HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark and Recreation Advisory Commission Packet 02-11-1993Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
February 11, 1993, 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order - welcome new commissioner Lynn Mikula
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Visitor Presentations
a. Athletic Associations
b. Staff
c. Others
4. Report on Past Council Action
a. Selection of survey consultant
b. Approved 1993 fees and rental policies
5. Unfinished Business
a. Community survey - review - timeline
b. Amendment to park plan - playfield site #9
C. 1993 CIP
d. Approval of 1992 annual report
6. New Business
a. Additional swings - Bass Lake Playfield
b. Rental policy for Parkers Playfield picnic shelter and
Bass Lake shelter
Chain -,- Vl'ce- CrtV-iz
7. Commission Presentation
8. Staff Communication
9. Adjournment
Next regular PRAC meeting - March 11
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
January 14, 1993
Page 1
Present: Chair Anderson, Commissioners Burk, Gutzke, Johnson,
Waage, Wahl, Watson; staff Blank, Pederson and
Peterson, Councilmembers Edson and Tierney
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Anderson called the January meeting to order at 7:05
p.m. in the Council Conference Room.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner Gutzke and seconded by
Commissioner Burk to approve the minutes of the December
meeting as presented. The motion carried with all ayes.
3. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
a. Athletic Associations. None were present.
b. Staff. Superintendent of Parks, Mark Peterson, was
present and gave a brief overview of the types of
maintenance done by park crews during the winter skating
season. There are three classifications of skating
rinks: hockey/general rinks with warming houses,
neighborhood park rinks without warming houses, and
neighborhood ponds. Because hockey and general rinks
with warming houses are used the most, these rinks get
first priority for care. Second and third priority goes
to neighborhood rinks without warming houses and ponds,
with the exception of Parkers and Zachary, which is
included in the first priority. There are also three
modes of maintenance for the various types of rinks.
Rinks with the highest usage and having organized
activities, such as hockey practice or skating lessons,
receive Mode I maintenance. This generally consists of
sweeping, shoveling, and flooding at least five days per
week, with base ice established at a depth of four to six
inches, and routine ice shaving to create a uniformly
smooth surface. Mode II maintenance is done on
neighborhood rinks without warming houses and consists of
establishing base ice at a depth of three to five inches,
snow removal and flooding three to five times per week,
and shaving the ice periodically. Mode III maintenance
consists of snow removal and flooding as priorities
allow. It should be noted that no maintenance occurs on
any pond until the ice is thick enough to support
maintenance equipment, and this is normally around the
first of January.
PRAC Minutes January 1993
Page 2
Park crews are also responsible for snow removal on our
City's trails. Mark stated that snow removal on rinks
occurs after all trails have been plowed. Miles of
trails maintained in the winter have increased from 19 to
37.
Mark also shared some information regarding the 1993
Arbor Day celebration. In an attempt to seek donations,
a letter is being sent to all Plymouth companies who do
business in the field of energy conservation, asking for
contributions to purchase trees and shrubs. The theme of
this year's Arbor Day celebration is "Planting for Energy
Conservation in the North." Grant applications have also
been submitted to several organizations to help fund this
project as well.
4. REPORT ON PAST COUNCIL ACTION
Council approved the 1993-97 CIP.
Council approved the 1993 City operating budget.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Focus groups and surveys update. Director Blank stated
that a Request for Proposal had been sent out to four
local firms asking them to respond by the end of January.
The City Council has requested that the survey instrument
specify that no project is contemplated at this time and
that it is for planning purposes only. It should also
specify that any project eventually approved could have
tax impacts. Council also requested clarification about
the purpose of the survey. Councilman Edson indicated
that the Council is concerned about the impression such a
survey might give to the residents. Caution must be
exercised when developing questions, so as to not give
residents the impression that something of major size is
going to be constructed. Because of this concern, the
Council may request a joint meeting with the Park
Commission prior to the questions being finalized.
b. Amendment to park plan - playfield site selection update.
At the February meeting, the parks component of the
comprehensive plan may be amended to remove a previously
identified playfield site and replace it with another
location. This will be the ninth playfield in the
comprehensive plan.
Discuss 1993 capital projects. When Council approved the
1993 CIP, they removed from the parks section the Zachary
parking lot and a neighborhood park. Director Blank
indicated to the Commission that they could add these
items back in if they so desired for 1994. The items
that remain in the CIP for this year include trail
PRAC Minutes January 1993
Page 3
improvements, playfield land acquisition, handicapped
accessible playground in Plymouth Creek Park, and the
South Shore landscaping project. Director Blank stated
that based on the trail report prepared by Strgar-Roscoe-
Fausch, he will not be recommending construction of a
trail along Ridgemount Avenue at this time, because
traffic conditions do not warrant it. He further stated
that the City of Minnetonka is not prepared to help fund
such a project until they upgrade Ridgemount Avenue,
which isn't proposed for another five years. If Plymouth
were to build a trail now, it would cost the City about
170,000, and Director Blank feels that money could be
more wisely spent on other trails that have a higher
priority. Director Blank asked for some direction from
commissioners on which trails to construct in 1993.
Commissioner Wahl recommended a trail along County Road
47, leading from the Camelot area over to Pineview Lane,
so these residents could have safer access to the Bass
Lake Playfield. Commissioner Burk recommended filling in
trails that have gaps in order to connect trails that now
end abruptly and seem to lead nowhere. Commissioner
Gutzke agreed that trail connections need to be made.
Director Blank stated that there are federal
transportation funds available for the construction of
bike trails. He has submitted a grant application to
fund the completion of a trail south along County Road 61
to the park and ride lot at the northwest intersection of
County Road 61 and I-394. Commissioners suggested that
staff prepare a list of trails to construct in 1993,
along with cost estimates, in time for their February
meeting.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Review proposed 1993 rental rates. Commissioners
received in their packets copies of the proposed rental
rates and policies for the Parkers Lake Pavilion and
athletic facilities for 1993. Changes recommended in the
Pavilion policy included increasing rates for the school
districts from $7.50 per hour to $8, Plymouth non-profit
groups from $17 to $18 per hour, Plymouth resident groups
from $28 to $30 per hour, and adding a new category for
non-resident groups at $36 per hour.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER GUTZKE AND SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER WAHL TO RECOMMEND COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE
PARKERS LAKE PAVILION RENTAL POLICY AND FEES AS SUGGESTED
BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL AYES.
Athletic facility rentals brought in over $9,000 in
revenue in 1992. Of this total, approximately $4,500
came from groups renting the Zachary fields for softball
tournaments, and $3,500 from soccer tournaments. Changes
proposed in the athletic facilities policy included
PRAC Minutes January 1993
Page 4
removing a statement requiring adult groups to put bases
out and put soccer nets up. These tasks are now
performed by our staff at the beginning of the season and
remain in place through the entire summer. From the fee
schedule, the $300 per day fee to rent the entire Zachary
complex was deleted, because it was decided that more
revenue could be generated by renting each field on a per
hour or per day basis. It was also decided to add a fee
of $10 per bag for diamond dry. Groups will now be
charged a $10 service fee if they cancel an event due to
severe weather. In the past, all of their fees were
refunded with no service charge being deducted. It has
been recommended that the field attendant fee be
increased from $8 to $8.50 per hour.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WAHL AND SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER WATSON TO RECOMMEND COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE
1993 ATHLETIC FACILITIES RENTAL POLICY AND FEE SCHEDULE.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL AYES.
b. Review draft of 1992 annual report. Director Blank
briefly reviewed the pages of the draft 1992 annual
report, pointing out that the goals and objectives should
be carefully reviewed by the commissioners for any
additions or deletions. Commissioner Gutzke indicated
that his phone number is incorrect on the page that lists
commissioners' names and addresses. It was suggested
that a copy of the parks CIP be included as an appendix
to the annual report, with a statement clarifying that it
is a "plan" and as such, has some flexibility. It was
also recommended that a sentence, in Item 7 of the Goals
and Objectives, regarding citizen involvement in planning
a community center, be stricken from that particular
goal. Commissioners were invited to make other deletions
or additions between now and the February meeting by
calling them in to the park and recreation office. Final
copies of the annual report will be distributed at the
February meeting.
C. Review 1993 meeting dates. Meetings in 1993 are
scheduled for the second Thursday of the month, with the
exception of November and December, which will be the
first Thursday of the month, due to holidays falling on
November 11 (Veterans Day) and December 9 (Hanukkah).
7. COMMISSION PRESENTATION
Commissioners and staff collectively thanked Commissioner
Waage for all her hard work and dedication during the past
three years. This evening was her last meeting, due to a
family move out of state.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the sale of concessions at
the Parkers Lake Pavilion during the skating season.
Director Blank responded that there is a pop machine in the
PRAC Minutes January 1993
Page 5
building, but that other concessions such as hotdogs and
candy bars, etc., were no longer being sold as they once
were, because the City lost money doing so.
8. STAFF COMMUNICATION
A sign-up sheet was distributed during the meeting inviting
Commissioners to pick a time slot for supervising the
bonfire at the Fire and Ice Festival and helping with the
sale of s'mores.
Director Blank indicated that a new commissioner could be
named at the January 25 Council meeting.
Councilmember Tierney asked if athletic association
representatives were invited to PRAC meetings. She stated
that she had heard from them again regarding inadequate
storage facilities at Oakwood Playfield. Director Blank
responded that they have an open invitation to attend all of
the PRAC meetings, and they are always placed on the agenda.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
MEMO 17. co
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: February 5, 1993, for Council Meeting of February 8
TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: SELECTION OF CONSULTANT TO PREPARE PARK AND RECREATION
SURVEY
1. ACTION REQUESTED: The attached resolution authorizes the
City Manager to enter into a contract with the Minnesota
Center for Survey Research to provide services for a city-
wide park and recreation comprehensive survey. The
estimated cost for this work is $8,750. The funding for the
survey will come from park dedication.
2. BACKGROUND: In keeping with Council direction, the Park and
Recreation Advisory Commission has been moving forward with
the preparation of a city-wide comprehensive survey dealing
with park and recreation issues.
A subcommittee consisting of Tom Johnson, Chairman, Steve
Burk and Don Anderson from the Park Commission, and John
Edson from the City Council, was formed to work on this
project. The subcommittee met twice with vendors to discuss
the various methods of survey techniques and the pros and
cons, etc., of various survey programs. Based on that
information, the subcommittee developed a Request for
Proposal (RFP). The RFP was sent to four companies, tk
associates of Minneapolis, Carlson Research Company, the
Drozdal Company, and the Minnesota Center for Survey
Research. The RFP is attached as Addendum 1. The deadline
for receiving submittals was Friday, January 29.
Two proposals were submitted for City review. One was
submitted by the Minnesota Center for Survey Research
Addendum 2) and the second by the Drozdal Company (Addendum
3). tk and associates sent a letter indicating that they
were unable to submit a proposal at this time. The Carlson
Research Group called and indicated that they were too busy
to undertake the work right now but would like to be
considered in the future.
The subcommittee met on Thursday, February 4, to review the
two proposals. Based on their analysis and review of the
submittals, the committee is recommending to the City Council
that the Minnesota Center for Survey Research be selected to
do this work.
Park and Recreation Survey
Council Meeting of February 8, 1993
Page 2
Staff completed reference checks on both submittals. We
received very good comments from Joel Hobson, Superintendent
of the Pine City Schools, and Tim Kelly of the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, with regard to the Minnesota
Center for Survey Research. Both of these public
institutions have used the Minnesota Center for Survey
Research multiple times over a number of years and give them
quite high marks. It is obvious from their submittal that
they have done a fair amount of work of the size and
magnitude we desire for our survey.
We also received very good comments from Ricky Littlefield,
of the University of St. Thomas, and Natalie Swaggert, from
the City of Eden Prairie, with regard to the work of the
Drozdal Company. However, based on our review, it became
evident that the Drozdal Company has not completed a written
survey of the size and magnitude of our project.
The fee proposed for Phase I work on this project from the
Minnesota Center for Survey Research is $8,750. The fee
proposed by the Drozdal Company is $8,425.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Staff concurs with the
recommendation of the subcommittee that the City Council
should authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement
with the Minnesota Center for Survey Research to provide
consultant services for a survey of the park and recreation
needs of the community of Plymouth.
If, after completing Phase I of this research, the City
wishes to proceed with Phase II, the Park Commission will
bring this back to the City Council for further review and
approval at that time.
Tom Johnson, Chairman of
Monday's Council meeting
may have.
Eric J. Blank, Director
Parks and Recreation
EJB/np
Attachments
the Subcommittee, will be present at
to answer any questions the Council
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 93 -
APPROVING CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR A PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY
WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth wishes to do survey research about
park and recreation attitudes of the community, and
WHEREAS, a Request for Proposal was sent to four consultant
firms, and
WHEREAS, two submittals were received by the City, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said submittals,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that the City Manager is authorized to enter
into a contract with the Minnesota Center for Survey Research in
the amount of $8,750 for the preparation and completion of a
city-wide park and recreation survey, and further, that the
funding for the survey is to come from park dedication.
Adopted by the City Council on
ADDENDUM 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY
January 13, 1993
The City of Plymouth wishes to conduct a community survey which
addresses the issues that are covered on the attached sheet dated
January 13, 1993. We anticipate this will be a mailed survey,
from which approximately 400 returns would be necessary for a
high validity with regard to the statistical information.
With regard to this proposal, we ask that you provide us with the
following information.
1. A brief history on the background of your firm.
2. Number of full-time employees currently employed.
3. The name and professional background of the key
employees responsible for conducting our research.
4. Two examples of similar research done in the last
three years. List name and phone number of two
references.
5. An outline of the steps you would follow in
developing and carrying out this research.
6. A cost estimate based on an hourly rate(s), with a
not -to -exceed maximum.
7. Consultant should submit a timetable for having
this research completed by approximately May 1,
1993. '
8. After the survey is conducted, the consultant shall
prepare written summaries on all of the research.
The consultant shall also make a presentation to
the Park Commission and City Council (this may be
one joint meeting).
9. The base information shall be organized in a
computer in a manner that will allow for cross
referencing different data fields.
10. Focus Groups. The consultant shall prepare an
outline and cost estimate for conducting focus
groups on subjects that are identified through the
base survey. Once the survey is completed, the
City will determine whether or not they wish to
proceed to a focus group dicussion on any of the
subjects reviewed in the initial survey.
A committee respresented by the City Council, Park Commission and
staff will work with the consultant on the overall development
of the survey instrument. The City Council will review and
approve of the instrument prior to any pre -testing taking place.
At the conclusion of pre -testing and re -work, the City Council
will once again have an opportunity to review and approve the
wording of the survey prior to the research taking place.
Proposals shall be submitted to Eric Blank, 3400 Plymouth Blvd.,
Plymouth, MN, 55447, by 4:30 p.m., Friday, January 29. Submit
12 copies of all materials.
January 13, 1993
PLYMOUTH PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY
Goal
To measure the current use and satisfaction of Plymouth residents
with regard to park facilities and programs, and further, to
determine citizen priorities for future facilities and program
expansions.
Decisions we want to make are:
Should the City plan for the development of:
o community pool
o golf course
o ice rink
0 other
I. Current level of service
o neighborhood parks
o playfields
o city parks
o trails
o park maintenance
o park safety
o recreation programs
o public information
o registration
o accessibility
II. Future expansion needs
o pool
o golf course
o ice rink
o senior citizens
o gymnasium
o preschool
o sports (baseball, softball, tennis, racquetball, soccer)
o horseshoes
o sliding hills
o theater
o arts and crafts
o special population
o environmental issues - use of chemicals
III. Cost to taxpayers
o today
o future
IV. How important are parks and recreation to their quality of
life?
V. Set priority for future growth
VI. Demographics information
ADDENDUM 2
PROPOSAL
for a
PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY FOR THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH
to be conducted for the
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
January 27, 1993
Submitted by: Rossana Armson, Acting Director
MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH
University of Minnesota
2122 Riverside Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454-1320
612) 627-4282
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .............................. 1
Organizational Qualifications ........................ 1
Goals....................................... 2
Management Plan ............................... 3
Research Design ................................ 3
Services Provided by the Client ....................... 4
Reporting .................................... 4
Schedule ..................................... 4
Budget...................................... 5
Related Projects ................................ 7
Bibliographical Information ......................... 9
References...................................10
PROPOSAL FOR A
PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY FOR THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH
EXECUTIVE SUAEVIARY
The goal of this mail.survey is to is to measure current use and satisfaction of Plymouth
residents with regard to park facilities and programs. In addition, the City of Plymouth wishes
to determine citizen priorities for future facilities and program expansions. The City also may
wish to conduct focus groups at the conclusion of the mail survey regarding subjects identified
through the base (mail) survey. This proposal is limited to the mail survey; an outline of focus
group procedures is provided in a separate document.
The following issues and topics are to be addressed in the mail survey: current level of service,
future expansion needs, cost to taxpayers, importance of parks and recreation to quality of life,
priorities for future growth, and demographic information.
The specific tasks that will be provided by the Minnesota Center for Survey Research (MCSR)
include sampling, survey design, pretesting and revising the survey, data collection using mail
survey methods, editing and coding completed surveys, arranging for data entry services,
preparing an analysis -ready data file in SPSS-PC+ (or other designated form), tabulating survey
responses, writing a technical report, and presenting the study results to City of Plymouth
representatives.
MCSR response rates for mail surveys are typically 60 percent or better. This means that
surveys are successfully completed by approximately two-thirds of the persons selected for the
sample.
The estimated cost for conducting this survey of City of Plymouth households is $8,750. This
estimate is based on the following assumptions: the questionnaire will not exceed MCSR's 12
page, small booklet format; initial sample size of 800 households; the third mailing will be sent
to 60 percent of the sample; 70 percent response rate for coding and data entry; each survey will
require no more than 10 minutes for editing/coding; and use of City of Plymouth letterhead and
outside envelopes.
ORGANIZATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
The Minnesota Center for Survey Research (MCSR) is a full-service survey organization
specializing in mail and telephone surveys. Policy development and analysis require an accurate
estimate of public needs and perceptions. MCSR provides this information through annual
omnibus surveys, special project surveys, and other related services.
Two features distinguish MCSR from commercial survey research organizations in the state.
First, MCSR specializes in research about public policy issues; not on market surveys.
MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH PAGE 1
Secondly, MCSR, being based at the University of Minnesota, strives to support the research
and training needs of University faculty and students. Consequently, we have exceptionally high
standards for our surveys.
PUBLIC POLICY FOCUS
Widely used by the media and for political purposes, survey research is now becoming an
important part of public policy development for units of government, nonprofit organizations,
and the private sector. MCSR offers high quality survey research with a public policy
orientation tailored to the needs of clients.
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA AFFILIATION
MCSR is part of the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota, and is an
all -University resource. MCSR's functions also parallel those of the University: high quality
research, the advancement of public education, training of professionals to work in government
and industry, and concern about public policy issues.
While the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs has direct responsibility for MCSR, an
Advisory Committee has been established and includes experts and users from the field of survey
research. University faculty fill 10 of the 13 positions, with the remainder from the public
sector (one each from local, regional, and state government).
MCSR has six full-time equivalent positions. The Center is able to produce its wide range of
services from this small core staff through extensive employment of students, both graduate and
undergraduate. The training of students is part of MCSR's mission. Currently, MCSR employs
4 graduate students as Project Managers, and about 20 undergraduates as data collectors and
survey coders/editors.
GOALS
The goal of this mail survey is to is to measure current use and satisfaction of Plymouth
residents with regard to park facilities and programs. In addition, the City of Plymouth wishes
to determine citizen priorities for future facilities and program expansions. The City also may
wish to conduct focus groups at the conclusion of the mail survey regarding subjects identified
through the base (mail) survey. This proposal is limited to the mail survey.
The following issues and topics are to be addressed in the mail survey: current level of service,
future expansion needs, cost to taxpayers, importance of parks and recreation to quality of life,
priorities for future growth, and demographic information.
MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH PAGE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
The overall coordination of the survey will be provided by MCSR Acting Director, Rossana
Armson. The data collection operation will be the responsibility of one of the four Project
Managers currently employed at the Center.
The specific tasks that will be provided by the Minnesota Center for Survey Research include
sampling, survey design, pretesting and revising the survey, data collection using mail survey
methods, editing and coding completed surveys, arranging for data entry services, preparing an
analysis -ready data file in SPSS-PC+ (or other designated form), tabulating survey responses,
writing a technical report, and presenting the study results to City of Plymouth representatives.
The highest standards of research will be employed in conducting this project. Staff at the City
of Plymouth will be consulted for final approval of all products and research procedures.
RESEARCH DESIGN
QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT
Staff from MCSR will meet with City of Plymouth representatives to discuss and further clarify
topics and issues to be included in the survey. Following these meetings, the MCSR Project
Manager, in consultation with other MCSR staff, will prepare a draft questionnaire. This draft
will be reviewed by City of Plymouth representatives and revisions will be made to the
questionnaire, as needed. After the survey is approved by the City of Plymouth, a pretest will
be conducted. Following the pretest, any revisions necessary will be made to the survey. The
final survey will be approved by City staff prior to the start of data collection.
SAMPLE SELECTION
City of Plymouth representatives will provide MCSR with a description of the geographic
boundaries of the study area either by zip code or census tract. MCSR will be responsible for
obtaining a random sample of 800 households from the designated geographic area.
DATA COLLECTION
MCSR response rates for mail surveys are typically 60 percent or better. This means that
surveys are successfully completed by about two-thirds of the persons selected for the sample.
The standard procedures for mail surveys at MCSR include use of first-class stamps on both out-
going and return mail envelopes (rather than using postage meters or reduced -rate postage). In
addition, the following are also utilized: a hand signed, blue ink signature on all cover letters
and postcards, and printing the surveys in a booklet format. All of these procedures serve to
increase the response rate to a mail survey. The cost estimate is based on using these standard
procedures. In addition, the cost assumes that City of Plymouth letterhead and outside envelopes
will be used. MCSR return envelopes will be included for return of surveys by respondents.
MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH PAGE
Multiple Mailings. Each person selected to participate in the survey will initially receive an
introductory cover letter, a copy of the survey, and an addressed, postage -paid return envelope.
This will be followed by a reminder postcard, sent to all households in the sample one week
after the initial mailing. All households who do not respond to the postcard reminder will
receive a second reminder which includes a cover letter, questionnaire, and return envelope.
Generally, the response rate will be high enough prior to the third mailing so that no more than
60 percent of the initial sample receives the third mailing. Mailing the second reminder to all
nonrespondents, rather than only mailing to a portion of the nonrespondents, reduces the chance
of introducing sample bias.
Data Privacy. All MCSR employees are required to sign a statement of professional ethics
which contains explicit guidelines about the confidentiality of all respondent information.
Editing and Coding. All returned surveys are carefully edited and coded to ensure accurate
data. These tasks are completed by MCSR employees who are carefully trained for these tasks
and are closely supervised by the MCSR Project Manager.
SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT
This proposal assumes that the City of Plymouth will provide some services in support of the
research, in addition to funding the survey work. These services include: consultation about
sampling and questionnaire design, approval of the pretest and final questionnaires prior to data
collection, resolution of issues raised during data collection and editing/coding, and consultation
regarding the form and content of the final report.
1.701093 NI Y I`[ef
A report describing the results and technical details of the study will be prepared at the
completion of the project. The report will include a description of the research methodology and
a codebook containing the data obtained. This report is a routine part of any project conducted
by the Center and is produced as documentation of the projects we have completed each year.
In addition, the City of Plymouth will receive a machine readable data file in SPSS-PC+ or
other designated form.
SCHEDULE
A survey research project typically requires three to four months to complete from project
design through delivery of the final report. The time frame specified in the RFP allows minimal
time for completing a high quality mail survey. If the project were to begin during the week of
February 8, 1993, this will allow approximately 12 weeks for completion of the entire project.
To allow sufficient time for pretesting (2 weeks), data collection (6 weeks), and data entry,
analysis and reporting (3 weeks), following the specified time frame (i.e., finishing the project
by May 1, 1993) will require that questionnaire design be completed in approximately one week.
To ensure that accurate and high quality data are obtained for this study, we recommend that the
City of Plymouth consider adding several weeks to their time frame.
MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH PAGE 4
BUDGET
Costs for services provided by MCSR are based on rates which have been approved' by the
Office of Research and Technology Transfer and Administration at the University of Minnesota.
The estimated cost for conducting the Park and Recreation Survey for the City of Plymouth is
8,750. A detailed budget is presented on the following page.
This estimate is based on the following assumptions: the questionnaire will not exceed MCSR's
12 page, small booklet format; initial sample size of 800 households; the third mailing will be
sent to 60 percent of the sample; 70 percent response rate for coding and data entry; each survey
will require no more than 10 minutes for editing/coding; and use of City of Plymouth letterhead
and outside envelopes.
MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH PAGE 5
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY PARK & RECREATION SURVEY
MAIL SURVEY TO BE SENT TO 800 CITY HOUSEHOLDS
DIRECT COSTS (based on Rate Development approved by ORTTA):
PERSONNEL
Hourly rate Est. Hours Total Cost
Administration 45.75 40 1,830
Project manager 20.00 68 1,360
Data processing 25.50 40 1,020
Student workers 11.00 165 1,815
TOTAL PERSONNEL
SUPPLIES AND OTHER EXPENSES
Printing/duplicating 825
Sample 276
Postage 894
Data entry 700
Long distance telephone 0
Miscellaneous (travel, courier, etc.) 30
TOTAL SUPPLIES/OTHER EXPENSES
TOTAL COSTS
A-1/PLYMOUTH
6,025
2,725
8,750
MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH PAGE 6
RELATED PROJECTS
Recent projects conducted by the Minnesota Center for Survey Research have ranged from an
annual statewide omnibus survey to many special project surveys for particular clients. Below is
a list of selected recent survey projects that have been completed, with an emphasis on topics
pertaining to resident/park and recreation needs assessments.
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Critical Needs Survey
The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Critical Needs Survey was conducted as a mail
survey in the Spring of 1989. Roughly half of the 868 completed surveys came from a city-wide
sample, with the other half more equally divided among four park service areas. Questions
concerned the best and worst things about Minneapolis parks, the use and perceptions regarding
park facilities and programs, the importance of Minneapolis parks, and sources of information
about Minneapolis parks and park programs.
Pine City School District Resident Survey
The Pine City School District Resident Survey was mailed to 384 households in the school
district. The survey was conducted in the spring of 1990 for the administration of the Pine City
school district. This was a follow-up to a previous study conducted by MCSR in 1987. The
survey asked respondents to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the school district,
subjects and programs to be emphasized at elementary and secondary levels, quality of the
schools, parents' involvement, and selected demographic information.
1990 Twin Cities Area Survey
The 1990 Twin Cities Area Survey was an omnibus survey of 805 Twin Cities area residents
conducted during the Fall of 1990. The seven topics in the survey were quality of life,
government performance, housing, transportation, recreation, environment, and child care.
Recreation topics included questions about visits to Como Park in St. Paul, particularly visits to
the Como Zoo and Conservatory. These questions were funded by St. Paul Parks and
Recreation.
St. Anthony Falls Heritage Trail Visitor Research
This research study was conducted in the spring of 1991 as a series of 6 focus groups and 192
intercept interview surveys for the St. Anthony Falls Heritage Board. Focus group participants
were Twin Cities residents. The intercept surveys were conducted at the Minnesota Zoo, the
Sculpture Garden, Fort Snelling, and the Nicollet Mall. The goal of this research was to collect
information to be used in designing a new trail and interpretive center in the St. Anthony Falls
Heritage area. People were asked questions such as what they knew about the Falls and what
activities or experiences they sought when visiting such areas.
MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH PAGE
Constituent Inventory: A Survey of Minnesota Residents Concerning Attitudes Toward
Fish
and Wildlife
This was a telephone survey of 1,436 randomly selected households throughout Minnesota. The
survey was conducted in 1991 for the Division of Fish and Wildlife within the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The purpose of this survey was to obtain opinions
relating to participation in fishing, hunting, and other wildlife activities in Minnesota in order to
improve DNR programs in these areas. Respondents were asked to give their opinions on issues
concerning recreational hunting and fishing practices, hunting for sustenance, DNR
effectiveness, and other issues pertaining to fish and wildlife programs.
Neighborhood Revitalization Program Surveys
As part of the Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP), MCSR conducted
resident surveys in 1991 and 1992 for a number of Minneapolis neighborhoods (Bryant,
Whittier, Lowry Hill, Phillips, Bancroft). All neighborhood surveys utilized mail
questionnaires, with the exception of the Whittier project which was conducted as a telephone
survey. The overall goal of these surveys was to obtain information from residents in each
neighborhood about general living conditions, safety, youth issues, city services, and general
concerns about the neighborhood.
MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH PAGE 8
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Rossana Armson
Ms. Armson is Acting Director at the Minnesota Center for Survey Research. She has been
affiliated with the Center since 1982, and served as Survey Manager from 1984 to 1988 and
Assistant Director from 1988 to 1991. Since 1984 she has coordinated client contact,
questionnaire development, and data collection for numerous projects completed by the Center.
As Assistant Director, she provided oversight for the project managers, reviewed questionnaires
and technical reports, developed project budgets, and monitored expenditures. Projects at the
Center have utilized various data collection methods, including personal interviews, mail
surveys, telephone interviews, and focus groups.
Some of the projects she has coordinated recently are the Minnesota State Survey, the Twin
Cities Area Survey, and several special projects ranging from telephone surveys of 500
metropolitan area residents to mail surveys about environmental issues which were sent to nearly
5,000 Minnesota residents, teachers, and school administrators. In addition, in 1992, Ms.
Armson was responsible for overseeing the implementation of Neighborhood Revitalization
Program surveys for five Minneapolis neighborhoods.
Pamela Schomaker
Dr. Schomaker is Survey Manager at the Minnesota Center for Survey Research. Her
responsibilities include project management, questionnaire design, personnel management, staff
training, and supervision of staff.
Previously, Dr. Schomaker managed approximately 50 survey research projects for a private
market research firm. Examples of projects she has managed include: community needs
assessments, surveys regarding recreation needs, customer satisfaction surveys, opinion surveys,
image studies, and a variety of health care studies. Dr. Schomaker's experience has involved
collection of data using mail surveys, telephone interviews, in-person interviews, and focus
groups.
MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH PAGE 9
The following people may be contacted regarding MCSR's work:
Mr. Joe Hobson
Superintendent of Schools
Pine City, MN
1-629-7511
Ms. Diane Marsh
Bryant Neighborhood Organization
Minneapolis, MN
824-3453
Mr. Tim Kelly
MN Department of Natural Resources
St. Paul, MN
296-4892
Ms. Marilyn Holman
Glendale Action Residents Council
Minneapolis, MN
342-1986
Ms. Barbara Lukerman
Center for Urban and Regional Affairs
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
625-1551
MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH PAGE 10
PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY FOR THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH
FOCUS GROUPS
As part of the City of Plymouth's Park and Recreation Survey, the City may wish to have focus
groups conducted to further explore issues that are identified through the mail survey. Outlined
below are the procedures the Minnesota Center for Survey Research proposes for conducting
these focus groups.
Depending on the population(s) of interest for the focus groups, MCSR will make a
recommendation in terms of the number of focus groups to conduct. At this point, we anticipate
conducting four focus groups. The cost estimate also is based on holding four focus groups,
each with 10 participants.
The specific tasks to be provided by MCSR include sampling, instrument design, participant
recruitment and follow-up, arrangements for facility rental and refreshments, data collection
conducting the actual focus groups), audiotaping the focus groups, data analysis, and reporting.
Management Plan
As with the mail survey, the overall management of the focus group phase of the project will be
provided by MCSR Acting Director, Rossana Armson. The actual management of the focus
groups will be the responsibility of the Project Manager who manages the mail survey. In
addition, Pamela Schomaker, who has extensive experience managing and conducting focus
groups, will be involved in this phase of the project.
Procedures used by MCSR for conducting focus groups are based on the information from Focus
Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research by Richard A. Krueger. In addition, focus
group methodology is based on focus group training received by MCSR staff.
Instrument Design
MCSR staff will work closely with City of Plymouth representatives to determine what topics
and issues should be discussed during the focus groups. As with the mail survey, after an initial
meeting with City of Plymouth staff, MCSR will prepare a draft of the focus group outline. The
outline will be approved by City of Plymouth staff before the focus groups are conducted.
Sample Selection
MCSR also will work with City of Plymouth staff to determine the target population for the
focus groups. Using this information, MCSR will be responsible for drawing a random sample
of potential focus group participants. The size of the sample will depend on the number of focus
MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH PAGE
groups to be held and the amount of screening that will be needed. Our current cost estimate is
based on recruiting 10 to 12 people for each of four focus groups with a minimal amount of
screening. Because a number of people will be unable to attend the focus groups, even after
committing to attending, we recommend slightly 'over recruiting" to ensure at least 10 people
attend each group.
Using the random sample, MCSR will use the following steps to recruit focus group participants:
1. MCSR interviewers will be trained in the interviewing procedures that will be used for
contacting potential participants.
2. MCSR interviewers will contact/screen potential participants by telephone.
3. All people who agree to attend a focus group will be sent a confirmation letter and
directions to the focus group location.
4. The evening or day prior to each focus group, MCSR interviewers will contact each
participant by telephone to remind them of the focus group and answer any questions they
may have.
Data Collection
MCSR will consult with City of Plymouth staff to determine the best location(s) for the focus
groups. The main concern for this selection is to choose facilities that are convenient, easy to
find, and have adequate parking. A number of possibilities exist, including local schools,
community centers, libraries, hotels/motels, or formal focus group facilities.
The focus groups will be moderated by MCSR staff who have training and experience
conducting focus groups. Our usual procedure is to have one person as the lead moderator, with
another person as an assistant moderator.
We suggest holding focus groups that are approximately one and one-half hours in length. We
recommend audiotaping the focus groups. In addition, we suggest providing refreshments for
focus group participants (e.g., soft drinks, juice, light snacks, cookies).
An incentive is typically offered to focus group participants. Our cost is based on providing an
incentive of $25 for each person who attends the focus groups.
Analysis and Reporting
Following completion of the focus groups, MCSR will be responsible for transcribing the
information from the audiotapes. This information will be summarized for the City of Plymouth
in a written report.
MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH PAGE 2
Schedule
A focus group project typically requires 5 to 6 weeks to complete from project design through
delivery of the final report.
Budget
Costs for services provided by MCSR are based on rates which have been approved by the
Office of Research and Technology Transfer and Administration at the University of Minnesota.
The estimated cost for conducting the focus groups for the City of Plymouth is $_,_. A
detailed budget is presented in a separate document.
Our estimate is based on the following assumptions: four focus groups will be conducted, 10
people attending each focus group, the focus groups will each be one and one-half hours in
length, the focus groups will be held within the City of Plymouth, an incentive of $25 for each
participant, and use of City of Plymouth letterhead and envelopes for confirmation letters.
MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH PAGE 3
I 1 1-11 1 i i ; . .. _ _ F .I L. L : 1: 1 _ - C • .' - ." _ L r- h I -I
CITY OP PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY PARK & RECREATION SURVEY
FOCUS GROUT' COST ES'T'IMATE
DIRECT COSTS (based on Rate Development approved by OR'TTA):
PERSONNEL
Hourly rate Est.. Hours Total Cost
Administration 45.75 40 1,830
Project manager 20,00 140 2,800
Data processing 25.50 0 0
Student workers 11..00 65 715
TOTAL PERSONNEL
SUPPLIES AND OTHER EXPENSES
Printing/duplicating 100
Sample
250
Postage
17
Rental of focus group facility 500
Payments to focus group participants 1,000
Miscellaneous (travel, courier, etc,) 36
TOTAL SUPPLIES/OTHER EXPENSES
TOTAL COST'S
SUMPTIONS; Recruitment of 60 focus group participantsFocusgrouppaymentsof $25
Pen participants per group, four focus groups
1/FOCUSCRP
5,345
1,905
7,250
ADDENDUM 3
A PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH: PARK
AND RECREA TION SUR VEY USING A CITIZEN PANEL
INTRODUCTION
The scope of work outlined in this document is in response to the Request for Proposal from the
City of Plymouth dated January 13, 1993. The primary goal of the desired survey is "to measure
the current use and satisfaction of Plymouth residents with regard to park facilities and programs,
and further to determine citizen priorities for future facilities and program expansions". The
results of this survey will need to support decisions concerning:
The development of priorities for recreational facilities such as a community pool, a golf
course, and an ice rink;
The perceived need to sustain current levels of park and recreational services;
The level of acceptable costs to the taxpayer and the feasibility of implementing a user
fee-based system of funding recreational services;
The extent to which the operation of parks and recreational services can be privatized; and
The current demographic profile of the City of Plymouth and utilization patterns of the
recreational facilities by the city's residents.
In order to be able to understand the relative importance of the expectations of the citizens of the
City of Plymouth regarding park and recreation services and facilities, the method used to obtain
input needs to target a representative sample of the city's population and enable those who are
surveyed to provide informed opinions. Therefore, the framework for the data gathering activities
of this project will rely upon an adaptation of a citizen participation panel approach.
RATIONALE
The literature in policy analysis and planning has shown that most techniques for obtaining citizen
input during a public planning process have a number of limitations-' Some of these limitations
include a lack of understanding of the government decision-making process on the part of most
citizens, poor understanding of the merits of key planning issues by the citizenry (e.g., the value
of a comprehensive and coordinated park and recreational facility plan), barriers that make the
usual public hearings inaccessible to large segments of the community, domination of the citizen
participation process by unrepresentative interest groups (e.g., hockey parents who are weary of
traveling to neighboring communities at odd hours for ice time or golf enthusiasts who want a
championship course closer to home), and an overemphasis on opinion surveys. One of the
available methods that overcomes many of these barriers is the citizen participation pane[ The
For example, see L. Kathlene and J. Martin, "Enhancing Citizen Participation: Panel
Designs, Perspectives, and Policy Formulation", Journal of Policy Analysis anrd Mmiagement,
1991, Vol 10, No. 1, pp. 46-63.
citizen participation panel is a randomly selected group of citizens that are representative of the
community at large. This panel is provided with sufficient background information about a given
planning issue, and then, through a series of data collection techniques, input is gathered from
which decision -makers can receive valuable insight into the perceptions and expectations for a
given planning issue, and therefore make more informed decisions.
PROPOSAL
I am proposing that the City of Plymouth implement a modification of the citizen panel approach
to gather broad-based input for the planning of park and recreational facilities. The advantages
to this approach are that (1) it makes it easier for citizens to participate in the planning process by
providing them with information about the key issues and about the decision-making process; (2)
it reduces the amount of the decision -makers' time that is necessary to gather input, and (3) it
provides a true cross-section of public opinion on a given planning issue. Data will be gathered
through a combination of the requested survey instrument, focus groups, and in-depth individual
interviews (as appropriate), and will be analyzed to identify key citizen expectations concerning
current and planned recreational services and facilities, as well as to rate the importance of those
expectations.
The "panel" of at least 400 participants will be derived from a randomly selected set of 800 to
1,000 households in the City of Plymouth. A stratified random sample will be drawn to assure
adequate representation of key sampling variables that will include, but are not necessarily limited
to, household size and composition (e.g., two parent families, single parent families, adults with
no children), income level, facility utilization, recreational interests, etc.
The purpose of each data collection technique is explained in the table below.
Technique Purpose
Survey 1. To obtain data on current satisfaction
with, and utilization of, park and
recreational facilities;
2. To assess desired expectations and
attitudes toward the development of
recreational facilities;
3. To create a preference list of new
recreational facilities;
4. To develop demographic data that can
be cross -tabbed with recreational use.
City of Plymouth - 2 .
Technique Purpose
Focus Groups I . To identify key planning barriers
2. To assess reaction to key planning
scenarios and to assess risks;
3. To test the tolerance for user fees;
4. To rate the importance of key
expectations;
In-depth individual interviews 1. To get input from lead -users of services
on what are the key or desired features
of the planned recreational services.
The entire panel will receive the survey. From that group, a set of three or four focus groups of S
to 12 participants will be developed. Finally, the results of the survey will permit the
identification of lead -users of park and recreational services, i.e., heavy users who are opinion
leaders regarding the design of recreational facilities.
In addition to the citizen panel approach that is recommended in this proposal, it also strongly
suggested that time and resources be allocated to interview key decision -makers in other Cities in
Minnesota that have recently evaluated and or expanded their park and recreational services. The
purpose of this activity would be to:
1. Gain insights from the experience that those communities had in the process of
developing recreational facilities; and
2. Gather data for benchmarking the key features of the facilities in those communities
against the planned facilities in the City of Plymouth. This information is key in
supporting decisions regarding whether facilities are to be created strictly to appeal to
residents of the City of Plymouth or whether the facilities such as a golf course would
have broader regional appeal (e.g., Edinborough and Bunker Hills).
The outcome of this data collection effort will be a set of information that will answer the primary
questions that have been outlined above and will also provide a ranking of the importance of the
key resident expectations for recreational facility development in the City of Plymouth.
Data analysis will be conducted using either Microsoft Excel or Lotus 1-2-3 depending upon the
preference of the city. All data disks and focus group transcripts will be made available to the city
for review and archiving.
City of Plymouth - 3
ACTIVITIES AND TIMEFRAME
The following table shows the major activities, deliverables, and the target completion dates for
this project. This time frame assumes that work can begin by the end of February, 1993.
Major Activities Targeted Completion Date
Interview key decision -makers in the City of
Plymouth to finalize project design.
February 24, 1993
Interview key decision -makers in other
communities who have experienced similar
planning issues.
March 1, 1993
Prepare briefing paper that can be use to enroll
participation in the citizen panel approach by
residents in Plymouth.
March 9, 1993
Select sample with assistance of key city staff. March 10, 1993
Design and pretest Survey Instrument with key
city staff.
March 15, 1993
Mail survey. March 19, 1993
Formulate tentative focus group protocol. March 29, 1993
Survey completed. April 1, 1993
Analyze results and build profile of panel. April 15, 1993
Select, schedule, and conduct focus groups. April 30, 1993
Conduct in-depth individual interviews. April 30, 1993
Compile survey, focus group and in-depth
individual interview results and analysis.
May 7, 1993
Presentation of findings and recommendations
o City Council.
May 11, 1993
reparation of written summary report. May 14, 1993
It should be noted that this timeframe is very ambitious and does not allow any margin for
schedule slippage. To achieve this completion date, it will be necessary for all involved in the
project to commit to this schedule. It is, however, respectful of the request to complete this
project as close to May 1, 1993, as possible. Moving the timeframe to a June 1, 1993, completion
date may be more realistic.
City of Plymouth - 4
FEES
The total not -to -exceed consultant fee for this project is $11,875 and is based upon an hourly rate
of $95.00. Of this total amount, $4,750.00 are fees related to focus group and individual in-depth
interview activities.
The City of Plymouth would be billed on a monthly basis for work completed during that billing
period.
Additional expenses for postage, printing of the surveys, meeting expenses for the focus groups,
and mileage and travel expenses for travel outside of the seven -county Twin Cities Metro area are
estimated to be approximately $1,700.
RELATED PROJECTS
The two projects that John G. Drozdal of The Drozdal Company has performed within the past
three years that are most similar in scope to this proposed project are outlined below:
Proiect
Survey of past seminar
participants for the
Mini MBA offered by
the Center for
Nonprofit Management
at the University of St.
Thomas.
City of Plymouth - 5
Scone Contact Person
This project surveyed Ricky Littlefield
approximately 200 past Center for Nonprofit Mgmt
participants of this
program as well as 100
individuals who had
never taken a seminar
from this center.
Results helped reframe
the design of the
seminar and to increase
enrollment and reach of
the program.
University of St. Thomas
52 South 10th Street
Minneapolis MN 55403-2001
962-4292.
Proiect
Survey of home
builders and remodelers
and building suppliers
for an incentive
company.
Scone
This project surveyed
70 suppliers and
approximately 1000
builders who were
either members or
non-members of an
incentive program
called Builders Club.
The surveys resulted in
a redesign and
re -positioning of the
incentive program.
ABOUT THE DROZDAL COMPANY
Contact Person
Gordon Cremers
Chairman of the Board
Builders Club
401 North Third Street
Minneapolis MN 55401
341-0200
The Drozdal Company, which was founded in 1991, is a marketing consulting firm that is based
in Apple Valley MN.
The Drozdal Company specializes in coaching organizations in the planning, development, and
implementation of marketing strategies. The primary activities of the firm include developing
strategic and tactical marketing plans, performing quantitative and qualitative market research,
building frameworks to help organizations listen to the voice of the customer, facilitating planning
sessions, and developing continuous learning programs in the areas of marketing and customer
service in a total quality management environment. The firm also coaches companies on
organizational issues related to marketing readiness. Primary clients include both large and small
nonprofit agencies, governmental units, and service organizations.
John G. Drozdal is President and Principal Consultant of The Drozdal Company. Mr. Drozdal
will conduct all of the activities outlined in this proposal. The use of sub -contractors is not
anticipated at this time.
Mr. Drozdal is also currently Adjunct Lecturer in Marketing and Director of the Public
Management Concentration in the Graduate School of Business at the University of St. Thomas.
He is also a frequent seminar leader and facilitator for the Management Center, The Center for
Health and Medical Affairs, and The Center for Nonprofit Management at St. Thomas.
Mr. Drozdal has held significant marketing positions in the community mental health system in
Minnesota, and at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota where he had product and
distribution system accountabilities and consulted nationally on the development of medicare
supplement and long term care insurance products.
Mr. Drozdal graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton University with an A.B. in
Psychology, and he holds an M.A. and M.B.A. from the University of Minnesota.
City of Plymouth - 6
QUESTIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Questions and requests for additional information may be directed to:
John G. Drozdal
The Drozdal Company
13755 Hanover Way
Apple Valley MN 55124
Phone: 432-8780
Fax: 432-4911
City of Plymouth - 7
From: John G Drozdal
Questions? Call 612-432-8780
The Drozdal Company
13755 Hanover Way
Apple Valley MN 55124
612-550-5060,612-550-5131
Plymouth MN 55447
Pages 1 (including this one)
Message. Here is the additional information that you requested
Project Phase
Fax 612-432-4911
To: Eric Blank
Company: City of Plymouth
Address 3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Date. February 4, 1993
Time: 10.31 AM
The Drozdal Company
13755 Hanover Way
Apple Valley MN 55124
612-550-5060,612-550-5131
Plymouth MN 55447
Pages 1 (including this one)
Message. Here is the additional information that you requested
Project Phase Fees Expenses Total Phase Costs
I - Survey 7,125 1,200 8,425
II - Focus Groups 4,750 400 5,150
Combined Phases 1 1,875 1,700 13,575
rkre,
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: February 8, 1993
TO: PRAC
FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO PARK PLAN - PLAYFIELD SITE 9
In 1990, the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and the City
Council amended the city's comprehensive park and trail plan to
meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Council. Numerous
amendments were made to the plan at that time in order to reflect
the changes that had taken place in the community since the
plan's development in 1980. One of those changes was the
identification of a future community playfield of approximately
50 acres in size at the southeast corner of Dunkirk Lane and
Rockford Road (Graphic #1). This property had been guided for
many years public/semi-public in the City's land use guide plan.
Therefore, the park designation on top of semi-public guiding
made good planning sense.
Just prior to the park plan amendment, U.S. Homes acquired 102
acres of property lying immediately east of Dunkirk Lane, which
included this 50 acres. U.S. Homes approached the City at that
time requesting that the guiding be changed from public/semi-
public to residential. The City chose not to reguide the
property at that time, thus leaving the current guiding and the
park designation on the property.
Subsequently, U.S. Homes approached the City and indicated their
willingness to sell the 50 acres to the City. The City secured
an appraisal of the property and U.S. Homes secured an appraisal.
The two appraisals were vastly different in their value and
efforts to negotiate a purchase of the property were
unsuccessful.
In 1992, U.S. Homes brought forth a development plan showing this
property to be residential in nature. The City Council gave
tentative approval to the residential development of this
property, contingent on the City amending the comprehensive park
plan to delete the designation of playfield on this site and
identify an alternative site within the community.
After months of research and review, staff has found what we
believe to be a very good alternative playfield site located at
the northwest intersection of the Soo Line Railroad and Peony
Lane. There's approximately 150 acres of property in two
ownerships, from which the City should be able to adquately site
a community plbyfield. The attributes of the site are: the
southern border is a railroad track, which will prohibit single
family homes, the west border is Elm Creek golf course, the east
border is Peony Lane, and the north boundary is heavily wooded.
The site has good north-south road access via Co. Rd. 101 and
east-west access via the future Schmidt Lake Road, which will
intersect Peony Lane just south of the railroad tracks.
A portion of the northerly 40 acres of the site is already in the
City's comprehensive park plan as a future neighborhood park.
This is shown on Graphic #2 as cross marked. The topography of
the property is generally flat and is currently, for the most
part, being used as cornfield. There are areas of trees that
would make picnicing a viable option in the development of the
park.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the Park and Recreation
Advisory Commission recommend to the Planning Commission that
they hold a public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Park Plan.
Step one would be the removal of the designation of park on the
50 acres located at the intersection of Dunkirk Lane and Rockford
Road. Step two would be the designation of future park on
approximately 150 acres of property located generally north of
the Soo Line Railroad and west of Peony Lane as shown on the
attached graphic #2.
After the Planning Commission has held the public hearing on this
matter, a recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council
for review and action. Final approval must come from the
Metropolitan Council.
EB/np
Attachments
llfl2 SEC. 17 F. f f 89.22
OT
lei
94
STORM SEWER DISTRICT TIC
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDAF
WATERSHED DISTRICT BOUN
INCREMENT BOUNDARY
m
ISV 0 Ef
A
It11 q
r
31
I
2.1- T%
Y
1.1 IA
IA U)
rN
CITY OF
P E
SCALE OF MILES
PLYMOUTH-
s S;ae. v•cp$b aic5 s. .i:, s.g s^ $$ii' ' &S 3'i e:e eae. s.egyggii ((
F• g -s. r,... 9 s c3+'6 Pxc Si " {y' .-: a.s•.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii$iiiiiiiiiIiii;iiiii$iiiiiiiii4ii$ieiiii8iiiEll iiiiiiii#i
STREET MAP
v_
i
CITY OF
January 29, 1993 PUMOUTR
John Greupner, Principal
Wayzata East Jr. High
12000 Ridgemount Ave
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear John:
Enclosed is a preliminary engineering report with regard to the
Ridgemount Avenue pedestrian trail. The City Council authorized
the preparation of this report after receiving a petition from
area residents and school officials requesting an off-road trail
on Ridgemount Avenue. The report indicates that the traffic
volume and conditions on Ridgemount Avenue do not warrant an
upgrade from an on -road to an off-road trail system in this
location. It does, however, state, that with two schools being
located on Ridgemount Avenue, it would not be unusual for cities
to accommodate children with an off-road trail in this location.
After reviewing this report, I recommended to the Park and
Recreation Advisory Commission that the City of Plymouth not
proceed with this project in 1993, because the $170,000 price tag
would have to be born entirely by the City of Plymouth.
Minnetonka is planning approximately five years from now an
upgrade of Ridgemount Avenue, which could include an off-road
trail or sidewalk, which may be funded by Minnesota State Aid
funds as part of a state aid road project.
My recommendation to the Park Commission and ultimately, the City
Council, is that the City of Plymouth cooperate with the City of
Minnetonka if, and when, they are ready to proceed with this
project.
The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission reviewed this
recommendation at their January meeting, but did not take any
action at that time. The Commission will be continuing their
discussion of trail improvements at their February 11 meeting.
At that time, I will be sharing with them other high priority
trail locations throughout the community, which they may choose
to recommend to the City Council for construction in 1993.
We Listen - We Solve • We Care
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD - PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 - TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
John Greupner
Page 2
John, if you would like further information on this, please call
me at your convenience. I would appreciate it if you would share
this information with members of the PTA and other interested
parties.
Sincerely,
Eric J. Blank
Director of Parks and Recreation
EJB/np
enclosure
cc: Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
Acting City Manager
Bill Hartman
PAVILION CALENDAR
FEBRUARY 1993
SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRTTIAV SATTTRDAV
1 2 3 4 5 6
9:30-11:30 SC 9:30-10:30 MWO 9:30-10:30 MWO 9:15-12:15 PD FIRE & ICE
10:45-11:30 FET 2-7 P.M.
11-8 P.M.
WARMING HOUSE
4-9 P.M.
WARMING HOUSE»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»>
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
9:30-11:30 SC 9:30-10:30 MWO 9:30-10:30 MWO 9:15-12:15 PD
10:45-11:30 FFT
11-8 P.M. 11-8 P.M.
WARMING HOUSE 4-9 P.M. WARMING HOUSE
WARMING HOUSE»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»>
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10:45-11:30 FFT
PRESIDENTS DAY
HOLIDAY 1:30-4:30 P.M.
11-8 P.M. GEORGINE BENOIT
WARMING HOUSE 12-9 P.M. 4-9 P.M. 473-0956
WARMING HOUSE WARMING HOUSE (MAYBE??)
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
10:45-11:30 FFT
11-1 P.M.
BIRTHDAY PARTY
551-0773
DEBBIE WATEROUS
28
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: February 9, 1993
TO: PRAC
FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation C
SUBJECT: FIRE AND ICE FESTIVAL
ll .lll
I would like to thank each of you for your participation in the
1993 Fire and Ice Festival. Once again, the bonfires and the
s'more sales were a huge success, largely due to your efforts.
I'm sure that your volunteer efforts will not go unrecognized and
will spur other people in the community to be volunteers.
Again, thanks for a terrific day.
off to a great start!
EB/np
cc: Dwight Johnson
This is a good way to get 1993