The URL can be used to link to this page

Residential Survey ResultsDecision Resources, Ltd. February, 1997 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of Chanhassen Residential Survey Governance Issues Methodology: This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected residents in the City of Chanhassen. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers across this area between January 10 and 17, 1997. In general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of adult school district residents w/thin + 5.0 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases. General Quality of Life: Ninety-eight percent rated their quality of life as "excellent" or "good." In fact, forty-three percent saw it as "excellent," placing Chanhassen within the top quartile of suburban communities. Exurban characteristics were most highly prized by residents: "small town ambience," at twenty-seven percent, "rural nature," at eighteen percent, and "parks and open space," at thirteen percent. "Convenient location" was memioned by nineteen percem, while the "Downtown Area" was key to seven percent. In discussing serious issues facing the community today, "high taxes" was cited by thirty-five percent and "growth and sprawl" was posted by twenty-eight percent. "Schools" bothered eleven percent, while eight percent were troubled by "roads." Even so, though, seventy percent felt Chanhassen was generally headed in '~the right direction," while thirteen percent saw it "off on the wrong track" and seven percent though the approach had aspects of both. "Too fast growth," "poor planning," and "high taxes" were the reasons for criticism. "Good planning" and "no problems" were the bases for agreeing about the direction. Job Performances: A solid seventy percent rated the job performance of Chanhassen City employees as "excellent" or "good," while twenty-one percent were more critical in their judgments. This rating was one of the highest on suburban staff in the Metropolitan Area. In evaluating the job of the Mayor and City Council, fif~-eight percent approved of their elected leaders, while eleven percent disapproved. This rating also placed the community within the top quartile of Metropolitan Area suburbs. Decision Resources, Ltd. February, 1997 Empowerment: Fifty-four percent felt they could have a say about the way the City of Chanhassen runs things, if they wanted to. But, a large thirty-seven percent disagreed. This level of alienation fi.om the process was ten percent higher than the Metropolitan Area norm. Tax Climate: A large seventy-five percent rated their city property taxes as "very high" or "somewhat high" in comparison with other suburban communities. Nineteen percent saw them as "about average," while no one felt they were "low." These findings suggest that the City of Chanhassen possesses the same hostile tax climate as its neighboring Hennepin County suburbs. Sixty-one percent rated the value of the city services they received in comparison with their property taxes as "only fair" or "poor." Thirty-eight percent viewed the value as "excellent" or "good." Chanhassen was the only city in the Metropolitan Area suburbs where a majority of residents rated the value of city services negatively. Similarly, forty-eight percent rated the Mayor and City Council as "only fair" or "poor" on spending tax money effectively and efficiently. Thirty-seven percent felt they were "excellent" or "good." This result ranked at the bottom of Metropolitan Area suburban communities. Principal Source of Information: The major communications vehicle for information about the activities and decisions of the Mayor and City Council was found to be "The Villager" newspaper. Seventy-seven percent relied upon the local newspaper. People -- the "grapevine" -- were relied upon by seven percent and meetings were cited by five percent. Only four percent were unable to point to a source of information. General Communications Channels: "The Chanhassen Community News" was received by seventy-three percent of the sample and of this group, eighty-seven percent regularly read it. The reach ofthe newsletter, then, was calculated to be sixty-three percent. Eighty-eight percent of those receiving the newsletter regarded it as either ''very effective" or "somewhat effective." Even so, the reach of the city newsletter was well below the suburban norm of eighty percent of the community. Page 2 Decision Resources, Ltd. February, 1997 Fifty-nine percent of the households currently subscribed to cable television. Among subscribers, eleven percent reported watching Channel 20 at least "occasionally." Similarly, fifteen percent reported watching at least "occasionally" City Council Meeting telecasts. The current reach of City Council cable telecasts, then, proved to be about nine percent of the community. This level of viewership was on a par with most other suburban communities. Conclusions: In viewing the general city government enterprise, residents were favorable in their evaluations of both the Mayor and City Council as well as the City Staff. However, the City of Chanhassen was viewed much more critically on two key dimensions: the value of the city services provided and the fiscal credibility of the Mayor and City Council. Additionally, communications channels proved to be substandard: both the city newsletter and cable telecasts fell far short in their reach and impact. Both of these issues need to be addressed to insure the long run viability of the government enterprise. Page 3 Parks and Recreational Facilities February, 1997 Study Highlights of a City of Chanhassen Residential Survey Key Findings: Eighty percent rated the availability and condition of park, trail, and recreational facilities in the city as "excellent" or "good." Sixty-eight percent, well above the suburban norm, felt "very well informed" or "somewhat well informed" about the Chanhassen Park and Trail System. Fifty-~e percent reported regularly leaving the City of Chanhassen to use leisure-time recreational facilities of programs in other communities. Sixrty-one percent said they would support a tax increase to "preserve public open space before it is lost to urban sprawl," fit~-eight percent would raise their taxes for "upgrading and improving existing neighborhood parks," and fifty-five percent would pay more property taxes to "construct new neighborhood trail links to help form a comprehensive community trail system connecting all of the city's neighborhoods." The arguments that were most convincing in favor of a park and recreation initiative were to preserve open space that protects water quality and leaves an important legacy to our children. In additiorg fiscal protections, such as the implementation of a public audit and annual report, as well as a prohibition against using bond referendum fixnds for city services and administrative purposes, were found to have strong support from the citizenry. Sixty-three percent of the residents would support a $36.00 per year property tax increase for environmental and recreational improvements. However, residents were more evenly divided by a 44% to 47% margin on a yearly property tax boost of $90.00. Due to the 5% margin oferror for a sample of this size, the resuk should be considered a statistical "dead heat." Methodology: This study contains the results ora telephone survey of 400 randomly selected residents in the City of Chanhassen. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers across this area between January 10 and 17, 1997. In general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of adult school district residents within + 5.0 percentage points in 95 o ut o f 100 cases. Parks and Recreational Facilities February, 1997 felt they were "poor." Sixty-eight percent, well above the suburban norm, felt "very well informed" or "somewhat well informed" about the Chanhassen Park and Trail System; thirty-two percent, though, possessed more limited information about the system. Inforn~tion was based upon "use," at forty-three percent, the "Chanhassen Villager" newspaper, at twenty-six percent, nmil/ngs, at thirteen percent, and the "grapevine," at ten percent. Seventy percent reported using smaller neighborhood parks in the community, while sixty-four percent used community parks, and fif~-eight percent, city trails. Twenty-four percent of the households contained members currently participating on local athletic association sports teams: soccer drew ten percent, while softball was posted by six percent, and baseball, by five percent. A large fifty-nine percent reported regularly leaving the City of Chanhassen to use leisure-time recreational facilities or programs in other communities. Bike trails drew forty-five percent; the Chaska Community Center drew seventeen percent. Boating and fishing drew seven percent out of the community. Minnetonka Schools were visited by six percent, while health clubs and ski hills were used by five percent each. Referendum Atmospherics: Residents were asked if they would support a bond referendum to increase property taxes for specific purposes pr tp meet certain broad goals. Sixty-one percent stated they would support a tax increase to "preserve public open space before it is lost to urban sprawl." Fit~-eight percent would raise taxes for "upgrading and improving existing neighborhood parks," while fif~-five percent would pay more to "construct new neighborhood trail links to help form a comprehensive community trail system connecting all of the city's neighborhoods." Residents were read a l/st of potential components and arguments in favor of a future bond referendum measure and asked whether the inclusion of each item or statement would make them more likdy or less likely to support a six million dollar initiative. The results follow: Statement Water quality will be protected by preserving public open space in and around wetlands, streams, and watersheds. All bond referendum funds will only be used for parks and trails; no funds will be used for other city services or administrative payroll. Support Oppose 67% 15% 66% 16% Page 3 Parks and Recreational Facilities February, 1997 find an agreeable electorate for a modest property tax increase for specific qualitY of life improvements in the coming years. Page 5 DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 2128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 CITY OF CHANH~SSEN PARK BOND STUDY FINAL VERSION Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a survey research firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of Chanhassen to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because your city representatives and staff are interested in your opin- ions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential/ only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT 'PAUSE) 1. Are you a registered voter at this YES ................... 98% residence? NO ..................... 2% 2. Thinking about past school dis- ALWAYS ................ 50% trict and city referendum, would OFTEN ................. 25% you say you always vote, often SOMETIMES ............. 13% vote, sometimes vote, rarely vote, RARELY ................. 7% or never vote? NEVER .................. 4% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 1% 3. How long have you lived in the City of Chanhassen? TWO YEARS OR LESS ..... 11% 2.1 TO 5.0 YEARS ...... 25% 5.1 TO 10.0 YEARS ..... 30% 10.1 TO 20.0 YEARS .... 19% OVER TWENTY YEARS ..... 15% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0% 4. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT ............. 43% life in Chanhassen -- excellent, GOOD .................. 55% good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR .............. 3% POOR ................... 0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0% 5. What do you like most about living in Chanhassen? NO ANSWER, 4%; LOCATION, 19%; RUPJd~, 18%; DOWNTOWN, 7%; SCHOOLS, 2%; PARKS - OPEN SPACE, 13%; PEACEFUL - QUIET, 3%; SAFE, 4%; PEOPLE, 4%; SMALL TOWN AMBIENCE, 27%. 6. In general, what do you think is the most serious issue facing the community today? NO ANSWER, 9%; TAXES, 35%; GROWTH - SPRAWL, 28%; CRIME, 3%; SCHOOLS, 11%; GOVERNMENT, 2%; ROADS, 8%; ZONING, 2%; SCATTERED, 3%. 7. Ail in all, do you think things in RIGHT DIRECTION ....... 70% Chanhassen are generally headed in WRONG TRACK ........... 13% the right direction, or do you BOTH/NEITHER (VOL) ..... 7% feel things are off on the wrong DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 10% track? 13. Under what conditions would you vote for a tax increase for land preservation, park, trail, and recreational facilities improvement? [N=228] NO ANSWER, 12%; MORE INFORMATION NEEDED, 25%; FOR IMPROVED TRAILS, 19%; IF INCREASE SMALL, 14%; JUSTIFY NEED, 7%; LAND PRESERVATION, 13%; FOR A GOOD PLAN, 7%; MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING, 4%. Residents may be asked to vote on a bond referendum to develop and expand park and trail facilities. Although no decision has been made, I would like to read you a list of'components which could be included in the proposal. For each one, please tell me if you would strongly support a property tax increase for that purpose, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a property tax increase for it. If you have no opinion, just say so .... (ROTATE LIST) STS SMS SMO STO DKR 14. Acquisition of land for the future development of a large community park in the southern part of the city? 15% 25% 19% 32% 10% 15. Construction of new neighborhood trail links to help form a compre- hensive community trail System connecting all of the city's neighborhoods? 28% 27% 16% 28% 2% 16. Preservation of land in the Bluff Creek Watershed as public open space and to allow construction of a north-south trail corridor? 18% 22% 16% 26% 19% 17. Expansion of City Center Park adjacent to City Hall to provide additional soccer and baseball/ softball fields? 15% 30% 17% 31% 8% 18. Development of Bandimere Community Park for youth athletics, to con- tain 6-8 soccer and baseball/soft- ball fields, amenities, and picnic grounds? 15% 32% 12% 28% 15% 19. Upgrading and improving existing neighborhood parks? 15% 43% 14% 25% 3% 20. Preservation of public open space before it is lost to urban sprawl? Now, I would like to briefly re-read the list. 34% 27% 12% 20% 7% Land for a future community park and preservation area containing public open space, soccer and softball/baseball fields, ice rinks, and uuails in the southern part of the city would be purchased. New trail links would be developed as part of a comprehensive trail system connecting all city neighborhoods. Land in the Bluff Creek Watershed would be preserved as both public open space and a north-south trial. City Center Park would be expanded to include more athletic fields, while a youth athletics facility would be built at Bandimere Park. Residents would be asked to approve a 6.0 million dollar bond referendum to fund these park, trail, and recreational improve- ments. The bonds would be underwritten through an increase of property taxes of about $5.00 monthly or $58.37 annually on a $100,000.00 home; similarly, owners of a $200,000.00 home would see an increase of about $10.00 monthly or $116.73 annually. 25. If the election were today, would STRONGLY FAVOR ........ 17% you favor or oppose this bond FAVOR ................. 25% referendum? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) OPPOSE ................ 15% And, do you feel strongly that STRONGLY OPPOSE ....... 37% way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 7% 26. Could you tell me one or two reasons for your decision? PARKS ARE IMPORTANT, 25%; OPEN SPACES IMPORTANT, 5%; DO NOT WANT TAX INCREASE, 42%; NEED INPORMATION, 9%; NO NEED FOR MONEY, 10%; COMMUNITY BENEFITS, 6%; TOO MUCH AT ONCE, 3%; INCREASE SMALL, 1%. There are many different things which may or may not be a part of this referendum proposal. I would like to read you a list of statements which could characterize the bond referendum proposal. For each one, please tell me if it makes you much more likely to support it, somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to support the proposal. If it makes no difference to you, just say so .... MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 27. A Citizen Oversight Committee will be formed to insure the funds are spent in strict ac- cordance with the referendum proposal. 22% 34% 28% 4% 10% 2% 28. An Independent Public Audit and Annual Report of all bond referendum fund expenditures will be required and publicly reported. 26% 28% 28% 7% 10% 2% the proposal. If it makes no difference to you, just say so .... MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 38. State Representative Tom Workman? 39. Mayor Mancino and the City Council? 40. The Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce? 41. The group, Citizens Against Overdevelopment? 42. The "Chanhassen Villager" newspaper? 43. Community parent/teacher groups? 11% 15% 53% 3% 10% 9% 13% 20% 48% 4% 9% 7% 7% 2O% 53% 3% 9% 21%' 48% 3% 12% 8% 6% 6% 15% 55% 4% 12% 8% 8% 28% 46% 3% 11% 6% As you know, people change their mind sometimes as they learn more about a proposal. Now, after having been told about these possible features of the bond referendum proposal .... 44. If the election were today, would STRONGLY FAVOR ........ 17% you favor or oppose this bond FAVOR ................. 27% referendum? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) OPPOSE ................ 16% And, do you feel strongly that STRONGLY OPPOSE ....... 31% way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 9% Moving on .... 45. In general, how well informed are VERY WELL INFORMED .... 14% you about the Chanhassen Park and SOMEWHAT WELL ......... 54% Trail Systems -- are you very well NOT TOO WELL .......... 28% informed, somewhat well informed, NOT AT ALL INFORMED .... not too well informed, or not at DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0% all informed? 46. How do you usually obtain your information about the Chan- hassen Park and Trail System and its facilities? NO ANSWER, 2%; USAGE, 43%; "VILLAGER," 26%; WORD OF MOUTH, 10%; FLYERS, 2%; MAILINGS, 13%; LOCAL PAPER, 3% SCATTERED RESPONSES, 2%. The Chanhassen Park System is composed of smaller neighborhood parks, community parks such as Lake Ann, Lake Susan, and City Center Park, dedicated to active uses such as ballfields and ice rinks, and trails in boulevards, around lakes, and through parks and natural areas. Of these facilities, which, if any, do mem- bers of your household use? YES NO DKR 47. Smaller neighborhood parks? 48. Community parks? 49. Trails? 70% 30% 0% 64% 36% 0% 58% 42% O% 58. From what you know, do you approve STRONGLY APPROVE ....... 7% or disapprove of the job the Mayor APPROVE ............... 51% and City Council are doing? (WAIT DISAPPROVE ............. 9% FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY DISAPPROVE .... 2% strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 31% 59. Other than voting, do you feel YES ................... 54% that if you wanted to, you could NO .................... 37% have a say about the way the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 9% of Chanhassen runs things? Changing topics .... 60. How do you feel about Chanhassen EXCELLENT .............. 4% city property taxes in comparison GOOD .................. 34% with the services you receive from ONLY FAIR ............. 42% the City -- would you say it is an POOR .................. 19% excellent value, good value, only DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 2% fair value, or a poor value? 61. How do you feel about Chanhassen VERY HIGH ............. 36% city property taxes in comparison SOMEWHAT HIGH ......... 39% with those of other suburban com- ABOUT AVERAGE ......... 19% munities -- do you feel they are SOMEWHAT LOW ........... 0% very high, somewhat high, about VERY LOW ............... 0% average, somewhat iow, or very DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 6% iow? 62. During the past few years, how EXCELLENT .............. 4% would you rate.the Mayor and City GOOD ........... ' ....... 33% Council on spending tax money ONLY FAIR ............. 36% effectively and efficiently -- POOR .................. 12% excellent, good, only fair, or DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 15% poor? 63. What is your principle source of information about the activities and decisions of the Mayor and City Council? NO ANSWER, 4%; "VILLAGER," 77%; CABLE TV, 3%; PEOPLE, 7%; ATTEND MEETINGS, 5%; LOCAL PAPER, 2%, OTHER RESPONSES, 2%. 64. Do you recall receiving the City newsletter, entitled "The Chan- hassen Community News," during the past year? YES ................... 73% NO .................... 22% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 5% IF "YES," ASK: [N=294] 65. Do you or any members of your YES ................... 87% household regularly read it? NO .................... 11% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 2% 74. 75. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. Pre-schooiers? NONE .................. 73% ONE ................... 19% TWO OR MORE ........... 8% Do you rent or own your present residence? OWN ................... 97% RENT ................... 3%- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0% IF "OWN," ASK: [N=388] 76. Which of the following cate- UNDER 75,000 ........... 1% gories would contain the $75,000-$150,000 ...... 34% approximate value of your $150,000-$250,000 ..... 39% residential property -- under OVER $250,000 ......... 19% $75,000, $75,000-$150,000, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... $150,000-$250,000, or over $250,000? Are you or is any member of your household a member of a private health club? YES ................... 24% NO .................... 76% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0% What is your zipcode, please? 55317 ................. 81% 55318 .................. 3% 55331 ................. 16% Do you reside in the Minnetonka School District or the Chaska School District? MINNETONKA SCHOOLS .... 43 % CHASKA SCHOOLS ........ 55% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 3% Gender (BY OBSERVATION) MALE .................. 50% FEMALE ................ 50 % Precinct (FROM LIST) ONE ................... 19% TWO ................... 17% THREE ................. 14% FOUR .................. 17% FIVE .................. 17% SIX ................... 16% 11 C -Y 0-- 690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 93':7-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739 February 4, 1997 Mr. Bill Morris Decision Resources Ltd 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, ~' 55416 Dear Bill' Thank you for forwarding a draft of your Executh'e Summary to my attention. I received it via tax on February 3. Copies of the summary have been forv,,arded to Mayor Mancino. Task Force Co- chairs Blackowiak and L?ch, TPL representatives Ai Raymond and Steve Glazer. and City h./lalmger Ashworth. As you are aware..we are no longer t~cused on Tuesday, February 18 for you.t' presentation. We have instead penciled in Monday... February 24 at d:00 p.m.. This date will be confirmed in the next few days. In preparation £or that presentation, Mayo:' Mancino and i discussed with Diane. the importance of ,,'eceivin~ the cross tabulatior~ ~'oider by lhe end of' ~t~is; week. Diane indicated her wi!iingmess to express mail a copy to Steve ©!azer. His address is Steve Glazer &. ,Associates. 30 Sleep>, Hollow Lane, Ol'inda. CA 94563. Upon receipt of this document and review of both the cross tabulation and the draft Executive Summary, the city and the Trust for Public Lands would like to discuss their context and fbrmat with you. Diane, Nancy, and I discussed tentative plans of talking early next week. Please call me to confirm a time. We are hopeful that in preparation For a positive meeting on the 24th, vce can resoh'e an), outstanding issues prior to :),out' leaving town. Bill, thank you roi' alt the work you are coiupleting on our behalf. We appreciate your continued cooperation. Sincerely, Todd Hoffrnan Park Task Force Secretary TH:ns c: Mayor Mancino Don Ashworth, City Manager Alison Blackowiak, Park Task Force Co-chair Mike Lj>mch, Park Task Force Co-chair A1 Raymond, Trust for Public Lands Steve Glazer. Trust for Public Lands CITY OF 690 COULTER DRIVE · P,O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Park Task Force and TPL Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director January 28, 1997 SUB J: Smwey Results Enclosed is a copy of the Park Bond Study Survey "frequencies." Decision Resources will present these findings with elaboration at a city- council work session on Monday, February 3 at 6:30 p.m. Your presence at this rneeting will be beneficial. If you have any questions,' please call Co-Chairs Alison (949-1183) or Mike (474-5642) or me (937-1900 ext. 121). g:'~pa rk',a'e fercn'.su rvcyresults.doc C -Y 0-- 690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 93:7-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: FRO M: DATE' Park & Recreation Commission Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director January 28, 1997 SUB J: Survey Results Enclosed is a copy of the Pad,: Bond Study Survey "fl'equencies." Decision Resources will present these findings with elaboration at a city council work session on Monday, February 6'30 p.m. Your presence at this meeting will 1oe beneficial. I£you have any questions, please call Co-Chairs Alison (949-1183) or Mike (4-74-5642) or me 9" . (_ .> 7-1900 ext. 121 ). g: park rtl'eton: surx c.vrcsuhs.doc CI-Y 0-- 690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 93:7-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM /×..,: ..: ..,~.:__-_,¢- :.(.>> ,/...:.':?-:,..: .-' .,~ ~-.," ~- -'"~ ,.. "/!,/..,':.') IL-.":.::'~ .,'~- ....... ,---'"' ' ~ / /,fi /z- ,"-"- TO: .- Park_.T. ask..F_orce a nd TPI. ~- FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director~ ~/""-'"'"'""~ DATE. January 28, 1997 SUB J: Survey Results Enclosed is a copy of the Park Bond Study Survey "frequencies." Decision Resources will present these findings with elaboration at a city council work session on Monday, February 3 at 6:30 p.m. Your presence at this meeting will be beneficial. If you have any questions, please call Co-Chairs Alison (949-1183) or Mike (474-5642) or me (937-1900 ext. 121). g",park~re feren' survey 'esuhs doc 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES l~eeCision sources Ltd. JAN 2:--', '9? 11:40 ?_a~_._Cover .-r._ , a.. ....... Fax Number: Decision Resources, Ltd 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Mn 55416 (P) - (612) 920.0337 (F) - (612) 929~6166 Subject and Comments: Total Pages: (including cover page) DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PARK BOND STUDY FINAL VERSION Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a survey research firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of Chanhassen to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because your city representatives and staff are interested in your opin- ions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1. Are you a registered voter at this YES ................... 98% residence? NO ..................... 2% 2. Thinking about past school dis- ALWAYS ................ 50% trict and city referendum, would OFTEN ................. 25% you say you always vote, often SOMETIMES ............. 13% vote, sometimes vote, rarely vote, RARELY ................. 7% or never vote? NEVER .................. 4% DON'T ~NOW/REPUSED ..... 1% How long have you lived in the City of Chanhassen? TWO YEs,RS OR LESS ..... 11% 2.1 TO 5.0 YEARS ...... 25% 5.1 TO 10.0 YEARS ..... 30% 10.1 TO 20.0 YEARS .... 19% OVER TWENTY YEARS ..... 15% DON'T iQ~OW/REFUSED ..... 0% 4. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT ............. 43% life in Chanhassen -- excellent, GOOD .................. 55% good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR .............. 3% POOR ................... 0% DON'T KA~OW/REFUSED ..... 0% 5. What do you like most about living in Chanhassen? NO ANSWER, 4%; LOCATION, 19%; RURAL, 18%; DOWNTOWn, 7%; SCHOOLS, 2%; PARKS - OPEN SPACE, 13%; PEACEFUL - QUIET, 3%; SAFE, 4%; PEOPLE, 4%; SMALL TOW~ ~BIENCE, 27%. 6. In general, what do you think is the most serious issue facing the community today? NO B~SWER, 9%; TAXES, 35%; GROWTH - SPRAWL, 28%; CRIME, 3%; SCHOOLS, 11%; GOVERNMENT, 2%; ROADS, 8%; ZONING, 2%; SCATTERED, 3%. 7. Ail in all, do you think things in RIGHT DIRECTION ....... 70% Chanhassen are generally headed in WRONG TRACK ........... 13% the right direction, or do you BOTH/NEITHER (VOL) ..... 7% feel things are off on the wrong DON'T ~,~OW/REFUSgD .... 10% track? 61292961E,6 DECISION RESOURSES 852 F'82.."11 ._TAN 28 ' 9? 11: 4.] IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK: 8. Why do you feel that way? [N=360] GOOD MiX, 26%; GROWING TOO FAST, 15%; POOR PLANNING, 7%; WELL pLANNED, 35%; TAXES TOO HIGH, 5%; NAVE SEEN NO PROBLEMS, 7%. How would you evaluate the avail- EXCELLENT ............. 31% ability and condition of park, GOOD .................. 49% trail, and recreational facilities ONLY FAIR ............. 12% in Chanhassen -- would you say POOR ................... 2% they were excellent, good, only DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 6% fair, or poor? IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK: {N=376] i0. Why do you feel that way? CLEAN - WELL KEPT, 22%; FNq TO USE, 12%; COULD IMPROVE, 11%; NEED MORE PARKS, 9%; ACCESSIBLE, 25%; SUFFICIENT NI/MBER, 10%; NO ACCESS, 6%; TOO MANY - OVERSPEND, 4%. In an upcoming election, voters may be asked to raise property taxes for land preservation and park, trail, and recreational facilities improvements. il. Nhich of these three sgatements best describes your feelings? A. I would vote AGAINST almost any tax increase for land pre- servation and park, trail, and recreational facilities improve- ments. B. I would veto FOR a tax in- crease under some conditions, but AGAINST it under other conditions. C. I would vote FOR almost any tax increase for land preserva- tion, park, trail, and recrea- tional facilities improvement. STATEMENT A ........... 34% STATEMENT B ........... 57% STATEHENT C ............ 9% NONE OP ABOVE (VOL) .... 0% DON' T i<_NOW/REPUSED ..... 1% !F "STATEMENT A" IS CHOSEN ASK: [N=i34] 12. Would you oppose a property ANY PURPOSE ........... 84% tax increase for any purpose JUST FOR LAND/PACIL...15% OR do you just oppose an in- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 2% crease for land preservation and park, trail, and recrea- tionai facilities improve~ ments? IF "B" IS CHOSEN, ASK: 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 852 ROJ/ll JAN 2,'_--: '97 ll:4j 13. Under what conditions would you vote for a tax increase for land preservation, park, trail, and recreational facilities improvement? [N=228] NO ANSWER, 12%; MORE INFORMATION NEEDED, 25%; FOR IMPROVED TRAILS, 19%; IF INCREASE SMALL, 14%; JUSTIFY NEED, 7%; LAND PRESERVATION, 13%; FOR A GOOD PL~, 7%; FLAINTENANCE OF EXISTING, Residents may be asked to vote on a bond referendum to develcp and expand park and trail facilities. Although no decision has been made, I would like to read you a list of components which could be included in the proposal. For each one, please tell me if you would strongly support a property tax increase for that purpose, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a property 5ax increase for it. If you have no opinion, just say so .... (ROTATE LIST) STS SMS SMO STO DKR Acouisition of land for the future development of a large community park in the southern part of the city? 15% 25% 19% 32% 10% 15. Construction of new neighborhood trail links to help form a compre- hensive community trail system connecting all of the city's neighborhoods? ~8~ ~7~ _ ~ ~ o 16% 28% 2% 16. Preservation of land in the Bluff Creek Watershed as public open space and to allow construction of a north-south trail corridor? 18% 22% 16% 26% 19% 17. Expansion of City Center Park adjacent to City Hall to provide additional soccer and baseball/ softball fields? 15% 30% 17% 31% 8% 18. Development of Bandimere Community Park for youth athletics, to con- tain 6-8 soccer and baseball/soft- ball fields, amenities, and picnic grounds? 15% 32% 12% 28% 15% 19. Upgrading and improving existing neighborhood parks? 15~ =~3% 1~%_ 25% 20. Preservation of public open space before it is lost to urban sprawl? 34% 27% 12% 20% 7% Now, I would like to briefly re-read the list. 612'~P~616~ DECISION RESOI IRSES - - - ~ ,--,._,..- P~Z~4./11 .TAH 28 "9? 11 ~ 44 / 2 Please tell me which ONE, if any, of these components you ~k~.' uid place as the top priority? Of the remaining components, which ONE would you rank as the ' sk~e(c end priority? 23 Is there any ONE component you most oppose? (IF "YES, ASK:) Which one? MOST SECN OPPS Acquisition of land for development as a large community park ...................... 6% ..... 4% .... 13% Construction of new neighborhood trail links to form a community trail system .................................. 23% .... 12% ..... 9% Preservation of land in the Bluff Creek Watershed as open space and a north-south trail corridor ................... 6% ..... 9% ..... Expansion of City Center Park adjacent to City Hall to provide additional athletic fields ..................... 5% .... 12% .... 15% Development of Bandimere community Park for youth athletics ....................... 8% .... 10% ..... 5% ,Upgrading and improving existing neighborhood parks ............................ 11% .... 15% ..... 4% Preservation of public open space ............. 24% .... 13% ..... ALL EQUALLY (VOL) 0c~ .............................. ~ ..... 1% .... 21% NONE OF AI3OVE (VOL) ........................... 16% .... 20% .... 19% DON'T PZqOW/REPUSED ............................. 2% ..... 3% ..... 6% As we mentioned earlier, funding for the bond referendum compon- ents we have just discussed would require a property 5ax in- crease. Suppose the City of Chanhassen proposed land preservation, park, trail, and recreational improvements which you considered to be a reasonable approach. The proposal would be placed en referendum ballot for approval by the voters. In order Ee fund any improve- ments er land purchases, residents would be asked to approve a property tax increase for a twenty year period. 24. How much would you be willing to NOTHING ............... 32% see your property taxes increase $3.00 ................. 12% to fund this proposal? Let's say, $6.00 ................. 15% would you be willing to see your $9.00 ................. 15% monthly proper~y taxes increase by $12.00 ................ 12% $ ? (CHOOSE RANDOH STARTING $1S.00 ................. 3% POI~T; MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING $18.00 ................. 6% ON RESPONSE) How about $. per DON'T ~OW ............. 6% month? (REPEAT PROCESS) REFUSED ................ 1% ! would now like to ask your opinion of a specific park and recreational facilities bond referendum proposal .... 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES :?,52 PE~5/ii ._TAN 2:--: : 9? 11: 44 Land for a future community park and preservation area containing public open space, soccer and softball/baseball fields, ice rinks, and trails in the southern part of the city would be purchased. New trail links would be developed as part of a comprehensive trail system connecting all city neighborhoods. Land in the Bluff Creek Watershed would be preserved as both public open space and a north-south trial. City Center Park would be expanded to include more athletic fields, while a youth athletics facility would be built at Bandimere Park. Residents would be asked to approve a 6.0 mil'lion dollar bond referendum to fund these park, trail, and recreational improve- ments. The bonds would be underwritten through an increase of property taxes of about $5~00 monthly or $58.37 annually on a $100,000.00 home; similarly, owners of a $200,000.00 home would see an increase of about $10.00 monthly or $!16.73 annually. 25. If the election were today, would STRONGLY FAVOR ........ 17% you favor or oppose this bond FAVOR ................. 25% referendum? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) OPPOSE ................ 15% .And, do you feel strongly that STRONGLY OPPOSE ....... 37% way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 7% 26. Could you tell me one or two reasons for your decision? PARKS ARE IMPORTANT, 25%; OPEN SPACES IMPORTANT, 5%; DO NOT WANT TAX INCREASE, 42%; NEED INFORMATION, 9%; NO NEED FOR MONEY, 10%; COMMUNITY BENEFITS, 6%; TOO MUCH AT ONCE, 3%; INCREASE S~ALL, 1%. There are many different things which may or may not be a part of this referendum proposal. I would like to read you a list of statements which could characterize the bond referendum proposal. For each one, please tell me if it makes you much more likely to support it, somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to support the proposal.. If it makes no difference to you, just say so MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 27. A Citizen Oversight Committee will be formed to insure the funds are spent in strict ac- cordance with the referendum proposal. 22% 34% 28% 4% 10% 2% 28. An Independent Public Audit and Annual Report of all bond referendum fund expenditures will be required and publicly reported. 26% 28% 28% 7% 10% 2% 6129296166 DECI,qlFJN RESOURSES '-'='-' F'E~6,.-'ii ,TAN BS: ~? 11:4 MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 29. If we don't purchase public open space now, it will be lost forever. 32% 26% 19% 12% 4% 30. Neighborhood parks, trails, and public open space is an impor- tant legacy for our children. 32% 28% 19% 8% 11% 3% 31, Passing of this referendum would be a big step towards preserving Chanhassen's small Gown, country feel. 26% 30% 18% 16% 2% Ail bond referendum funds will only be used for parks and trails; no funds will be used for other city services or administrative payroll. 42% 24% 16% 7% 10% 3% .33, This measure invests in neigh- borhoed parks which are the heart of our community, 26% 28% 22% 11% 11% 2% 34, if land in the Bluff Creek watershed is not set aside newt future residential and commer- cial development will consume much of this area, 2I% 22% 22% 9% 11% 10% 35. More ballfields are critically needed if the City is to offer youth athletics opportunities for all of our children who wish to participate. 16% 369 17% 10% 13% 9% 36. Water quality will be protected by preserving public open space in and around wetlands, streams, and watersheds. 34% 33% 14% 5%~'0% _5% 37. This measure will increase en- vironmental education and aware- ness opportunities for our children. 20% 29% 23% 13% 12% I would now like to read you a list of groups or individuals who could endorse the referendum; of course, since no proposal has been decided upon, no endorsements have as yet been made. Even so, for each of the following, please tell me if an endorsemenn of the referendum proposal by that individual or group should occur, would it make you much more likely to support it, somewhat raore likely, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to support 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 852 PO?/ll JAN 20 '9? 11:46 the proposal. If it makes no difference to you, just say so MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 38. State Representative Tom Workman? 39. Mayor Mancino and the City Council? 40. The Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce? 4!. The group, Citizens Against Overdevelopment? 42. The "Chanhassen Villager" newspaper? 43. Community parent/teacher groups? 11% 15% 53% 13% 20% 48% 7% 20% 53% 9% 21% 48% 6% !5% 55% 8% 28% 46% 10% 9% 4% 9% 7% 3% 9% 8% 3% 12% 6% 4% 12% 8% 3% 11% 6% As you know, people change their mind sometimes as they learn more about a proposal. Now, after having been told about these possible features of the bond referendum proposal .... 44. If the election were today, would STRONGLY FAVOR ........ 17% you favor or oppose this bond FAVOR ................. 27% referendum? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) OPPOSE ................ 16% And, do you feel strongly that STRONGLY OPPOSE ....... 31% way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 9% Moving on .... 45. In general, how well informed are VERY WELL INFORMED .... 14% you about the Chanhassen Park and SOMEWHAT WELL ......... 54% Trail Systems -- are you very well NOT TOO WELL .......... 28% informed, somewhat well informed, NOT AT ALL INFORMED .... 4% not too well informed, or not at DON'T FG~OW/REFUSED ..... 0% all informed? 46. How do you usually obtain your information about the Chan- hassen Park and Trail System and its facilities? NO ANSWER, 2%; USAGE, 43%; "VILLAGER," 26-%; WORD OF MOUTH, 10%; FLYERS, 2%; MAILINGS, 13%; LOCAL PAPER, SCATTERED RESPONSES, 2%. The Chanhassen Park System is composed of smaller neighborhood parks, community parks such as Lake Ann, Lake Susan, and City Center Park, dedicated to active uses such as baltfields and ice rinks, and trails in boulevards, around lakes, and through parks and natural areas. Of these facilities, which, if any, do mem- bers of your household use? YES NO DKR 47. Smaller neighborhood parks? 48. Community parks? 49. Trails? 70% 30% 0% 64% 36% 0% 58% 42% 0% ,:,._,._', F'EI:--k/ll .TAN '---":5:"37 11:51 50. Do any of the members of your household currently partici- pate on any local athletic association sports teems? (iF "YES," ASK:) What sports? NO PARTICIPATION, 76%; SOFTBALL, 6%; SOCCER, 10%; BASKET- BALL, 3%; VOLLEYBALL, 1%; BASEBALL, 5%. 51. De you or members of your household regularly leave the City of Chanhassen to use leisure-time recreational facilities or programs in other cities? (IF "YES," ASK:) What types of facilities or programs are you using elsewhere? NO, 41%; CHASKA COMMUNITY CENTER, 17%; SKI, 5%; BIKE TP~AILS, 45%; BOATING - FISHING, ?%; GOLF, 2%; MINNETONKA SCHOOLS, 6%; CARVER COUNTY PARKS, 4%; HEALTH CLUB, 5%; OTHER PARKS, 4%; HOCKEY, 3%; SWIM, 2%. So far, we have discussed several proposals for park and recrea~ tional facilities currently being considered by the City. I would like to read you a short list ef propesa!s which are not currently being discussed, but could be evaluated sometime in the future. Per each one, please tell me if you sgrengly support it, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose it. If you have ne opinion, just say se .... {ROTATE LIST) STS SHS SHO STO DKR 52. Development of a municipal golf course? 53. Construct±on of a municipal outdoor swimming pool? 54. Construction of a municipal indoor swimming pool? 55. Construction of a full-service Community Center, including indoor family leisure-fun poet, walking/running track, .gymna- siums, aerobics room, racquet- ball courts, and exercise equipment and weight room? 56. Construction of an indoor ice arena for hockey and figure skating? 17% ~' o 2~ 16% 31% i2~ 18% 25% 16% 33% 9% 22%-. .~..oa-% ~_8% 2a%_ 8% 29% u7°~ ~ . 16% 26% 3% 18% 23% 19% 28% 12% Moving on 57. Prom what you have seen or heard, EXCELLENT ............. 15% how would you rate the job per- GOOD .................. formance of Chanhassen City em- ONLY FAIR ............. 18% ployees excellent, good, only POOR ................... fair, er poor? DON'T }~qOW/REFUSED .... 10% 6129296i66 DECISION RESOURSES 053 P09/11 JAN 20 '9? 11:51 58. From what you know, do you approve STRONGLY APPROVE ....... or disapprove of the job the Mayor APPROVE ............... 51% and City Council are doing? (WAIT DISAPPROVE ............. 9% FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY DISAPPROVE .... 2% strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 31% 59. Other than voting, do you feel YES ................... 54% that if you wanted to, you could NO .................... 37% have a say about the way the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 9% of Chanhassen runs things? Changing topics .... 60. How do you feel about Chanhassen EXCELLENT .............. 4% city property taxes in comparison GOOD .................. 34% with the services you receive from ONLY FAIR ............. 42% the City -- would you say it is an POOR .................. 19% excellent value, good value, only DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 2% fair value, or a poor value? 61. How do you feel about Chanhassen VERY HIGH ............. 36% city property taxes in comparison SOMEWHAT HIGH ......... 39% with those of other suburban com- ABOUT AVERAGE ......... 19% munities do you feel they are SOME~iAT LOW ........... 0% very high, somewhat high, about VERY LOW ........... .0% average, somewhat low, or very DON'T Fd~OW/REFUSED ..... 6% low? 62. During the past few years, how EXCELLENT .............. 4% would you rate the Mayor and City GOOD .................. 3.3% Council on spending tax money ONLY FAIR ............. 36% effectively and efficiently -- POOR .................. 12% excellent, good, only fair, or DON'T }~OW/REFUSED .... 15% poor? 63. What is your principle source of information about the activities and decisions of the Mayor and City Council? NO ANSWER, 4%; "VILLAGER," 77%; CA3LE TV, 3%; PEOPLE, 7%; ATTEND MEETINGS, 5%; LOCAL PAPER, 2%, OTHER RESPONSES, 2%. 64. Do you recall receiving the City newsletter, entitled ',The Chan- hassen Community News," during the past year? YES ................... 73% NO .................... 22% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 5% IF "YES," ASK: [N--294] 65. Do you or any members of your YES ................... 82% household regularly read it? NO .................... 11% DON'T ~NOW/REFUSED ..... 2% 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES '-'=~ F"~A/ll ._TAN 2',--: _., i1: 66. How effective is the city VERY EFFBCT!VE ........ 36% newsletter in keeping you in- SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE .... 52% formed about activities in NOT TOO EFFECTIVE ...... 8% the city -- very effective, NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE...3% somewhat effective, not too DON'T KNOW/REFUSeD ..... 1% effective, or not at all effective? 67. Does your household currently sub- YES ................... 59% scribe to cable television? NO ' 41% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0% IF "YES," ASK: [N~237] 68. Would you say you watch the FREQUENTLY ............. 3% local government access OCCASIONALLY ........... 8% channel 20 frequently, ecoa- RARELY ................ 18% sionally, rarely, or not at NOT AT ALL ............ 32% all? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 69. Would you say you watch City FREQUENTLY ............. 4% Ceunci! Hooting telecasts OCCASIONALLY .......... 11% frequently, occasionally, RARELY ................ 27% rarely, or not at all? NOT AT ALL ............ 35% DON'T Y~OW/REFUSED ..... 0% Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes .... 70. What is your age, please? Stop me 18-24 ................... 1% when I read the interval which 25-34 ................. 17% contains it. 35-44 ................. 43% 45-54 ................. 19% 55-64 ................. 11% 65 ~D OVER ............ 9% REFUSED ................ 0% Could you tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household .... First, persons over 65? NONE .................. 88% ONE .................... 7% %~WO OR MORE ............ 5% 72. Other adults, including yourself? NONE ................... 6% ONE ................... 19% TWO ................... 76% THREE OR MORE .......... 8% 73. School-aged children? NONE .................. 55% ONE ................... 15% TWO ................... 20% THREE OR MORE ......... 10% 10 6129296i66 DECISION RESOURSES h:s.~, Rll/ll JAN 28 '97 11:.== 74. 77. 72. ?9. 80. 81. Pre- schoolers? NONE .................. 73 % ONE ................... 19% TWO OR MORE ........... 8% Do you rent or own your present residence? OWN ................... 97% RENT ................... 3% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0% IF "OWN," ASK: [N=388] 76, Which of the following cate- UNDER 75,000 ........... 1% gories would contain the $75,000-$150,000 ...... 34% approximate value of your $150,000-$250,000 ..... 39% residential property ~- u~der OVER $250,000 ......... 19% $75,000, $75,000-$150,000, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 4% $150,000-$250,000, or over $250,000? Are you or is any member of your household a member of a private health club? YES ................... 24% NO .................... 76% DON'T i~qOW/REFUSED ..... 0% What is your zipcode, please? 55317 ................. 81% 55318 .................. 3% 55331 16% Do you reside in the Minnetonka School District or the Chaska School District? MINNETONKA SCHOOLS .... 43% Ct3~ASKA. SCHOOLS 55~ DON'T K_NOW/REFUSED 3% Gender (BY OBSERVATION) MALE .................. 5 0% FEMALE ................ 5 0 % Precinct (FROM LIST) ONE ............ - ....... 19% TWO ................... 17% THREE ................. 14% FOUR .................. 17% FIVE .................. 17% SIX ................... 16% 1! .- C -Y 0-- 690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739 November 21, 1996 Mr. Bill Morris Decision Resources, Ltd. 3128 Dean Court Mim'~eapolis, MN 55416 Dear Mr. Morris: Please find enclosed a signed copy of the agreement between the City of Chanhassen and Decision Resources for professional services. The City of Chanhassen welcomes the opportunity to work with you on our park bond issue. We look forward to your insight. Per the contract, a down payment of $3,750.00 is being processed. Again, it is our pleasure to be working with Decision Resources on this important initiative. Sincerely, Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director TH:v C' Park Task Force --/Mayor and City Council Park and Recreation Commission Don Ashworth, City Manager g:",par k',t h',dec isionres,e 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 558 P03×08 NOU 06 15:37 AGREEMENT I. PREAMBLE Wohereas, Decision Resources, Limited, (hereinafter referred to as DR.L) offers its services to rganizations in the public and private sectors for the purpose of conducting market research by telephone survey to ascertain such information as may be requested by its clients, and Woereas, City of Chanhassen (hereinafter referred to as CLIE~) wishes to employ DRL r the above stated purpose, DRL and CLIENT agree to the following terms, conditions, and fees governing such employment. !!. SERVICES (A.) DRL shall conduct a telephone survey the sample size of which shall be 400 randomly selected households. The number of questions shall be determined at a later point, BUT NOT TO EXCEED sixty (60) QUESTIONS. The survey shall be contained wiflfin the City of Chanhassen. (B.) DRL will submit the questionnaire for the survey to CLIENT for his approval prior to the commencement of interviews. The specific details of tile survey as to timing, questionnaire content, mtd population sample to be surveyed (except as otherwise specified in paragraph A) shall be mutualIy agreed upon by the parties as circumstances may require. In the event the parties fail to agree, CLIENT shall have the final authority to determine the subject matter content of the survey, while DRL shall have final authority to determine the specific wording of questions on the questimmaire and the specific individuals within the given population to be sampled. DRL shall not be obligated to ask questions of persons interviewed in addition to those questions included on the approved questionnaire or to provide data or interpretations with respect to topics or issues not covered by the questionnaire. DRL will proceed with a survey only after it receives notice of CLIENT's approval of the questiotmaire. (C.) The survey shall be commenced as soon as is practicable following: (1) Approval of the questionnaire by CLIENT, and (2) Payment of all fees due to date as required. (D.) Upon payment of all fees due to date, DRL shall furnish to CLIENT a written report of the survey results including interpretation, which may be reasonably drawn therefrom. At that time, CLIENT, in consultation with DRL, will schedule meetings for the presentation and discussion of these results. Both the President of DRL and the Project Director of this study shall be available for meetings and supplementary analysis not to exceed twenty additional hours of time. Further time commitments of DRL personnel deemed needed by CLiENT slmll be billed upon a nmtually agzeed-to hourly basis prior to their execution. Page 1 of 3 I!1. FEES CLIENT shall remit to DR_L fees in the amounts, at the times, and in the manner specified heretmder: The TOTAL AMOUNT of ail fees due under this agreement shall be $7,500.00 FOR A sixty (60) QUESTION SURVEY. EACH ADDITIONAL QUESTION WiLL BE $100.00. TIME FEES DUE (A.) One lmlf of the total fee under this agreement shall be due at the time CLIENT affixes his signature hereto. DRL shall not be obligated to commence interviews for the survey until the fee called for in this paragraph (A.) has been paid in full. (B.) The balance of the TOTAL AMOUNT remaining unpaid shall be due prior to delivery, by DRL to CLIENT of the written report required under Section ii (D.). (C.) All fees due under this agreement shall be payable by ordinary check, except that DP, J_. resmx, es the right to require payment by certified check, after having given CLIENT three days notice of such requirement.- IV. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS AND DISCLOSURE The written report required under Section Ii (D.) shall become the sole property of CLIENT after payment to DRL of the TOTAL AMOUNT required in Section III. The sm~'ey questio~maires and replies and all related data, materials, and information shall remain the property of DRL. DP, iL agrees not to divulge or use for any purpose, including but not limited to advertising and public relations, the information obtained in the survey without the writ'ten consent of CLIENT; provided, however, if the data or results of the survey are directly or indirectly made public by CLIENT or anyone else, DRL may make public the followh~g hfformation: the population from which the sample was taken, the method of obtaining the interviews, including the size and design of the sample, and the basis of the data if the sample is less than the total sample, the dates and times when the interviews were conducted, the exact wording of questions asked and the client's name. CLIENT agrees that if it or anyone else acting on its behalf wishes to release in whole or in part to the public by press release, speech, or otherwise, the data or results of the survey or contents of the written report, that CLIENT or such other person will first notify DRL in writing, and that there will be also stated in the release, speech, or otherwise, that the survey was done by DECISION RESOURCES, LIMITED, OF 5fINNEAPOLIS, IVlINNESOTA. CLIENT agrees, at all times both during the term of this Agreement and thereafter, to keep in confidence all 'kno~vledge or information as to the processes, methods and techniques of DilL and not to disclose or make 'known such 'knowledge or infonnation to any other person, firm, corporation or organization, including but not limited to competitors of DRL, except, when specifically authorized to do so in va'iting by DRL. CLIENT &uther understands and agrees that the names and addresses of interviewers used by DRL and the names and/or addresses of persons sampled are confidential m~d will not be made available to CLIENT. 1 .... 3::I Page 2 of 3 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES ~,~ P05×08 NOU 06 '96 ='3E V. EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES DRL agrees to utilize its best efforts to insure the acctrracy of any survey by it pursuant to this Agreement. However, it is specifically understood and agreed tlaat nothh~g hz this Agreement, or any sttrvey or written report furnished under Section II (D.), shall be considered as either a prediction or guarantee of the results of any election or the outcome of any event, and any representations or warranties, express or implied, to that effect are hereby excluded. In addition, DRL shall not be responsible or liable for any failure by it to conduct any survey or render any written report if such failure results from labor disturbances, fires, floods, wars, riots, civil disturbasmes, and other events beyond the control of DRL. VI. MODIFICATIONS Modifications of this Agreement shall not be enforceable unless hz v~iting and signed by the party to be charged. Neither patlies' waiver of any rights due himJher under this Agreement shall have the effect of waiving other or subsequent rights due hereunder. Vii. MISCELLANEOUS (A.) This Agreement merges and supersedes all other agreements, verbal and written, between the proxies m~d represents all agreements between them and binds their administrators, heirs, successors, and assignees. (B.) Any provision ofthiS Agreement which may be held unenforceable shall be severable and the balance of the Agreement enforced. (C.) CLIENT agrees that it shall comply with ail laws respecting disclosure of this Agreement. (iD.) DRL reserves the right to use the findings from this survey in anonymous form as to the specific population and client for purposes of aggregate and comparative analyses to be made available to other clients of DRL or publications. --n wimess whereof, the parties affix their signature on this .-. 199ff~_~. DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. By: PRESIDENT CLIENT .... Pace 3 of 3 DECISION RESOURSES ~.~=="~ F'FI-C~/F.~R_~ _ NOU E~E, '96 15:3~ Invoice Invoice Number:. Date: 1105~6.1 November 5, 1996 Deoiston Resources, Ltd. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 (612) 920-240t (612) 929-6166 TO: Mr. Todd Hoffman Parks and Recreation Director Chanhassen City Hall P,O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 SHIP TO (If different address): Bill Morris/Diane Tmxior Surveys Upon Receipt of Invoice ...... . ..... - ~ - .._ ~ . · - .............................. Tolophono Su~toy 4.00 Housohokt Random Samplo - . ,,- ..... 80 Ouesfion~ Maximum Con~'uctlon of QuesUonna[re Administration of Survey Sample Selection Computer Tabulation and Analysis Written Report of Findings Presentation of Results $7,500.00 $7,500.00 DOWN PAYMENT DUE (Prior to Field Work) THANK YOUI We appreciate working with you. $3,750.00 .$~.00 ..... ~ u..---.,.=. ..... ~- ......... TOTALDUE /1~"~_~ $_3,75_0.00 ! September 15, 1996 3128 Bean COurt Minneapolis, MinnesOta 55416 (612) 920-0337 OCT 0 8 '/9'96 Mr. Todd Hoffrnan Parks and Recreation Director City of Chanhassen Chanhassen City Hall' P.O. Box 147 Chanhasserg Minnesota 55317 Dear Mr. Hoffman: Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to present this revised proposal for survey research and on- going campaign consultation in the City of Chanhassen. It is primarily based upon our recent discussions with you and members of your Park Commission. We feel confident that the program outlined below will meet your objectives in a timely and Cost-effective manner, while providing the greatest degree of flexSbility in choosing strategies and tactics. ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENT Voters ultimately base their decisions in city referendum elections on a number of factors -- several,, at times, beyond the control of the campaign leadership. Perceptions of aggregate tax burdens, unhappiness with completely unrelated local isSUes or personalities, competing nearby facilities, and differing priorities have doomed many proposals in other localities. As a result, simply'gauging support or opposition to a proposed policy can overlook critically important ' campaign considerations. There may be a need to dispel misconceptions or explain existing city policies and services prior to the initiation °fthe referendum campaign. We have found that addressing any environmental negatives in advance of the election "season" greatly strengthens the chances of support among the citizenry. The following general issues should be addressed in this research: A. What do Chanhassen residents like least and most about their city? B. Are residents generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the level and provision of current city services? In particular, Park and recreation programs, and park maintenance and upkeep? C. Are residents satisfied or dissatisfied with their elected officia~ and city staff7. . D. How do residents see the tax burden in Chanhassen relative to other suburban areas? . . -:.:~. · . E. What are the Policy priorities of the residents? F. Are Chanhassen residents generally supportive of the development of park facilities to date, as well as planned future projects? Are residents worried about maintaining a balance between park land and new housing developments, apartments, and shopping areas? G. Do residents feel they can have an impact on the forming of city policies? H. How do newer residents differ from "old-timers?" Are there differences in expectations of city services, recreational preferences, satisfaction with community, or policy preferences? I. Will school district building-needs have a "destructive impact" on any city referendum effort? Issues more specific to the completion of the park system would include: J. Do residents support or oppose the completion of the system? Are there "pockets" of intense support or opposition? IL What is the profile of the persuadables (residents who are undecided at present)? What arguments are most helpful in gaining support of the undecideds? L. On average, how much more in property taxes would residents be willing to pay for the completion of the park system? M. How do residents obtain their information about city activities? What are relevant secondary communications channels -- clubs, newsletters, etc.? What channels are most effective for rcack, ing favorables and persuadables? Once this benchmark assessment has been completed, specific recommendations can be made on both policy and timing. The next section will discuss this initial study more fully. Study Parameters: Decision Resources, Ltd., proposes to conduct a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected households in the City of Chanhassen. A random sample of this size would provide results Page 2 projectable to the entire city within ± 5.0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases.- The qUestionnaire would be administered by DRL trained and. supervised Personnel.. The computer analysis would be obtained from the DRL remote job entry facility to the University. 0fMinnes°ta vAX system and the company's own MENTOR ANALYSIS PROTOCOL, insuring both access to the most ' current statistical analysis PrOgrams and confidentiality of the data Set. '.' : The City of c~n:WoUld be Presented with tWo bound copies ofthe final report highlighting all the major findings of the' study. DRL will also speak to anY major differences from and similar- ities with other COmpleted referendum studies undertaken for other comparable suburban areas. A volume of all statistically significant'cross tabulations and multivariate analysis will also be - proVided to the City. In addition, the findings Would be presented bY me at a meeting with staff, School Board, and/or citizen task forces. The components of the project and the prOposed time schedule is outlined below: 1. A planning discussion with you and other designated participants to establish topics for ~ questions. This actiVity to be completed within two-to-three weeks of the initiation of the contract. 2. Structuring of questions and final approval of the survey instrument. These activities to be completed within three-to-four weeks of the initiation of the contract. 3. Final determination of the field dates for the interviews and questionnaire approval. 4. Pre-testing and, if needed, approval of resulting revisions. This activity to be completed by the second day of fieldwork. 5. Computer analysis and preparation of the written report. Frequencies of responses will be provided to the City of Chanhassen within ten days aRer the completion of all fieldwork. All statistical analysis and preliminary commentary will be available four to six weeks aRer completion of the fieldwork. 6. Telephone discussion with you and designated participants to explain and discuss survey results. ~ preli~"y discussion can be m-ranged at a tim.__~e conve,,~.~ent for the C.i~ Staff ~_nd interested parties, after delivery of the preliminary written analysis. _ _ 7. Meeting with City Council Members, city staff, and/or City residents in either a work session or formal presentation to explain and discuss the results of the survey. The final presentation and discussion session can be arranged at a time convenient for all interested parties after delivery of the preliminary survey results. A final written rePOrt would be made available within two weeks of this final meeting. . "': · Usually, from the time of approval °fthe questionnaire to the delivery ofthe final rePOrt, six to Page 3 eight weeks have elapsed, DRL personnel would be available as needed for additional telephone conversations to answer questions about the survey, its findings, and its implications. Because of the nature of this Study, combining both city residential assessments and campaign objectives, I would act as Principal Investigator for the survey. In addition, my partner,' Diane Traxler, who poSsesSes extensive local level participation in referenda elections, would serve as Project Director, oVerseeing all phases of the research. Cost of surveys are based upon two factors: size of the sample and number of questions con- rained on the instrument. The 400 households sample size would provide a reliable degree of accuracy. It would also be sufficiently large to permit the further breakdown 0fcity residents into groups of potential interest -- area of residence, occupation, income, renter or owner, and the like. The bare minimum s~'wey length DRL recommends is 60 questions, although several city polls have contained nearly 150 queries. The cost of a sixty question, 400 household sample is $7,800.00. Each additional question is $100.00. As company policy, DRL requires one-half of the cost prior to the commencement of fieldwork; the remainder is due upon delivery of the final written report. ! hope this overview sufficiently covers all the information you require. Let me assure you that we believe we can provide you with timely and reliable information. In light of our previous experiences, DRL is particularly sensitive to the implications -- both policy and political -- of park bond referendums. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you. But, in any case, best of luck with your efforts! Sincerely yours, William D. Morris, Ph.D. President Page 4 ITY OF 690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director DATE: October 9, 1996 SUB J: Contract with Decision Resources, Ltd.; Survey Research and Ongoing Campaign Consultation, Park Task Force As you are aware, the city recently entered into an agreement with the Trust for Public Lands (TPL). The agreement outlines the need for "public opinion survey(s)" under Section 1, Funding A, B and C. The Park Task Force has solicited and received three separate proposals for survey work (see attached chart). Two of the proposals are from Decision Resources (December 1995 and September 1996). The third is from Anderson, Niebuhr and Associates. This survey work will enable the city to decide whether or not the "voter environment" is conducive to moving forward with a referendum. The survey would also uncover other information valuable to council and commission members and appointed officials. I encourage you to read Mr. Morris' proposal in detail. On Tuesday, October 8, the Park Task Force called a special meeting to review the proposal from Decision Resources. After 30 minutes of discussion and deliberation, the Task Force forwarded the following motion. RECOMMENDATION "Berquist moved, Scott seconded to recommend the city council approve the attached proposal from Decision Resources for survey research and ongoing campaign consultation in an amount not to exceed $9,000. All voted in favor and the motion carried." Notes: 1. The Trust for Public Lands will reimburse $5,000 of this expense. 2. The council may add questions to the survey which they feel are pertinent. 3. Any additional questions cost $100 each, thus .the recommendation to approve costs not to exceed $9,000. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposals. 2. Proposal from Decision Resources. 3. Copy of Agreement TPL. g:kpark\thktecisionres. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 (612) 920-0337 O0T 0 8 1996 CITY OF CHANH^SSEN September 15, 1996 Mr. Todd Hoffrnan Parks and Recreation Director City of Chanhassen Chanhassen City Hall' P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Mr. Hoffinan: Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to present this revised proposal for survey research and on- going campaign consultation in the City of Chanhassen. It is primarily based upon our recent discussions with you and members of your Park Commission. We feel confident that the program outlined below will meet your objectives in a timely and Cost-effective manner, while providing the greatest degree of flexibility in choosing strategies and tactics. ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENT Voters ultimately base their decisions in city referendum elections on a number of factors -- sever~ at times, beyond the control of the campaign leadership. Perceptions of aggregate tax burdens, unhappiness with completely unrelated local issues or personalities, competing nearby facilities, and differing priorities have doomed many proposals in other localities. As a result, simply gauging support or opposition to a proposed policy can overlook critically important campaign considerations. There may be a need to dispel misconceptions or explain existing city policies and services prior to the initiation of the referendum campaign. We have found that addressing any environmental negatives in advance of the election "season" greatly strengthens the chances of support among the citizenry. The following general issues should be addressed in this research: A. What do Chanhassen residents like least'and most about their city? - _ projectable to the entire city within ± 5.0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. The questionnake would be administered by DRL trained and supervised personnel. The computer analysis Would be obtained from the DRL remote job entry facility to the University of Minnesota. VAX system and the company's own MENTOR ANALYSIS PROTOCOL, insuring both access to the most current statistical analysis programs and confidentiality of the data-set. " --- · . · . . The City of Chanhassen would be preSented-With tWo bound copies ofthe final rePOrt highlighting all the major findings of the'study. DRL will also speak to any major differences from and-similar- ities with other completed referendum studies undertaken for other domparable subUrban areas. A volume of all statistically si~ificant cross tabulations and multivariate analysis will also be provided to the. City. In addition, the findings Would be preSented bY me at a meeting with sta~ School Board, and/or citizen task forces. The components of the project and the propoSed time schedule is outlined beloW: 1. A planning discussion with you and other designated participants to establish topics for- questions. This activity to be completed within two-to-three weeks of the initiation of the contract. 2. Structuring of questions and final approval of the survey instrument. These activities to be completed within three-to-foUr weeks of the initiation of the contract. 3. Final determination of the field dates for the intervieWs and questionnaire approval. 4. Pre-testing and, if needed, approval of resulting revisions. This activity to be completed by the second day of fieldwork. 5. Computer analysis and preparation of the written report. Frequencies of responses will be provided to the City of Chanhassen within ten days after the completion of all fieldwork. All statistical analysis and preliminary commentary will be available foUr to six Weeks at~er completion of the fieldwork. · · 6. Telephone discussion with you and designated participants to explain and discuss survey results. This prelims' discussion can be arranged at a ti~,,.~e conve~ent for the CJ~ Staff and all interested parties, after delivery of the preliminary written analysis. .. 7. Meeting with City Council Members, City staft~ and/or City residents in either a work session or formal presentation to explain and discuss the results of the.survey. The final presentation and discussion session can be arranged at a time convenient for all interested parties after delivery of the preliminary survey results. A final written report would be made available within two weeks ofthi~ final meeting. Usually, from the time of approval °fthe questionnaire to the delivery ofthe final report, six to Page 3 T H E TRUST F 0 R PUBLIC LAND Conserving Land for People October 8, 1996 R£C£1V£ OCT 0 9 996 CITY OF CH/~,,~HASSEN Todd Hoffman Director of Parks and Recreation City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, lVfiN 55317 Dear Todd: I hope your hunting expedition was successful. Enclosed please find an executed copy of the agreement between the City of Chanhassen and the Trust for Public Land. I have also enclosed a file memo describing our understanding of the priorities of the Park Task Force with respect to acquisition, as referenced in Exhibit A of the agreement. Please provide copies of the memo to Alison Blackowiak and Nancy Mancino for their review and concurrence. It is our understanding that the memo will be kept confidential by TPL, the City of Chanhassen and the Park Task Force to avoid potentially adverse impacts on negotiations with the affected landowners. Please let me know immediately if there are any changes to the priorities reflected in the memo. We look forward to working with you. Please call me to schedule a day when I can visit the properties and discuss the next steps. Sincerely, Alan D. Raymond Senior Project Manager Enclosure The Trust for Public Land Midwest Region ~20 North Fifth Street Suite 865 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612)338-8494 Fax (612) 338-8467 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT entered into as of the Effective Date (as defined below) by and between the CITY OF CHANItASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Chanhassen"), and THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND, a nonprofit California public benefit corporation authorized to do business in ~rmnesota as The Trust for Public Land, Inc. ("TPL"). RECITALS A. Chanhassen has identified for acquisition for public, open space and recreational purposes certain real properties located in Chanhassen described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, (collectively, the "Properties" and singularly, "Property"). B. Chanhassen does not have sufficient funds at tkis time to purchase the Properties and seeks TPL's assistance in acquiring the Properties and in passing a bond referendum to raise the funds for its acquisition. C. TPL is a national nonprofit organization that works with citizen groups, communities and public agencies to help acquire lands of environmental, recreational, historic or cultural significance. TPL obtains the resources to carry out its mission from various sources, among which are foundation grants, government funds, contributions of land value by property owners, loans and professional services fees. D. Chanhassen and TPL acknowledge that TPL has and will expend significant time, money and expertise in assisting Chanhassen in (1) developing the funding sources for acquisition of the Properties and (2) attempting to negotiate for the acquiskion and subsequent conveyance in a simultaneous closing to Chanhassen of one or more of the Properties. Except as set forth in Section 4, Chanhassen will not compensate TPL for its time and expense in acquiring the ProPerties and conveying them to Chanhassen. Rather, TPL will earn support for itself from the landowners who will sell the Properties to TPL. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PAKTIF-S AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: a. Chanhassen. Chanhassen agrees that it is a priority that public funds be made available for future acquisition of the Properties. Chanhassen will conduct public opinion survey(s) ("Public Opinion Surveys") to assess the likelihood of success of the citizens of by TPL and Chanhassen. TPL understands and agrees that a condition to Chanhassen's obligation to perform under any purchase and sale agreement will be the passage of the Bond Referendum and the sale of bonds and such contingency will be set forth in the purchase and sale agreement. It is TPL's intent to acquire each Property and simultaneously, convey it to Chanhassen. Chanhassen agrees to cooperate in coordinating such a simultaneous closing. 4. . ALTERNATIVES TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT. a. TPL is Unable to Obtain an Option. In the event that TPL determines it is unable to obtain an option on a Property as contemplated herein, TPL shall notify Chanhassen and the parties shall mutually agree either to: (I) terminate any further obligations of TPL and Chanhassen hereunder with respect to such Property, or (ii) enter into a mutually agreed upon professional services contract with respect to such Property. b. TPL Does Not Exercise an Option. In the event that TPL has an option on a Property and determines not to exercise it, TPL shall notify Chanhassen and except as set forth below, the obligations of TPL and Chanhassen hereunder with respect to that Property shall terminate. TPL, at the request of Chanhassen, will assign such opt[on to Chanhassen for a fee equal to three percent (3%) of the purchase price stated in TPL's option with the Landowner plus TPL's direct expenses incurred in connection with that Property, including but not limited to, option consideration, appraisal fees, environmental audit and inspection expenses, survey and abstracting and title commitment fees, but excluding TPL staff time and overhead. c. Right of First Refusal. In the event that TPL obtains a fight of first refusal for the purchase of a Property which has a term exceeding one year, TPL, at its sole discretion, shall notify Chanhassen, and at Chanhassen's request, shall assign such right of first refusal to Chanhassen under the same terms and conditions as provided herein for an assignment of an option. In any case, TPL will use good faith efforts to facilitate the acquisition of such Property by Chanhassen. 5. TIMING. Chanhassen and TPL shall mutually establish clear and reasonable timelines for the completion of the acquisition for each Property, and Chanhassen and TPL shall diligently pursue the completion of their reviews and administrative functions necessary for each such acquisition within a mutually acceptable timeframe. .; 6. COMMUNICATION. To facilitate consistent communications and allow effective negotiations, TPL shall maintain and direct ali communications, written and oral, with the Landowners regarding the acquisition of their Properties until TPL notifies Chanhassen that it is no longer negotiating with a Landowner or that it does not intend to exercise an option or right of first refusal on a Property. TPL's negotiations and final terms of purchase shall be completely confidential to the extent requested by a Landowner. To the extent TPL is allowed hereunder, TPL shall provide status reports with respect to the progress of its negotiations on each Property IN WITNESS of the foregoing provisions, the parties have executed and delivered this Agreement as of the date set forth below. The effective date (the "Effective Date") of this Agreement shall be the last date of execution by either of the parties to this Agreement. CITY OF CItANIJASSEN, a TItE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND, Minnesota municipal a nonprofit California public corporgti)on~ _ ~ benefit/~orporation' , ~ · ' Don~J'~PM~qTMayor ~ Title: ~-Svt~'/Lt/~'~'~7~_ ~--~ -- Don ~hwon~, M~ager Title: ' ~ ~ ¢4 ~ ~ [~V ~e, Date: ~'~3-~& Date: / ~/Z/~'& F:krnaggie\pro fs ervk2cb~nhasn.mou 5 C -Y O-- 690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Mort'is, Decision Resources FROM: DATE: Todd Hoffinan, Chanhassen Park & Recreation Department April 4, 1996 SUB J: RFP Thank you for agreeing to provide the Chanhassen Park Referendum Task Force with a portfolio representing your work. To expedite distribution, please mail copies directly to the following persons' Alison Blackowiak 8116 Erie Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mr. Richard Wing 3841 Shore Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Boulevard Excelsior, MN 55331 Mr. Mike Lynch 6630 Horseshoe Curve Chmzhassen, MN 55317 in addition, would you please check your calendar for next ThurSday evening, April 11, at 8:30 p.m. The Task Force is interested in some question and answer time with you or Diane, . : Thanks. 612-929-6166 DECISION RESOURCES 484 P02 DEC 07 '95 17:85 Decision Resources Ltd. Deeemb'er 7, 1995 Mr. Todd Hoffman Parks and Recreation Director City of Chanhassen Chanhassen City Hall P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Mr. Hoffman: Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to present this proposal for survey research.and on-going campaign consultation in the City of Chanhassen. It is primarily based upon our telephone 'discussion earlier this week. We feel confident the program-outlined beIow will meet your objectives in a timely and cost-effective manner, while providing the greatest degree.of flexibility in choosing strategies and tactics. ASSESSINH THE ENVIRONMENT Voters ultimately base their decisions in city referendum elec- tions on a number of factors, several, at times., beyond the control of the ~ampa'ig~ leadership. Perceptions of aggregate tax burdens, unhappiness wzth Completely unrelated local issues or personalities, and differing priorities have doomed referenda in other localities' As a result, simply gauging support or opposi- tion to the proposed policy can overlook critically important campaign considerations. There may be a need to dispel miscon- ceptions or revise existing city policies and services prior to the initiation of the referendum campaign. We have found that the neutralization of any environmental negatives well in advance of the campaign dialogue greatly strengthens the chances of success of the measure at the polls. For campaign planning purposes, the following general issues should be addressed: 1. What do Chanhassen residents like least'and most about.their city? 2. Are residents generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the 612-~29-6166 DECISION RESOURCES 4~4 P03 DEC level and provision of current city services? ii1 particular, park and recreation programs, and park mainhenance and upkeep? 3. Are residents satisfied or dissatisfied with their elected officials and city staff? 4. How do residents see the tax burden in Chanhassen relat.~ve to other suburba~l areas? 5. What are the policy priorities of the residents? 6. Are Chanhassen residents generally supportive of the develop- ment of park facilities to date, as well as planned future pro- jects? Are residents worried about maintaining a balance between park land and new i~ousing developments, apartments, and shopping areas? 7. Do residents feel they can have an impact on the forming of city policies? 8. How do newer residents differ from "old-timers"? Are there differences in expectations of city services, recreational pref- erences, satisfaction with community, or policy preferences? 9. Will school district building needs have a "destructive impact" on any city referendum effort? Clearly, reliable information on these issues would have uses far beyond the referendum. This data would provide a good evaluation of the current state of ttle city, as well as guidance o~l future directions. Issues lnore specific to the completion of the park system would include: 10. DO residents support or oppose the corapletion of the system? Are there "pockets" of intense support er opposition? 11. What is the profile of the persuadables (residents who are undecided at present)? What arguments are mos~ helpful in gain- ing the support of the uIldecideds? 12. On average, how much more in property taxes would residents be willing to pay for the completion of the park system? 13. How do residents obtain their information about city activi- ties? what are relevant secondary communications channels -- clubs, newsletters, etc.? what channels are most effective for reaching favorables and persuadables? Once this benchmark assessment has been completed, specific campaign strategies and tactics can be developed. The next section discussed this initial study more fully. 612-929-6166 DECISION RHSOURCSS 484 P04 DSC 07 '95 17;07 RESEARCH STRATEGY Decision Resources, Ltd., proposes to conduct a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected households within Chanhassen. A random sample of this size would provide results projectable to the entire city within_+ 5.0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. The questionnaire would be administered by DRL trained and supervised personnel. The computer analysis would be obtained from our in- house MENTOR computer system, i~lsuring both 'access to the most current statistical analysis programs and cohfidentiality of the data set. The City of Chanhassen would be presented with two bound copies of the final report highlighting the major findings of the study. DRL will also speak to any major differences from and similari- ties with other recently completed suburban park and recreatio~l studies. The components of the project and the proposed time schedule is outlined below: 1. A planning meeting with you and other designated participants to establish topics for questions. This activity to be completed within two weeks of the initiation of the contract. 2. Structuring of questions and final approval of the survey instrument. These activities to be completed within three weeks of the initiation of tile contract. 3. Final determination of the field dates for the interviews. 4. Pre-tes$inw and, if needed, approval of resultin~ revisions. This activity to be completed by the second day of fieldwork. 5. Computer analysis and preparation of the written report. Ail statistical analysis and commentary will be available three to four weeks after completion of the fieldwork. 6. A meeting with City Council and/or staff in either a work session or formal presentation to explain and discuss the results of the survey. The final discussion and strategy session can be arranged at a time convenient for Council members and/or staff after delivery of the written report. DRL personnel would be available as needed for additional meet- ings and/or telephone conversations to answer questions about the survey, its findings, and its implications. Because of the nature of this study, combining both city assess- ment and campaign objectives, I would act as Principal Investiga- tor for the survey. In addition, my partner, Diane Traxler, who possesses extensive local level participation in referenda elec- tions, would serve as Project Director, overseeing all phases of the research. 612-929-6166 DECISION RESOURCES 4~4 PE15 DEC: Cost of surveys are based upon two factors: size of the sample and number of questions contained on the instrument. The 400 households sample size would provide a reliable degree of accura- cy. It would also be sufficiently large to per,nit the further breakdown of the city residents into groups of potential interest -- area of residence, occupation, income, renter or owner, and. the like. The base minimum survey length DRL recommends in 60 questions, although several city polls have contained nearly 150 queries. The cost of a sixty question, 400'household sample is $7500.00. Each additional question is $100. I hope this overview sufficiently covers all the information you require. I very much enjoyed talking with. you. Whether we are able to work with you on this project or not, best of luck with your efforts. Sincerely yours, William D . President D .