (LAKE DRIVE 2 SRF NO. I TRArFIC STUDY Eric Blank - 4 - March 23, 1994 background volume (3850) and the June 1993 MSA volume (3805) for West Medicine Lake Drive north of 18th Avenue revealed no significant growth in traffic. Therefore, the June 1993 MSA Counts for West Medicine Lake Drive north of T.H. 55 and 26th Avenue west of West Medicine Lake Drive will be used to develop the midsummer background volumes at these locations (see Table 1: Traffic Volumes). An estimated daily traffic vo!ume of 50 vehicles generated by the existing park on West Medicine Lake Drive was distributed to adjacent roadways to develop traffic volumes associated with the existing park development. The proposed improvements to the West Medicine Lake Park include the realignment of West Medicine Lake Drive and 18th Avenue, installation of additional parking spaces and upgrading the park grounds and facilities. The maximum daily traffic generated by the proposed park for a typical weekday is estimated at 300 vehicles. This number is based on experience at Parker's Lake which will be similar to the generated traffic distributed to the adjacent roadways and background volumes. A directional trip distribution schematic for the existing and proposed park is shown below: Directional Tri Distribution 30% m 26th Avenue Z 26th Avenue 10% m Y 40% West Medicine Lake Park m E West Medicine Lake Park160% a I 18th Avenue2 18th Avenue 40% XX = Existing Park Volumes XX) = Proposed Park Volumes t15 (90) 5 30) 1 20 (120) 50 300) 1 30 (180) 0 60) $ 20 (120) J Traffic forecasts for the year 2010 were developed based on the Plymouth Thoroughfare Plan and adjustments necessary to reflect existing traffic conditions and a newer version of the regional model. All traffic volume data is summarized in Table 1: Study Area Traffic Volumes. o E k7CD kk w) G U') T- o 7 o e 2 G 3 KCc am SDE N C14k C) 04 7 o a C K k o Ln o kE 2 m o co W) Ci f%>E 2 a U £ c a ` f 2§ E E E 2 Co f¥ 3 w o f¥>w c £> c 2 2 E E k s2 w c EJ 222 LO o Cm• C6CL Lf f ct 0 0 2 0 \ cc E 7 p Cl) m9 » a m c 44 k k G 6 k/ C/ Eric Blank TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 6 - March 23, 1994 In order to determine the traffic impact due to the proposed park development, two key intersections were analyzed: West Medicine Lake Drive at 18th Avenue and West Medicine Lake Drive at 26th Avenue. An analysis was conducted to determine whether additional traffic controls are needed under existing park conditions, proposed park conditions and/or traffic conditions during the year 2010. Based on available traffic volumes, results indicated that existing and projected traffic volumes for both intersections are below the requirements to satisfy warrants for all - way stop control. Based on cost factors developed by Mn/DOT and FHWA the excess cost due to the installation of all -way stop control at the intersections of West Medicine Lake Drive and 18th Avenue and 26th Avenue was estimated. Due to additional stops to through traffic on West Medicine Lake Drive, vehicle operating costs would increase approximately 58,000 per year at each intersection, with the existing traffic volumes and the added traffic generated by the proposed park. It has been suggested that stop signs will be installed on a seasonal basis at the intersection with the parking lot driveways (N) onto West Medicine Lake Drive. The MUTCD specifically cautions against the use of "part time" stop signs. Perhaps alternative channelization at that intersection would improve the pedestrian crossing and access to and from the parking lots in lieu of the use of all -way stop control. One alternative would be the modification of the roadway by providing a median on West Medicine Lake Drive which could help control speeding and provide better pedestrian crossing opportunities. In conclusion, the proposed park development plan does not have a significant impact on West Medicine Lake Drive, 18th Avenue and 26th Avenue near West Medicine Lake. Additional traffic generated by the West Medicine Lake Park improvements could be supported by the existing roadway system and traffic controls. If you have any questions or comments regarding this study, please contact us. DRE:MT:bba p Lf t" o`-op o o d o r 7'G o Vk tea' fQ 63I 0 not nOo M -I M o r 9 CrJ ro a r% 11 l-1 p o 3K p m Sd y AmO rr P "t0 [ F• 1N M P3 If EE D o W, z r 9 IM a A C:3 9{i7[k r w n u u uirr u/r n u POTEK= PASSM USE AREA 47.2 Ams 1 1 U U OPEN • ATER - ROAD Al]CNHENT l ASSM AREA Lo OCKS IN tib 1, n WEST MEDICINE LAKE PARK Kms. WOWWU ROAD ALTERNATIVE A Dpi 920 23,d Ave J 910 0 O _ POTENTIAL PASSIVE USE JWETLANDAREA 47.3 ACRES POTENTIAL A US FRONT R ICING) I P -EIv IAL PASS B 6.9 ACRES U EAJ J 4. AC ES EXISTING ROAD ALIGNMENT OPE RATE F MOORINGS ER USE Al— P TENTIAL PASSIVE J SE 0 ppb \ v v b r C C WEST MEDICINE LAKE PARK PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA ROAD ALTERNATIVE B a 1 POTENTIAL PASSIVE USE WETLAND AR 52.8 ACRES \ \ C EXISTING ROAD1fAY ALIGNMENT 1 - NTIAL AJ ONT \ 54 ACRE 0 TA R Y00 NG R ER US i 2.7 ACRES O ,% I 1 b o o REST MEDICINE LAKE PARK ROAD ALTERNATIVE C POTENTIAL PASSIVE USES CREATE OPEN HATER BASINS NATURE WALKS THROUGH WETLANDS self interpretive signage kiosks viewing decks and blinds flooding bog walks animal habitat management FISHING PIERS COMMUNITY GARDENS ARCHERY CROSS COUNTRY SKIING ICE FISHING ACCESS TO MEDICINE LAKE OUTDOOR FIRE PIT (winter and summer) LAKEFRONT DECKS (multi—level) WEST MEDICINE LAKE PARK POTENTIAL ACTIVE USES MULTI—USE TRAIL extends west fromCity Hall area to the lakefront encircling the wetland lakefront trail (looping around the lake) MARINA CONCEPT e moorings for sailboats (lakefront) slips (inland basin and/or lakefront) gasoline no boat launch except seasonal deep grater boat rental (wind surfing, ice boats) CONCESSIONS (packaged food, soft drinks) TENNIS HARDCOURT (basketball, four square, etc.) PICNIC SHELTERS (large and small group) SWIMMING PLAY STRUCTURES INFORMAL GAMES AREA SAND VOLLEYBALL HORSESHOES BUILDINGS toilets (vault or sewer) maintenance storage gazebo multi—level building at lakefront OPEN AIR CONCERTS ICE SKATING (on land) BENCHES DRINKING FOUNTAIN SWINGING BENCHES PARKING WEST MEDICINE LAKE PARK NAME ADDRESS I rvt F jV yQvr- L2kv TT I LS Z 3 Q 2 3rd AVC N f iyh I a,2 - PO S k A LA a as 4K L,`.ve qA (j 6) w W, L k SU 3 q 6 L"i .7/-Z C, !z- o I^ g -so- A L3 D S - 2 LK A-vr- tJ 1` . On 'Mv W ii L A 17 'TA4, art N NAME ADDRESS rc give-sin 3' ,• G r J`, - NAME ADDRESS 0, r L S I A 611 PI-0 69 5 - ( g F DATE: January 11, 1994 TO: PRAC FROM: Eric Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation EB SUBJECT: WEST MEDICINE LAKE PARK FOCUS GROUP The following individuals submitted applications to serve on the West Medicine Lake Park focus group. Those names printed in bold were the ones selected to serve on the committee by Commissioners Wahl, Watson and myself. Cerise Ahrens, 1737 West Medicine Lake Drive Dean Barkley, 2840 Evergreen Lane Dick Bertrand, 2655 West Medicine Lake Drive John Brose, 10118 South Shore Drive William Brown, 12330 29th Avenue Terry Donovan, 1735 Evergreen Lane Timothy G. Flugaur-Leavitt, 12023 23rd Avenue David Gradick, 11730 27th Avenue George Gurb, 12330 24th Avenue Glen/ Hansen, 1805 Forestview Lane Richard Hatfield, 2524 West Medicine Lake Drive Ann Larson, 2337 West Medicine Lake Drive Louis Lavoie, 2675 Larch Lane Sheryl McRoberts, 2345 West Medicine Lake Drive Dick Milner, 2355 Jonquil Lane Gary Moe, 12420 29th Avenue Tim Schaefer, 12320 28th Avenue Nancy Sinard, 3060 Rosewood Lane Erika Urban, 1541 West Medicine Lake Drive Marc Weisenburger, 12300 30th Avenue FEE: E, ''2Q HPHI' F' 7. Eric J. Blank, Director Plymouth Parks and Recreation Plymouth City Center Dear Mr. Blank: P. 11730 27th Ave, North Plymouth, MN 55441 February 25, 1994 Thank you for your hard work and good leadership on the West Medicine Lake Park project. We would appreciate your forwarding our views to the appropriate City decisionmakers for their consideration. We live about three blocks from the site of the proposed park. The plans are very exciting, for us and our two children. We would expect to use the park in all seasons. We are especially happy that the proposal includes tennis courts and also ice skating on the lake. We have driven to Parkers Lake Park so many times; it will be wonderful to be able to walk. We are thrilled as well with the community building. our part of Plymouth has lacked such facilities. It will be well used. Our reaction is that the park has been planned carefully, both to help the L;QwwwdLy .,.u,.l. II 1 i.ina to pi-nservo tilr` rr We hope and expect that the Plymouth city leadership will choose to support the West Medicine Lake Park. Loni Gradick David Gradick r, OFFICE George & Ann Comb (612) 829-3846 r FAX t ( 612) 829-3828 RE/NIAX Results - I1095 Viking Drive - Eden Prairie, MN 55344 January 24, 1994 Eric Blank Director of Parks & Recreation City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Eric: I had asked to be included in the West Medicine Lake Task Force but was not selected to take part. The purpose of this letter is not to complain about that, however to identify what I see as an area resident are matters of great concern. Not only am I concerned with prserving the aesthetic beauty of the creek and lake shore, I am concerned with the environmental and ecological damage that goes on there every weekend. Enclosed please find photos of the West Medicine Lake Park. These photos were taken mid December. I think you can see of eyesore this snowmobile launch creates but there is also significant damage being done. My wife and I walked through the area over this past weekend and the shore damage is quite evident. With snowmobiles and three-wheelers jumping the banks for kicks permanent damage is being done to the grasses, brush and natural contour of the shoreline. A severe erosion problem will result. I picked up several handfuls of litter including beer cans, fast food wrappers and cups, and engine parts from these recreational vehicles. All of which constitute an environmental hazard. The majority of the issues I have raised can be easily solved with proper development and policing. I ask that the task force address the issue of lake access, parking and recreational vehicle use around that area. Best of luck to you and the Task Force. I am confident your group will find the solution. Respectfully, George Co 113121MakingYourMoveTwiceAsEasy Glen & Dorothy Hansen 1805 North Forestview Plymouth, MN 55441-4105 553-1111 November 9th, 1993 Eric Blank Director, Parks and Recreation The City of Plymouth ` 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mr. Blank: We own the property on the NW Avenue. We are not opposed to realize that the good for the the individual. G y RE: WEST MEDICINE LAKE PARR corner of Forestview and 18th progress nor development. We many sometimes outweigh the good of While we are not totally opposed to the proposed park we are very concerned about the potentially negative impact the park may have on our property as well as our neighbors'. You seem to genuinely want feedback from the area residents and it appears you take their concerns into account in your planning. We appreciate that. This letter is to ask you to consider and respond to the issues raised below. Pertaining to our situation and that of our immediate neighbors we would like to first state our preference on the proposed roadway alignment. Above all else the roadway alignment directly affects us more than other considerations. A. Alignment A. -YES Of the road alignments suggested in your November 9th meeting, road alignment A has the least negative impact and we are therefore most in favor of it (all traffic stays entirely off Forestview). Our personal opinion would be for concept 3, which creates a beautiful roadway as well as easy parking. B. Alignment B. -NO Road alignment B is the least desirable very heavy traffic is totally on Forestview). We are not in favor of this under any circumstances, for ourselves personally, for our neighbors, and for the city residents and good traffic pattern issues. C. Alignment C -NO Road alignment C is not desirable (please refer to item 6 below) but is not as bad as alignment B parking and access traffic would still be on Forestview). W. Medicine Lake Park, page two There are several reasons for our concerns. We bought the property on Forestview without knowledge of future development. We were led to believe that the woods surrounding our property was government owned and would not be developed. This is perhaps true in the sense that no private houses will be built there.) Had we known what is proposed we would likely have bought elsewhere. The proposed development causes great anxiety. Several concerns apply. 1. Safety While 18th Avenue is busy, Forestview is a quiet street with very large trees in a beautiful wooded area. This is a good place to raise children. The city's plans threaten this. Investigation will verify that we have no back yard and our young children must therefore play in the front yard (see map attached). Heavy traffic not only brings noise but safety concerns. Would you want your six year old to play in a small yard directly adjacent to W. Medicine Lake's traffic? 2. Property Values Like most families, what we have of any financial consequence is the equity in our home. The proposed road alignments of proposals B and C will negatively affect our property value. It has been my experience that considerable financial discounts are necessary to sell a property with heavy traffic nearby. 3. Pass through cost of improvements Our property is triangle shaped. We own perhaps as much as 300 feet bordering on Forestview (see map). If there are future assessments for curb and gutter, etc. this will be a financial problem. 4. Reduced yard size Our triangle shaped lot is odd. The main yard use is limited in a practical sense to the front yard on Forestview. The wooded areas on Forestview made up for this but now this may change. Increased traffic and heavy park usage makes the yard area we do have undesirable for small children. It has been my experience with new roads come reduced property size. We are concerned that more of our already limited yard will be taken for roadway and improvements if further developed. 5. Large trees destroyed Destroying trees may seem like a small point in Minnesota where things grow fast, but it's not to us. We love trees probably more than many people. The trees on our property and across the street on Forestview were a major consideration when we bought our home. With development normally comes the destruction of many trees. W. Medicine Lake Park, page three Specifically we have 6 large trees on the very edge of Forestview near our lot line and the street. They provide beauty and shade as well as improving the value of our property. Further developing Forestview might involve destroying these trees. We don't want the trees destroyed. Developing Forestview will mean destroying trees on the East side of the road as well. We would be disappointed to see the wooded area eliminated or reduced. 6. Potential for misuse Alignment C (which provides for parking at the end of Forestview) allows a potential for a secluded area which might attract alcohol or drug related use. Adding another access point to W. Medicine Lake Drive from the parking lot would increase traffic on Forestview while not curing the problem. This solution misses the point. Even now, although limited, there have been incidents reported to the police of suspected drug and alcohol related activities at the far north end of Forestview. In this sense, alignment C, while the cheapest alternative, creates other problems, which will cost the city ongoing money. If alignment C is a possibility, perhaps you will consider adding parking instead where the tennis courts are proposed on the north side, and eliminating parking off Forestview entirely. We would, of course, like to see all traffic other than residents kept off Forestview. Thank you for your interest in easing the impact of the proposed development on adjacent property owners. We assume the city is dealing honorably with folks living North of 18th and East of Forestview. We ask the same consideration for those of us living South of 18th and West of Forestview. If we can be of any assistance (for example, serving on an on- going residents' advisory committee), we'd be glad to help. We look forward to hearing from you and Barry Warner of Barton- Aschman. Sincerely, Glen E. Hansen encl Hansen property map cc: Barry Warner/Barton-Aschman Dorothy L.K. Hansen City Council Park Commission FEST MEDICINE LAKE PARK PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA PRF I.MINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTLMATE 3.9.94 Two LAne Road with 16' u idc Mcdian 2.000 LF 200.00 5400.000.00 PLAN37NG 2 112" Cal. Dcciduous Trce 135 EA 5300.00 540,500.00 6' Ht Condif=us Trees 65 EA 275.00 517,875.00 Wd4owa Scodin 2 Acres 1 LS 4,000.00 S4.000.00 Sod 10,000 SY S2.00 20,000.00 Sc --d 6 AC S2,000.00 1—)000.00 STI E '9,'0 RK Bicuninous Pavement Removal 8,300 SY S2.50 20,75000 Concrctr Curb and Guncr Removal 2,200 LF S2.50 5,500.00 Clearing and Grubbing (a Acrus) i LS 8,000.00 58,000.00 Sitc Orsding 4 ACRE S20.000.00 580,000.00 L+kcshorc ImprovccnonLu 1 L3 10,000.00 5101000.00 Does not includc anglnfoering, Legal and admicAtral" costa. Tho oshmate is Daeed on the conceptual plan. BARTON-ASCHMAN ,A.SSOCIA'I'FS, WC. VEST AZEDICIINZIE LAKE PARK PLYNIOUTA, A'MT ESOTA PRrI .rnTTNAR V MNSTRITC-TION COST ESTIMATE - PHASE 1 PROJECT 319194 IT'EAI QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE ITOTAL COST STRUCTURES Seed 6 AC 52,000.00 Entranct Sign SITE WORK ...: 1 LS 55,000.00 5,000.00 Roadway Crossing Plymouth Creek 8,300 1 LS 100,000.00 100,000.00 SURFACING, LF 2.50 5,500.00 Clearing and Grubbin (4 Acres) ituminous Parking Lots with Curbs 5,900 SY 20.00 118,000.00 Ileo Lane Road 630 LF 5130.00 81,900.00 Two Lane Road with 16' Wide Median 2,000 LF 5200.00 5400,000.00 ANT ,,'G CY 10.00 520,000.00 Prairie Restoration (3 Acres) Sod 10,000 SY S2.00 20,000.00 Seed 6 AC 52,000.00 12,000.00 SITE WORK ...: Bituminous Pavement Removal 8,300 SY 2.50 520,750.00 Concrete Curb and Gutter Removal 2,200 LF 2.50 5,500.00 Clearing and Grubbin (4 Acres) 1 LS S8,000.00 8,000.00 Site Grading 4 ACRE 20,000.00 80,000.00 Lakeshore Improvements i LS 510,000.00 10,000.00 Enhance Existing Wetland (Dredging)(100'xl80'..x3') 2,000 CY 10.00 520,000.00 Prairie Restoration (3 Acres) 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000.00 Wetland Mitigation (Grading and Seeding) 4 ACRE 7,500.00 30,000.00 Road and Parldng Lot Lighting 42 EA 3,500.00 147,000.00 Water 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000.00 Sewer 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000.00 Storm Scorer 1 I LS_L $200,000.00 5200,000.00 Phone, Gas, Electric 1 LS 510,000.00 S10,000.00 Relocate Overhead Utilities 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Subtotal S1,300,00 - 1591( contingency $195,000.00 Total Estimated Phase 1 Construction Cost plus 15% Contingency" 51,495,000.00 Does not Include engin"ring, legal and adminialmWe costs. The estlmele Is based on the oonoaptuel plan. BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. NATST MEDICINE LADE PARK PLYMOUTH, IVIINNESOTA PREYLMINA'RV CnNSTRItCTION COST ESTIMATE -PHASE 2 *PROJECT 3/9/94 ITEM I QTY JUNITI UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST STRUCTURES Picnic Shelter (400 SF) 2 EA 515,000.00 30,000.00 Large Picnic Shelter (2500 SF) 1 EA 30,000.00 30,000.00 Interprctivc Kiosk 1 LS 515,000.00 S15.00000 Play Structure (3800 SF) 1 LS 75,000.00 75,000.00 Fishing Pier 1 LS DNR To Provide) Main Kiosk (400 SF) 1 EA 12,800.00 12,800.00 Small Kiosk (100 SF) 2 EA 3,200.00 6,400.00 Sun Shelter (200 SF) 1 EA 6,400.00 6,400.00 Signage I LS 5,000.00 5,000.00 Council Ring (40' dia.) 314 SF 25.00 57,850.00 Pedestrian Bridge to cross Plymouth Creek 1 LS 35,000.00 35,000.00 Viewing Blinds (4) 1 LS 15,000.00 15,000.00 Retaining Wall at Brach 21300 SF 13.00 29,900.00 Beach (24" depth) 41400 CY 10.00 44,000.00 Sand Volleyball Court (18" depth w/ edgc) 1 LS S8,000.00 8,000.00 Concrete Plazas 6,000 SF 2.50 15,000.00 Bike Trail (12' wide) 2,500 LF 11.00 27,500.00 Bike Trail (8' aide) 5,300 LF 8.00 542,400.00 Pedestrian Trail (6wide) 9,400 LF 7.00 S65,800.00 Woodchip Path 3,200 LF 5.50 517,600.00 Floating Boardwalk (700 LF) I LS 32,000.00 S32,000.00 2 1/2" Cal. Deciduous Tree 135 EA 300.00 40,500.00 6' Ht. Condiferous Trees 65 EA 275.00 17,875.00 STI`1r'W,ORK UTILITIES Trail Lighting 40 EA 2,000.00 80,000.00 Subtotal 660,000.00 15% contingency S100,000.00 Total Estimated Phase 2 Construction Cost plus 15% Contingency* S760,000.00 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTM&TE PHASE 3 PROJECT 3/9/94 ITEM QTY UNITUNIT PRICE TOTAL COST STRUCTITRfiS Picnic Shelter (400 SF) 2 EA 15,000.00 30,000.00 Community Building (6,000 SF 5100/SF) 1 LS 600,000.00 600,000.00 Bluestone Patio 1,800 SF 16.00 28,800.00 Sculptural Element 1 LS 520,000.00 20,000.00 SURFACING :. Tennis Courts (Double Court) 1 LS 40,000.00 40,000.00 UTILITIES, Road and Parking Lot Lighting 13 EA 3,500.00 45,500.00 Subtotal 765,000.00 15% contingency 115,000.00 Total Estimated Phase 3 Construction Cost plus 15% Contingency* S880,000.00 Does not Include englneerkV. legal and admklkctrattre costa. The estlmale to Dwod on ine Conceptual plan. Total Estimated Project Cost BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. S3,335,000.00 WEST MEDICINE PARK PRELIMINARY OPERATING ESTIMATE 1. Wages 1,096 hr/full-time 896 br/part-time 2. NSP 3. Portable toilets ($55 x 24:montbs) 4. Materials and supplies 5. Contracting services 6. Beach lifeguards Skating rink (10 weeks) SUB -TOTAL) TOTAL) 16,133 8,064 5,200 1,320 8,855 12,135 51,707 13,300 3,100 68,107 Agenda Number: TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Jeanette Sobania, Personnel Coordinator through Kathy Lueckert, Assistant Manager SUBJECT: Employee Survey DATE: May 18, 1994 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Confirm the need for an employee survey, and review the various employee surveys submitted by several consultants. Determine which survey best meets the Council's objectives, decide whether or not the Council wishes to meet with the selected company, and informally direct staff to negotiate an agreement with the preferred consultant. 2. BACKGROUND: Based on discussions at the April 30 study session, we contacted 7 companies experienced in employee development or attitude assessment surveys to request proposals to complete an employee attitude survey of Plymouth employees. We requested that they submit a sample survey, estimated time and estimated cost. Five of the seven responded; two of these five later declined due to the timeline. Thus we have three sample surveys from three consultants for the Council to review. 3. ALTERNATIVES: Rather than contract with a consultant to conduct the employee survey, the Council could direct staff to develop and administer the survey. However, this may not provide the level of objectivity sought either by the Council or by the employees. 4. DISCUSSION: The three proposals were submitted by Personnel Decisions, Inc. (PDI), Employer's Resource, International (ERI) and MDA Consulting Group, Inc. (MDA). All three companies have a proven track record providing services to public organizations on a consulting basis. Copies of the sample surveys are attached. We have also attached an abridged version of the feedback reports. All three surveys tend to measure general employee attitudes about various aspects of the workplace. It would be possible to tailor the survey to Plymouth, if the Council wishes to explore more fully some particular aspect of employee attitudes. All the respondents include some customizing services, the collation of the data, and written and oral feedback on at least one organization level. The cost differences seem to be directly related to the amount of time each respondent expects to spend in the development and/or feedback process, and whether or not the surveys are distributed to employees by hand or are mailed. We recommend a distribution approach in which the surveys are distributed at the worksite and collected the same day, so that we receive a high response rate. All three surveys collect information about employee attitudes regarding supervisor, communication, relationships with co-workers, feelings about being part of the company, and wages and benefits. All can be compared against a national norm of both private and public organizations. The surveys vary somewhat in the information generated about upper management. In addition, the timelines for administering the surveys and providing feedback also vary. The Council also should discuss what kind of results tabulation is desired: by work group? by age? by gender? by department? 5. BUDGET IMPACT: PDI $10,000 ("not to exceed" cost) ERI $4,590 MDA $7,500 (City staff collects) Although currently there are no funds budgeted for an employee survey, we have identified some available funds in the City Council budget. Because the Council has not used an outside facilitator for team building, $5,000 is available in that account. In addition, no funds have been spent to date in the employee training account, so these funds ($4,500) also are available for this purpose. 6. RECOMMENDATION: Any of the three surveys will provide feedback. Selection should be based on which provides the most relevant information in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. Attachments Proposal for Employee Survey For The City of Plymouth Proposal for Employee Survey for the City of Plymouth The following proposal describes MDA Consulting Group's approach to conducting an anonymous employee survey for the City of Plymouth and our experience in this area. We would conduct the survey in conjunction with Gantz-Wiley Research Consulting Group, Inc., a firm that specializes in employees, customer service and quality surveys, and with whom we share offices. We frequently have worked with them to provide standardized or customized surveys to our clients. MDA would oversee the process. MDA Consulting Group Inc. The firm specializes in the application of psychological and human resource practices in the development of organizations and individuals. MDA's goal is to provide the highest quality of broad-based consulting assistance and services to its clients. MDA's work has multiple emphases. For individual employees we offer services in career counseling, management development, and coaching. For work groups we offer, training, teambuilding, and conflict resolution. On an organization -wide basis we offer services that encompass the entire organization and include designing and implementing selection systems, performance appraisal systems, succession planning, organizational analysis and development, and climate or employee attitude surveys. Gantz-Wiley is an established firm with extensive expertise in the art and science of reliably and validly measuring employee and customer opinions on a wide variety of topics. MDA has designed and/or administered employee surveys either independently or in conjunction with Gantz-Wiley Research for many organizations. Some of these are: St. Paul Port Authority Minneapolis Community Development Agency Nature Conservancy Jones -Harrison Residence Fairview Hospital and Healthcare Services Minnesota Council on Foundations First Bank Systems, Business Banking Division Hart Press Page Two Proposal for City of Plymouth Select clients of Gantz-Wiley include: Cowles Media Northern States Power Company Eli Lilly and Company Wells Fargo Bank LensCrafters Description of Work A standardized employee survey that we would use is CultureScan. A sample copy is enclosed. Some customization options are included, such as inserting the organization's name and logo where appropriate, using the term public versus customers, choosing the demographic breakdowns such as level in the organization, department, and length of tenure. Some advantages of this survey are: Anonymity is assured. The time required for an employee to complete the survey is 10-15 minutes. Employee opinions are measured in terms of general themes such as working conditions, management/supervision, top management, career advancement, job satisfaction, overall satisfaction with the organization, work effectiveness, work quality, organization's responsiveness to customers citizens), performance feedback and recognition, pay and benefits, employee involvement and training. Employee opinions also are measured by individual items to provide specific feedback. Each respondent has an opportunity to express his or her opinion in a free format, as well as respond to the standard items. The results can be compared to a national norm group of comparable organizations. For example, the City of Plymouth findings can be compared to public organizations rather than private sector businesses. Once the data is collected, turnaround on the results is fast. Data is presented in both written form and in an oral presentation. A sample copy of the written report format is included. Page Three Proposal for City of Plymouth Proposed Steps of the Process Step 1: A planning meeting with a representative of the City of Plymouth. Topics in the meeting would include: ways to introduce the survey to the employees, maintaining anonymity, and assuring a high rate of return of the surveys. Administrative arrangements would be made as to the distribution and collection of surveys. A time table would be established for distribution, collection, processing, and feedback. Step 2: Delivery, collection and processing of the surveys. Typically, packets of surveys with cover letter and envelopes are compiled by the organization's clerical staff and distributed and collected on sight. An additional cost is incurred if survey packets are compiled by MDA and mailed to us. Step 3: Feedback to the organization. A presentation on the findings and their implications would be made to City Council and other relevant parties. A bound report of the findings and a compilation of any descriptive comments from the respondents would be provided. Step 4: Using the results. Frequently, survey results provide the basis for action which may include forming employee groups to identify action steps, teambuilding, and other planning activities for organizational change. Costs The cost for a survey process for 200 people is $7500. This includes Steps 1 through 3 and assumes that the City of Plymouth will use its clerical staff to compile the survey packets and provide a collection point for the surveys. If MDA compiles the survey packets an additional $.50 per survey is charged. If surveys are mailed to MDA, mailing costs and an additional $.50 per survey is charged. Additional costs would be incurred if the CultureScan survey were to be modified beyond the standard options, such as comparisons with additional norm groups, more than four demographic breakdowns in the data, and additional bound copies of the results, etc. Personnel Jan Prescott, Senior Psychologist at MDA would direct the project. She would draw on Gantz-Wiley Research personnel to process the survey and MDA personnel as needed to complete the project. She has experience in designing surveys and presenting the findings. She has worked with the City of Plymouth in selecting the Chief of Police and in reviewing personality inventories for new employees. We consider this proposal a draft. Contact us for any questions or comments you have. As always, we enjoy working with the City of Plymouth, and are eager and interested to discuss this project with the City of Plymouth in more detail. CultureScan TM Answer each question by circling the number of the ONE response category which best describes your opinion.. Your answers will be kept COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL. VerySatisfied.........................................................::: Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Dissatisfied............................................... M AM........ Z Very Dissatisfied ............................. »:> .,.. 5 Very Sat3€sf............................................ 1 Satisfied............................................................................ 2 Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied ................................ 3 Dissatisfied...................................................................... 4 ryDissatisfied............................................................ 5 Disagree 6. My performance on the"'.* ..... s eva1 *d y ............................... 7. Good performance gets reei"::. P g ':where I work 8. My manager makes it clear" am expected to do 2 :::: 4i 9. My maY get :gives me useful A ack on how well I'm doin m 10. Mj 3anager does.:a good job at "mans ' the " g ::. g ging a work, that is, making appropriate work ass€nmenp;.'iogftpriorities, scheduling,etc........................ 1 yaz?ager does `'ood job at "people management," that is dealing withPPggth the people wc rk'for hi ..' rn r ................................. 2 ::3' 4 12. My mans ..::..... er tr .:em to ees fairly 13. Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your manager? VeryGood........................................................................................... 1 Good.................................................................................................... 2 Fair........................................................................................................ 3 Poor...................................................................................................... 4 Ven? T 5 1992 GANTZ-WILEY RESEARCH 1 14. New employees receive the training necessary to perform their jobs effectively .............................. 15. 1 am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my company ....................................................... 16. 1 am satisfied with the opportunities for training and development that my company provides me ...... 17. Sufficient effort is made to get the opinions and thinking of people who work at my company .............. 18. When employees have good ideas, management makes use of them ............................................................ 19. Employees at my company are encouraged to be innovative, that is, to develoand better waysof doing things ............................................................................................................. ................ 20. In my company, employees are encouraged to participate in making decisions theirwork ....................................................................................................................... 21. Where I work, management encourages a teamwork approach 1 22. The people I work with cooperate to get the job done .......... 01 ....... 23. Where I work, we have enough people to get the work don6".".4.4"': 24. The workload is divided fairly among the people where I work 25. When there are problems in my work group, they...... -t corrected 26. Providing quality products /services gets ftffian n 27. Providing quality products /services 28. Where I work, we are continually im 29. How do you rate the overall quality of VeryGood .............................................................»x ..... 1 Goo4............................ . . ............................................ ........... 2 Fair .......................... 3 Poor .......................... ......... 4 Very Poor 1.4 ... . ... ».......................... .... .. ...... .......... keeping costs down .................................. and services ............................. Strongly Agree STI .. ..... . p30. There is hasis on customer service in my company ............................................................... 1 31. My company delivers products or services to customers in a timely fashion ........................................... 1 32. Customer problems get corrected quickly ...................................................................................................... 1 2 33. How do you rate your company in providing service to its customers? .............. 34. How do you rate the overall physical environment in which you work e.g., ventilation, noise, lighting)?............................................................................... 35. How do you rate the safety of your working conditions? ....................................... 36. How do you rate your total benefits program?................................................................................................. 37. How do you rate the amount of pay you get on your job? ..................................... 38. How do you rate your total compensation package including pay, benefits, profit sharing, bonuses, etc.)? .......................................... 39. In comparison with people in similar jobs in other companies, I fi MuchHigher....................................................................................: SlightlyHigher........................................................................ »x». Aboutthe Same......................................................................... '<»» Slightly Lower MuchLower........................................................................................ No Opinion 40. How satisfied are you with the opportunity for'i 41. How satisfied are you w3tkl your opportunity to 42. I:Pt'w 43. v1e 44. Senior 45. Senior that your company provides?....... job in your company? ................................... bout job openings for which I might be qualified........................................................ Mees are kept well-informed about issues facing our company ................................. ves employees a clear picture of the direction the company is headed ................. demonstrates that employees are important to the success of the company ............ 46. Senior management at my company has the ability to deal with the challenges we face ........................... 47. I have confidence in the future of my company................................................................................................ 48. I am seriously considering leaving my company within the next 12 months. (If you are retiring within the next 12 months or if you aregoing on leave, please do not answer this question.) ............................................ 3 Poor 49. How do you rate your company in providing job security for people like yourself? ...................... 50. n a compared with otherHowoyourateyourorganizationastoworkcomp <.. </"•• :_: ::::; organizations you know? . 51. Considering everything, how would you rate your overall satisfaction in your company at the present VerySatisfied...................................................................................... 1 Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 3 Dissatisfied.......................................................................................... 4 Very Dissatisfied DEMOGRAPHIC I A. Do you work ... Part-time.............................................................................................. 1 Full-time.................................................................»r....................... 2 B. Are you a. Male......................................................... .............i M:i....iYiAZG>.l Female................................................. .......... C. How long have you worked at ComY P Lessthan 1 year..................................................:»..::,....................... 1-2 years................................................................. s '.................. 2 3-5 yezrs ...................;r.--,-n,.,............................................................ 3 6 or Ore years ..... >......................................................... 4 D. Are you a ... Supervisor .: . Non- upervisor COMMENTS below to comment on anything else you would like to say about your job, your quality, productivity, the way people treat each other at work, and so forth. 4 GAN "iz-Wi E,Y ZESEARCH _ 1300-920 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612/332-6383 (F) 612/334-3299 an M to f fs w O 31 N= f n H f 7 C,< S mw CD 0amo 0 33 y. O o y y ro C p 7 a N 0^' a 8=3 0 m0 m 3 fO COW 3 g c C W O O C irO p o N N tto pN3n33 3 3333 yano 40 Y0 c W v c c cn c.1 n c N i K m z m w m I i m m c CD n CD 0 m N 0 a CD m -0 n M -% c D m r c i ma M Z 0 a m z N a r m M M M C* o v m c a 0 Z 0 0 II EMPLOYER'S RESOURCE INT'L. 5609 Wilshire Blvd. Crystal MN 55429 Telephone (612) 531 0936 May 9, 1994 Jeanette Sobania Personnel Coordinator City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth Mn 55447 Dear Jeanette: This letter is in response to your letter of May 5, 1994 regarding the need for an organizational climate survey. The current format that we use is the Action Feedback Survey. This 29 item inventory has the following features. 1. It is completely anonymous, and is administered in meetings with groups of about 25 employees that are scheduled about every 30 minutes. We use anonymous mail -in responses to cover staff who are unable to attend a session. Our goal is to have over 90% of all employees complete the survey. 2. The items can be modified or added to fit specific needs of a client. For the standard 29 items we have a database of about 5000 private and public sector employees for comparable data. 3. The report format is easy to understand and provides a graphed frequency distribution, plus means of the data to compare at a city wide, department, and individual work unit level. This five page report for each work unit Supervisor) will also give summary profiles for each major category of data covered. 4. The data is reported back in the following ways. Executive Summary (City Council and Senior Management) -- This half day briefing on the data includes, data presentation, explanation, analysis for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and development of an action for using the data to improve quality. Line Management Debriefing -- This is typical a 4 to 6 hour session that includes the above, plus training to how to use the reports to start a quality action team using the FADE process outlined in the attached material. We typically suggest the first time a survey is done individual manager reports be used for developmental purposes, not evaluation. Evaluation results would depend on the second survey to check whether action plans had been implemented. Employee Briefing -- A summary briefing of 1 hour to explain the overall results to employees. Would be repeated at least 4 times to give every employee a chance to attend. Action plans developed during the Executive session should also be discussed with employees. 5. We would provide the city with software and instructions on how to repeat the survey in about 12 months. Typically organizations use these surveys to monitor the employee relations climate, and the impact of quality improvement efforts. During the last 6 months, some of clients for whom we have conducted similar surveys are: Robert Block Gaile Bjerke Pat Blaisdell Fergus Falls Schools AMPI Regional Office New Uhn Winona County 218 -736-7576 507-354-8295 The cost for conducting the survey and report sessions would be as follows: Survey development and administration 15 hours Processing and report development 20 hours Executive summary 4 hours Manager training 8 hours Employee debriefing 4 hours Total 51 hours @ $90 = $4590 I have attached a summary report, sample department report format, and a sample survey. Please call if you need additional information. CITY OF PLYMOUTH —ACTION FEEDBACK SURVEY 1994 THE SURVEY This anonymous questionnaire is to be completed by every employee in the organization. This survey parallels the first step of the FADE (an acronym for focus, analyze, develop and execute) process of quality improvement gathering data to focus on the problems and opportunities of a work group. The questions are designed to gather information about what helps and hinders employees in their work environment. The survey results for each work unit will be summarized and returned to work group leader to use in developing better team work, a more positive work culture, and improved organizational effectiveness. FEEDBACK To understand the meaning of the survey results, each work group must question itself. The goal of the feedback meeting will be to identify specific concerns or problems (FOCUS), examine the specific causes for these problems ANALYZE), and create plans to correct these problems (DEVELOP). ACTION The results of the feedback meeting will be the development of a Quality Action Plan. This will be a list of clear, concise actions to be taken to address concerns and lead to improved results. Since failing to act on the concerns of the work group can lead to frustration and disillusionment, taking decisive action will enhance the effectiveness of the team and the leadership. INSTRUCTIONS For each item on the survey complete the item based on your personal experiences with in the last 6 months in this organization. Use the following scale to respond to the item. 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree If you have no opinion on an item or no experience, leave the item blank. All individual responses will be confidential, only a summary of data will be shared with the organization. Name f Work Group Leader Work Group or Unit Organization Supervisor) The leader of my work group (Supervisor) 1. let's me tell him/her what I think 1 2 3 4 5 2. tells me what is expected 1 2 3 4 5 3. helps us do our jobs better 1 2 3 4 5 4. listens to our concerns 1 2 3 4 5 5. asks for my ideas about work 1 2 3 4 5 6. tells me when I do a good job 1 2 3 4 5 7. treats me with respect 1 2 3 4 5 8. keeps me informed 1 2 3 4 5 9. does not interfere with getting the job done 1 2 3 4 5 In my work group 10. favoritism is not a problem 1 2 3 4 5 11. people cooperate with each other 1 2 3 4 5 12. there is cooperation between work groups 1 2 3 4 5 13. we are active in improving service to customers 1 2 3 4 5 Management (Leaders above the work group leader 14. tells us the organizational goals 1 2 3 4 5 15. gives our leader the support he/she needs 1 2 3 4 5 16. listens to ideas from our level 1 2 3 4 5 17. is fair in dealing with employees 1 2 3 4 5 My job provides 18. a feeling of security if I do a good job 1 2 3 4 5 19. pay that is fair for the kind of work I do 1 2 3 4 5 20. benefit programs that met most of my needs 1 2 3 4 5 21. a safe work environment and work practices 1 2 3 4 5 22. enough freedom of action to do my job well 1 2 3 4 5 This organization 23. does a good job for its customers 1 2 3 4 5 24. makes me proud to work here 1 2 3 4 5 25. provides the resources I need to do my job 1 2 3 4 5 26. adequately orientates and trains employees 1 2 3 4 5 27. has a positive reputation and image 1 2 3 4 5 28. rules and procedures don't interfere 1 2 3 4 5 29. cares about it's employees 1 2 3 4 5 COMMENTS Please make any comments about any item in the space below. Avoid writing comments in a way that would specifically identify you. EMPLOYER'S RESOURCE INT'L. LISTENING TO THE VOICE OF THE EMPLOYEES THE ACTION FEEDBACK SURVEY The Action Feedback Survey is designed to provide an easy and effective tool for gath- ering data from employees to be shared with the leadership of the organization. Listening to the voice of the employees is an important part of the Total Quality Management Pro- cess. The voices are: The Voice of the Customer The Voice of the Process The Voice of the Employees World Class Quality Organizations understand that employee perceptions of the orga- nization, will have a direct impact on customers perceptions of service and product quality. The Action Feedback Survey will provide valuable information on employee percep- tions, and provide a guide to specific actions that can be taken to improve employee per- ceptions. ACTION FEEDBACK SURVEY THE SURVEY This anonymous questionnaire is to be completed by every employee in the organization. This survey parallels the first step of the FADE (an acronym for focus, analyze, develop and execute) process of quality improvement --gathering data to focus on the problems and opportunities of a work group. The questions are designed to gather information about what helps and hinders employees in their work environment. The survey results for each work unit will be summarized and re- turned to work group leader to use in developing better team work, a more positive work culture, and improved organiza- tional effectiveness. FEEDBACK To understand the meaning of the survey results, each work must question itself. The goal of the feedback meeting will be to identify specific concerns or problems (FOCUS), examine the specific causes for these problems (ANALYZE), and create plans to correct these problems (DEVELOP). ACTION The results of the feedback meeting will be the development of a Quality Action Plan. This will be a list of clear, con- cise actions to be taken to address concerns and lead to improved results. Since failing to act on the concerns of the work group can lead to frustration and disillusionment, taking decisive action will enhance the effectiveness of the team and the leadership. 5609 WIRIMIIIISE B-4ivD, CTIAYS' 1L MN 75T2"V 1"l;l 111"W)P1E 812 531 0936 EMPLOYER'S RESOURCE INT'L. REPORT FORMAT 9. does not interfere with getting the job done 1. 5; 1 ( 20%) Ind. Mean: 3.80 4; 2 ( 40%) Dept. Mean: 4.08 3; 2 ( 40%) Co. Mean: 3.88 2; 0 ( 0%) Nat'l Mean: 0.00 1; 0 ( 0%) NEUTRAL 6. 3.02 OPPORT. 7. 25% 50% 75% 100% STRENGTH 8. 10. favoritism is not a problem 2.78 OPPORT. 5; 0 ( 0%) Ind. Mean: 2.40 4; 1 ( 20%) Dept. Mean: 3.57 3; 1 ( 20%) Co. Mean: 3.41 2; 2 ( 40%) Nat'l Mean: 0.00 1; 1 ( 20%) 25% 50% 75% 100% 11. people cooperate with each other 5 0 ( 0%) Ind. Mean: 2.60 4 1 ( 20%) Dept. Mean: 3.76 3 2 ( 40%) Co. Mean: 3.64 2 1 ( 20%) Nat'l Mean: 0.00 1 1 ( 20%) 25% 50% 75% 100% The leader of my work group (Supervisor) 1. As me tell him/her what I think 3.90 STRENGTH 2. tells me what is expected 3.39 NEUTRAL 3. helps us do our jobs better 3.15 NEUTRAL 4. listens to our concerns 3.37 NEUTRAL 5. ask for my ideas about work 3.17 NEUTRAL 6. tells me when I do a good job 3.02 OPPORT. 7. treats me with respect 3.68 STRENGTH 8. keeps me informed 2.78 OPPORT. 9. does not interfere 3.77 STRENGTH In my work group BLVD, l;IlY"SkAK, M 55.12u= "1'EI.EIE'11ONE W2 531 09.`,b EMPLOYER'S RESOURCE INT'L. 10. favoritism is not a problem 3.08 NEUTRAL I l.people cooperate with each other 2.97 OPPORT. 12.there is cooperation between work 3.13 NEUTRAL 13.we are active in improving service 3.44 NEUTRAL Management (Leaders above the work group leader) 14.tells us the organizational goals 2.82 OPPORT. 15.gives our leader the support 2.54 OPPORT. 16.1istens to ideas from our level 2.74 OPPORT. 17.is fair in dealing with employees 2.85 OPPORT. My job provides 18.a feeling of security if I do a good job 3.46 NEUTRAL 19.pay that is fair for the kind of work 3.10 NEUTRAL 20.benefit programs that met most of 3.31 NEUTRAL 21. a safe work environment and work 3.23 NEUTRAL 22. enough freedom of action to do my 3.74 STRENGTH This organization 23. does a good job for its customers 3.56 STRENGTH 24.makes me proud to work here 3.03 NEUTRAL 25.provides the resources I need to do 3.38 NEUTRAL 26.adequately orientates and trains 2.90 OPPORT. 27.has a positive reputation and image 3.10 NEUTRAL 28.rules and procedures don't interfere 3.13 NEUTRAL 29. cares about it's employees 2.67 OPPORT. 5609 WILSHIRE BLVD!, CR S,,T,,%L MN 55429 TELEPIIONU 61? 531 0936 EMPLOVER'S RESOURCE INT'L. THE "FADE" PROCESS FOCUS ACTIVITIES 1. Generate a list of problems. 2. Select one problem. 3. Verify and define problem RESULTS 1. Written statement of problem(s). ANALYZE ACTIVITIES 1. Decide what you need to know. 2. Collect data: establish baselines and patterns. 3. Determine influential factors. RESULTS 1. Baseline data. 2. List of most influential factors. DEVELOP ACTIVITIES 1. Generate promising solutions. 2. Select a solution. 3. Develop implementation plan. RESULTS 1. Solution(s) for the problems(s). 2. A plan for implementation EXECUTE ACTIVITIES 1. Gain commitment. 2. Execute plan. 3. Monitor impact. RESULTS L Organizational Commitment 2. Executed plan. 3 Record of impact. 5669 411 134HE BILL 9 CR7Y'STAL !'Ml_N 55429 TELL-iff'110NE 612 531 (, Police City of Anywhere Page 1 1. Let's me tell him\her what I think 2. tells me what is expected 3. helps us do our jobs better 4. listens to our concerns A 5. asks for my ideas about work 6. tells me when I do a good job 7. treats me with respect 5 4 3 2 1 25% 50% 75% 100% 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 25% 50% 75% 100% 5 ( 28%) Ind. Mean: 2.83 2 ( 11%) Dept. Mean: 3.80 3 ( 17%) Co. Mean: 3.63 1 ( 6%) Nat'l Mean: 3.91 7 ( 39%) 2 ( 11%) Ind. Mean: 2.72 6 ( 33%) Dept. Mean: 3.42 1 ( 6%) Co. Mean: 3.47 3 ( 17%) Nat'l Mean: 3.73 6 ( 33%) 25% 50% 75% 100% 5 4 3 2 1 25% 50% 75% 100% 5 4 3 2 1 2 ( 11%) Ind. Mean: 2.39 4 ( 22%) Dept. Mean: 3.15 2 ( 11%) Co. Mean: 3.12 1 ( 6%) Nat'l Mean: 3.50 9 ( 50%) 4 ( 22%) Ind. Mean: 2.56 2 ( 11%) Dept. Mean: 3.45 3 ( 17%) Co. Mean: 3.37 0 ( 0%) Nat'l Mean: 3.81 9 ( 50%) 25% 50% 75% 100% 5 4 3 2 1 25% 50% 75% 100% 5 4 3 E,, 1 I - I 1 1 25% 50% 75% 1001 3 ( 17%) Ind. Mean: 2.56 3 ( 17%) Dept. Mean: 3.34 3 ( 17%) Co. Mean: 2.98 1 ( 6%) Nat'l Mean: 3.58 8 ( 44%) 3 ( 17%) Ind. Mean: 2.50 4 ( 22%) Dept. Mean: 3.18 0 ( 0%) Co. Mean: 2.92 3 ( 17%) Nat'l Mean: 3.44 8 ( 44%) 6 ( 33%) Ind. Mean: 2.94 1 ( 6%) Dept. Mean: 3.55 3 17%) Co. Mean: 3.47 a ( 11%) Nat'l Mean: 3.91 et 133%) Police City of Anywhere 8. keeps me informed Page 2 9. does not interfere with getting the job done 10. favoritism is not a problem 11. people cooperate with each other 12. there is cooperation between work groups 13. we are active in improving service to customers id. tells us the organizational goals 5 4 3 2 1 25% 50% 75% 100% 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 25% 50% 750 100% 25% 50% 75% 100% 3 ( 17%) Ind. Mean: 2.44 3 ( 17%) Dept. Mean: 3.20 2 ( 11%) Co. Mean: 3.03 1 ( 6%) Nat'l Mean: 3.44 9 ( 50%) 5 ( 29%) Ind. Mean: 2.82 1 ( 6%) Dept. Mean: 3.53 4 ( 24%) Co. Mean: 3.57 0 ( 0%) Nat'l Mean: 3.87 7 ( 41%) 25% 50% 75% 100% 25% 50% 75% 100% 3 ( 17%) Ind. Mean: 2.50 3 ( 17%) Dept. Mean: 3.04 1 ( 6%) Co. Mean: 3.13 4 ( 22%) Nat'l Mean: 3.42 7 ( 39%) 3 ( 17%) Ind. Mean: 2.72 4 ( 22%) Dept. Mean: 3.53 2 ( 11%) Co. Mean: 3.28 3 ( 17%) Nat'l Mean: 3.63 6 ( 33%) 25% 50% 75% 100% 3 ( 17%) Ind. Mean: 2.56 1 ( 6%) Dept. Mean: 3.32 5 ( 28%) Co. Mean: 3.16 3 ( 17%) Nat'l Mean: 3.44 6 ( 33%) 5 4 3 2 1 25% 50% 75% 100% 3 ( 17%) Ind. Mean: 2.61 2 ( 11%) Dept. Mean: 3.77 5 ( 28%) Co. Mean: 3.47 1 ( 6%) Nat'l Mean: 3.77 7 ( 39%) 3 ( 18%) Ind. Mean: 2.29 1 ( 6%) Dept. Mean: 3.09 2 ( 12%) Co. Mean: 2.68 3 ( 11. 9%) Nat'l Mean: 3.00 8 ( 47%) 13IL© PERSONNEL DECISIONS, INC. Building Successful Organizations 11 May 1994 Ms. Jeanette Sobania Personnel Coordinator City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Jeanette: Thank you for your interest in the use of PDI services for the design, administration, and interpretation of an employee survey. Based upon my experience with the City of Plymouth and other jurisdictions, I recommend the following process: Pre -survey planning session—This would involve discussions with City Council and key management staff regarding the reasons behind the survey, what decisions are to be made based on the results, etc. Employee communication—This step involves communicating to employees the purpose for the survey, how results will be communicated, follow-up activities, etc. Survey design—Based upon the results from the first step, a survey would be constructed. PDI has standardized employee attitude surveys and organizational effectiveness surveys which could be used. If desired, customization is possible. Survey administration and collection—We would work out, in the planning phase, how surveys are to be administered (mail, on-site, etc.). Data analysis and report—PDI would analyze the survey data, provide results by previously agreed-upon breakdowns (department, managerial/line employee, etc.) and prepare written reports of results. Follow-up communication and action planning—PDI would work with the City Council and management team to design a plan to communicate survey results to employees and begin an action planning process to improve areas identified in the survey. PDI's responsibilities on this project would be as follows: Design of a survey that addresses the key questions/issues identified by City Council Design of an employee communication plan Specification of the administration and collection plan Analysis and write-up of results 2000 PLAZA VII TOWER • 45 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1608 • 612/339-0927 2 © Ms. Jeanette Sobania 11 May 1994I.nPage Two Delivery of results to City Council and senior management Design of a follow-up plan to communicate results with employees We estimate that the labor costs for the services described above would not exceed 10,000. Additional costs would include printing and keypunching. Printing responsibility may be assumed directly by the City of Plymouth. The following individuals can attest to PDI's expertise in the area of capturing employee opinions and organizational improvement: Will Volk, Personnel Director Dakota County 438-4422 Elwyn Tinklenberg, Division Manager Anoka County 323-5711 Jim Prosser, City Manager City of Richfield 861-9700 Rodrigue Gagnon GTC 514) 954-4000 Bev Weir Sween 507) 345-6200 Thank you for your interest in the use of PDI services. I look forward to working with you and the City of Plymouth. Cordially, Harry Brull Vice President, Public Sector Services Author: Harry BmU; WP: dolly Urban.,ki; Editor: M-homh Moya K:\Data\PubSecWr&Prop\PtymS94.doc EMPLOYEE SURVEY SERVICES FROM PERSONNEL DECISIONS, INC. PDrs experienced survey consultants can help you to get the information you need and want from employees. We know: how to identify the issues to address in the survey how to break results into meaningful groups whether to administer the survey on-site or by mail how to maximize the response rate, so you can trust the representativeness of the results why respondent anonymity is essential to honest feedback how to maintain response anonymity and minimize respondents' concerns about confidentiality how to interpret the results without getting bogged down in detail how to make good use of survey results how to communicate survey results and action to employees how to focus on solutions and build on your strengths how your results compare to norms FINDINGS This is what you can expect to find from an employee survey: employees believe surveys are a good way to communicate with management respondents are eager to provide input, and many write long and well thought-out answers to open-ended questions employees at all levels would like to know more about organizational direction, strategy, and financial performance many confirmations of hunches some new perspectives on known issues a few surprises, positive as often as negative some great suggestions some frustrated outbursts some humor most satisfaction with the survey itself, coworkers and the job itself least satisfaction with pay and communication varying results with physical working conditions and benefits PURPOSES Here are some of the reasons our clients have used surveys: to "take the pulse" of the workforce to give field employees a chance to provide input to find out reactions to and concerns about a recent change in management to document the extent of dissatisfaction with specific issues to assess reactions to changes since the last survey to evaluate the extent to which management was fulfilling their objective of a satisfied workforce to initiate more employee participation OUTCOMES Here are some actions that have resulted from the surveys: redesigned the parking lot so off -shift employees would not have to walk as far in the dark found out that employees were not concerned about the change in management, as the change in their jobs had been minimal began including more information about how the organization was doing in their newsletter kept the employee survey development committee as an ongoing communication device between employees and management updated the policy manual implemented an ongoing communication system between headquarters and outlying locations purchased more computer equipment, resulting in a dramatic increase in productivity PROCESS PLANNING who to involve: those from whom you need input and/or buy -in how to announce the survey: communicate purpose, timeframe, what will be done with the results how to break down results: e.g. by division, supervisor, location how to disseminate feedback: planning up front saves time at the drawing board once the re ills are in 21 0 n DEVELOP QUESTIONNAIRE standard items for normative purposes (with or without custom items) custom items to address issues unique to your organization (with or without standard items) laid out onto scannable forms to further protect anonymity simple "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" format optional "importance" rating ADMINISTER SURVEY survey the total population or a sample administer on-site mail to employees' homes return by mail to PDI ANALYZE RESULTS user-friendly graphs percent favorable, neutral, and unfavorable format group reports compare each group's results to the total management report displays all group results rank -ordering aids in interpretation and prioritizing: most favorable themes and items most unfavorable themes and items largest differences between groups (e.g. your group vs. total, this year vs. last year, your results vs. norms written comments categorized into themes, typed, and sorted by group PROVIDE FEEDBACK PDI can do and/or train others to conduct focus on positives and constructive solutions how to ask for feedback how to create a "safe" environment by reducing supervisor defensiveness and increasing employee openness characteristics of good action plans ongoing follow-up actions ongoing two-way communication Tentative Timetable OIL Planning Meetings Week 1 Announcements to Employees Week 2 Employee Interviews Week 3 Survey Development Weeks 4 & 5 Review and Revision Week 6 Layout and Printing Weeks 7 & g Survey Administration a. on-site Week 9 b. by mail Weeks 9-11 Data Analysis Weeks 10-12 Or Weeks 12-14 Preparation of Feedback Week 13 OR Week 15 Feedback to Management Week 14 OR Week 16 Feedback to Employees Week 15 OR Week 17 21 © PDI STANDARD THEMES 11 Advancement chances for advancement, legitimacy of promotions, progress so far Benefits overall, how handled, specifics (health insurance, vacation, etc.) Communication) Informing info to do job, accurate info from above, info about other departments Communication) Input receptivity of others to ideas, freedom to say what you think This Company job security, good company, treats employees well, quality of products and services, plan to stay Coworkers friendly, do good work, trust, cooperation with other groups, group morale Job Satisfaction and Morale challenge, enthusiasm, feeling that worthwhile, own morale, treated with dignity and respect, job duties and assignments Pay Physical Working Conditions neat and clean work area, enough space, lighting, equipment, not too much noise Supervisor -Human Relation friendly, encourages people, handles complaints properly, plays favorites, keeps promises, praises good work, gives autonomy Supervisor - Task Competence maintains high standards, sets hard working example, has work well planned, formal reviews, knows what is going on, corrects when necessary, gives feedback This Survey good way to let management know how employees feel, should conduct on a regular basis Training in first few weeks, on-the-job, company develops people for better jobs Work Demands pressure, paper work, enough time, interruptions, staffing, wasted time, daily group output 2 © SAMPLE PDI CUSTOM THEMESI.n Communication Channels department meetings, bulletin boards, newsletters Communication Topics more/less info about strategic planning, new branch offices, new hires, financial performance Company Image reputation in the industry, among consumers Customer Service have been trained, try to give best service Facilities would use cafeteria, day care center, employee assistance program, etc. Management Items time to make decisions, authority at various levels, adherence to policies, competence, responsiveness to community, my understanding of roles Personal Stress response to workload: tension, irritation, worry Union Issues handling of negotiations, union -management relations, represents workers, impact on efficiency Work Values relative importance of e.g. amount of money, job security, interesting work, change to advance, time off, perqs PDI SAMPLE EMPLOYEE OPINION SURVEY INFORMATION ABOUT YOU OPTIONAL, BUT IMPORTANT) In order to identify issues which are of special importance to various groups of employees, we would like you to answer some CONFIDENTIAL background questions. We will report results only by group, never for groups smaller than 7 employees, and no one at your company will. have access to your individual questionnaire. Answer these questions by filling in the grid on the attached answer sheet. BOX A: YOUR DEPARTMENT 1. Department A 3. Department C 2. Department B BOX B: YOUR JOB TYPE 1. Non-exempt 2. Professional BOX C: YOUR HOURS/SHIFT 1. Rotating 3. Evening 2. Day 4. Night BOX D: YOUR JOB STATUS 1. Full Tme 3. On call 2. Part Time BOX E: HOW LONG HAVE YOU WORKED AT SAMPLE COMPANY ALL POSITIONS) 1. Less than 1 Years 4. 6 to 10 Years 2. 1 to 3 Years 5. 11 to 15 Years 3. 4 to 5 Years 6. More than 15 Years BOX F: YOUR SEX 1. Male 2. Female BOX G: YOUR AGE 1. Less than 21 4. 41 to 50 2. 21 to 30 5. 51 to 60 3. 31 to 40 6. 61or older BOX H: YOUR EDUCATION I. High school or less 2. Some college or post high school education 3. College degree (bachelor's) 4. Graduate education Fill in the grid according toEMPLOYEEOPINIONSURVEYinstructionsonattached demographic page. — SAMPLE INSTRUCTIONS Please use a pencil to complete the survey and fill in the circles carefully. The survey should take less than an hour to complete. Note the response format is as follows. 1 = Strongly Agree 4 = Disagree 2 = Agree 5 = Strongly Disagree 3 = Neutral 6 = Not Applicable Some items are applicable only to specific groups (e.g., nursing, full-time employees, etc.). Please use "6" if an item is not applicable to you. A R a Coworkers o Q Z o s 1 People in my work group generally do good work. They maintain high standards of O job performance. 2. People in my work group are friendly and easy to approach. r1, r?) "3 04,_'s D 3. I really feel like I'm a part of my work group. ss 4. The people I work with show good teamwork. Viz, = 3 C,, 5 . 5. People here generally trust one another. 1 6. My work group and other work groups here do no cooperate very well with each J Q <s; 06 other. 7. The morale of my group (or department) is high. f 3 0 'S% Cl 8. Considering everything, I am satisfied with the people in my work group. Cz);— Physical Working Conditions 9. The area in which I work is usually neat and clean.- 10. I have enough space in which to work (I am not crowded). r; r3 s 11. The lighting where I work is satisfactory. J) ? 3 '5 -6) 12. The temperature where I work is usually comfortable. 0 3 0- 13. Our equipment is up-to-date. 1 'z; 3 ,ss 14. The 7ompany does a good aob of maintaiininp,/kef-oing tm *.he equipment, resources, 3 4; 5 6': supl;J1es, etc, we he,.,?e. P7195/1 -PFI -54321 a v a co Q 2 O h 2 15. There is too much noise in our area. 1' f2 (3 4Q 5 6Q 16. I have the proper tools, equipment and/or supplies to do my job. C2 :3) O) C 17. Considering everything, I am satisfied with physical working conditions in my area. 0 C3 C] C5> Q Communication 18. I usually get all the information I need to know in order to do my job. 5, O 19. Persons above me in the company are generally receptive or open to my ideas. U 04 r , 20. If I have a question about work, I usually can get it answered. C iD C} C5) O 21. You can say what you think around here. j) O 03 C) Q5 O 22. The information that comes down to me from persons above is generally accurate. J C) (3 (Q (5) 23. I am satisfied with the information I get about what is going on in other groups or Cl' C?) C3; 0 C Q departments that might affect my job. 24. Considering everything, I am satisfied with communications. C C3' 04 Cs) This Company 25. I am satisfied with the company in providing job security for employees (not laying 1) C3 0 0 fl people off, etc.) 26. This company is an above average one to work for. C CQ O 27. I think this company treats its employees quite well. D CJ 04 U 28. The quality of company products is high., Ci C 29. If I have my way, I will be working for this company five years from now. G CQ DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SHADED AREA v a N '0 nv0CL CO Q 2 30. Compared to other companies and organizations I know about, I am satisfied with this 5 ® C3) O C5) 0 company. Supervisor 31 • My supervisor is friendly and easy to approach. 01 fl C3) O 5? tQ 32. My supervisor encourages people here to do their best. CJ U t ® 5 33. My supervisor lets me do things on my own --I don't have to wait for approval. cl {Q C3 O n O 34. My supervisor tries to maintain high standards of job performance in our group. i" 02 3 0 5) 35. My supervisor makes sure complaints are handled properly. 4 (; 5 36. My supervisor holds meetings of my work group to talk about work as often as 1 (z= 3 C5 5, needed. 37. My supervisor sets a good example by working hard. 38. My supervisor "plays favorites" by allowing special privileges to some employees but 1, 3 4r;5C6 not to others. 39. My supervisor judges me fairly on what I do on the job. 3' 5 40. My supervisor keeps the promises that he or she makes. 5) 41. If I do my job well, my supervisor praises me for it C? ?;3, (s106 42. My supervisor has work in this area fairly well planned. C6) 06 43. My job performance has been formally reviewed by my supervisor during the last 12 i? CJ 5 5 months. 44. My supervisor knows what is going on in our work group (or department). 13 5 C5, 5 45. I would prefer to have a different supervisor from the one I have now.-: 33 C5> 6 46. My supervisor corrects employees when necessary to do so. 1 0 a 04 C5` 5 47. My supervisor supervises people too closely. P7195/2 -PFI -54321 ami N N a 48. My supervisor gives me feedback on a regular basis about my job performance (how D 0 T O much I do, quality of work, waste). 49. Considering everything, I am satisfied with the supervision I receive from my 10 0 C) supervisor. Work Demands 50. The amount of pressure on me to get my job done is about right. C) U C3 0 0 O 51. Too much paperwork is required on my job. j) 0 0 52. I have enough time to do my job. 0 05 0 53. There are too many interruptions on my job. Cl) 0 0 O 54. Our group or department is adequately staffed with people. D D 0} 0 (D 55. I believe that too much time is wasted around here. O 0 0 (D 56. I am satisfied with the total output each day for my group. 1® O 0 Q 57. Considering everything, I am satisfied with my work load. Cl) @ 0 0 0 { Training 58. Training for new employees during their first few weeks is generally satisfactory. 0 C3' 0 CS.') O 59. The on-the-job training I've had since being with the company has been good. 0 0 C) 0 0 ( 60. I think the company does a good job of developing people for better jobs. CO C O 0 CQ 61. Considering everything, I am satisfied with my training and development so far here. 0 CQ O O C7 Benefits 62. Employee benefits are as good as those offered by other companies. C) ®® 63. The company's profit sharing or pension plan is good. O O O ©© 64. The company's hospitalization plan is good. G U CO ®U O 65. I lie group life in f ,. arce coveragf is good,. 0 O O 0 0 ,0 66. The company's vacation policy is good. O Q O O 0 v m = w O i J N O Q CO Q 2 O h 2 67. The company does a good job of explaining employee benefits. C` 68. Generally, I'm satisfied with the way employee benefits are handled here.) 69. Considering everything, I am satisfied with employee benefits. t?` Advancement 70. Chances for advancement in this company are good. C;, 0 (i' () ; s , C 71. The best qualified persons generally get promoted. 0 3 C `5 - 6 72. My progress in the company so far has been good. it 73. I am satisfied with my opportunity to get a better job in the company in the future. 3 s Job Itself 74. I feel that my work offers a challenge. 1 i z 3 4` s ,6" 75. Most days I am enthusiastic about my work. 76, In my present job, I have a good opportunity to show what I can do. 77. My present type of work is very much what I want. 3 `5 78. I leave work often with a feeling of having done something worthwhile on .the job. 3 `4 :.5> s, 79. I would rank my own morale as high. 02? "3;() 80. I like my work more now than I did in the past.; 31 5 81. I am treated with dignity and respect here. C1 0 ;'3? C4' 82. Considering everything about my job duties and assignments, I am satisfied with my 1J `i: 0 -5; s' job. Pay 83. I believe my job is paid as well as similar jobs in other companies around this area. 4? `35 84. For what I do, I think the money I make is good. 00 P7195/3 -PFI -54321 N 85. I believe there is a good relationship between the work I do and how much I get paid. 86. Considering my skills and efforts, I am satisfied with my pay. Survey 87. This survey is a good way to let management know how employees feel. 88. I believe the company should conduct these surveys on a regular basis. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. REPORT RANK -ORDERED THEMES SURVEY SAMPLE SURVEY SUBGROUP SYMBOL Group A A Total B N 55 523 PAGE 2 DATE : 10/12/92 RANK -ORDERED THEMES THEME DESCRIPTION PERCENT FAVORABLE 0 % 100 COWORKERS A 82 % UNF B 65 5 11 HEALTH AND SAFETY A 76 5B5616 JOB ITSELF A 71 13B6116 PHYSICAL WORKING CONDITIONS A 69 B 47 12 26 SURVEY A 66 11B6413 SUPERVISOR A 65 10 I B 54 19 THIS COMPANY A 60 9B5612 THIS COMPANY'S MANAGEMENT A 57 13B5516 MISCELLANEOUS A 56 m 18B5019 WORK DEMANDS A 54 21B5519 REPORT : RANK -ORDERED THEMES SURVEY : SAMPLE SURVEY SUBGROUP SYMBOL Group A A Total B THEME DESCRIPTION PAY AND BENEFITS UCOMMUNICATION UADVANCEMENT UTRAINING PAGE 3 DATE : 10/12/92 N 55 523 RANK -ORDERED THEMES PERCENT FAVORABLE 0 % 100 UNF A 51 18 B 43 27 A 45 17 B 41 24 A 41 29 B 46 29 A 31 38B4130 Agenda Number: TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dwight Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Summer Study Session Schedule DATE: May 18, 1994 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Cancel the scheduled June 27 study session on the Wetland Ordinance, approve budget study session dates of August 8,22, and 29, and determine the need for other study sessions during the summer. 2. BACKGROUND: Earlier this spring the Council adopted a study session schedule through the month of June. As the summer approaches, we would like to discuss the plans for study sessions during June, July, and August. 3. DISCUSSION: When the current schedule was established, a study session on the Wetlands Ordinance was scheduled for June 27. This was based on the earlier time frame for adopting the Ordinance. Since work on the final proposed wetlands ordinance will continue through the summer, this study session on June 27 is not needed. Because of the July 4 holiday, regular Council meetings in July are on July 11 and 18, leaving only July 25 as the only open study session/council meeting date during that month. Last week we launched the 1995 budget process with city departments. Our budget schedule calls for us to present a recommended budget to you by August 1. We have planned budget study sessions on August 8, 22, and 29. A budget calendar is attached. am not aware of any pressing issues remaining on our earlier list of study session topics which must be addressed before the fall. 4. RECOMMENDATION: Given the July regular meeting schedule and the August budget schedule, and the fact that the City Council has met nearly every Monday evening since January, I recommend that the Council cancel the June 27 study session, and not schedule a study session for July 25. The schedule would resume in August with the review of the 1995 budget. The recommended calendar for study sessions is therefore as follows: June 13 Economic Development policy (already scheduled) June 27 Open July 4 Holiday -Open July 25 Open August 8 Budget August 22 Budget August 29 Budget This schedule allows one date each in June and July to implement our "two and one-half meeting" concept in the event we have any potentially long public hearings scheduled. Revised 5/5/94 TENTATIVE 1995 BUDGET ADOPTION CALENDAR MAY 10 Electronic forms for estimated 94 expenditures, personnel, contractual services, employee training, professional organizations and capital outlay request forms to departments from Finance Department. MAY 17 Finance Department distributes working budget forms to departments. JUNE 10 Budget forms due back from departments including estimated and requested expenditures for 94 and 95 excluding personnel. JUNE 13 -17 Finance Department projects personnel and fringe benefit costs and completes budget forms. JUNE 20 - 24 Finance Department and City Manager meet with department and division heads on proposed budgets. JUNE 27 - JULY 13 City Manager review and evaluation of the 1995 Budget. JULY 14 - AUG 1 Final preparation and draft of the 1995 Budget. AUGUST 1 City Manager submits proposed 1995 Budgets to City Council. AUGUST 8 City Council Budget Study Session 1 - 7:00 p.m. Council Conference Room AUGUST 15 City Council sets public hearing date for 1995 City Budget. AUGUST 22 City Council Budget Study Session 2 - 7:00 p.m. Council Conference Room AUGUST 29 City Council Budget Study Session 3 - 7:00 p.m. Council Conference Room SEPTEMBER 1 Department of Revenue certifies HACA. SEPTEMBER 12 Council adopts preliminary tax levy for 1995 SEPTEMBER 15 Finance Director certifies proposed tax levy to Hennepin County. NOVEMBER 14 City Council Budget Study Session 4 - 7:00 P.M. Council Conference Room NOVEMBER 10 - 24 County to mail proposed 1995 tax statements. NOVEMBER 21 City Council Budget Study Session 5 - 7:00 p.m. Council Conference Room NOVEMBER 23 City Clerk publishes notice of Council Budget Hearings. DECEMBER 5 City to hold public hearings to adopt final budget and final tax levy. DECEMBER 19 City Council holds second public hearing and adopts final 1995 City Budgetandfinaltaxlevies. DECEMBER 27 Last day to certify 1995 tax levy to County.