HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-27 CC Packet CITY OF CENTERVILLE
WORK SESSION & CITY COUNCIL MEETING
enteryi(fe AGENDA
,l sr:bR, ed r7i
Wednesday, February 27, 20,19
®3 01 1).m.
WORK SESSION
I. CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
II. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
1. Capital& General Expenditures Policy Review
2. City Survey
III. ADJOURNMENT
COUNCIL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
1. None
V. PUBLIC HEARING
1. None
VL APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. February 13, 2019 City Council Meeting Minutes (To be send via email on Monday)
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
1. City of Centerville February 14, 2019 through February 27, 2019 Claims (Check
#1305E-1310E & 32476-32491) & Voided Check#32455 (Pg. 95)
2. Centennial Lake Police Department Claims through February 22, 2019 (Check
#12465-12496), (Payroll Check#12481-12483),Voided Check#12466 & US Bank
(Visa) (Pg. 97)
3. Centennial Fire District Claims through February 21, 2019 (Check#8442-8467),
(Payroll Check#8438-8441 & 8454-8458) TASC & U.S. Bank(Pg. 101)
4. Res. #19-OXX— Support of Leg. Requiring Local Municipal Approval for any
Change Affecting its Ambulance Primary Service Area (Pg. 103)
5. Res. #19-OXX—Authorizing Workers Comp. Coverage for Elected& Appointed
Officials (Pg. 112)
1
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
1. Bay View Villas —PUD/CUP Revision/Amendment(Pg. 114)
Ix. NEW BUSINESS
1. Rebranding Committee (Pg. 116)
2. Schedule Joint Committee Goal Setting Meeting (Pg. 117)
3. Soil Boring Proposal for Block 7 (Pg. 118)
X. COUNCIL/ADMINISTRATOR ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Administrator/Engineer Report(Pg. 130)
XI. ADJOURNMENT
*INFORMATIONAL MATERIAL**
Anol<,i Coivy Fir stTinie I ioniehyers
*REMINDERS**
Ninningin(l Zoning Coininission hes(],iy, Mircli 5, 2011) 6.30 p in City I i,ffl
Nirl<sin(I 1gecreition Coininittee We(Inn s(liy, Mircli 6, 2011) 6.30 p in City I p,ffl
City Coi�ncH Meeting We(Ines(liy, Mircli 13, 2011) 6-30 p in City I�,ffl
Sfuil<e Yoin� Sfuunrocl< Siwr(1,iy, Mircli 16, 20 11) 11 1 In 1-00 p In
LI)AMecting We(1nes(1,iy, Mirc1,i20, 201Q 6-30pin City 'IH
Fete (les Lics Coininittee Mon(],iy, Mircli 18, 2011) 6-00 p in City I�,ffl
2
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION Verville
Agenda Item# Department: Requested Council Meeting Date:
WS IL1 Administration February 27, 2019
TITLE OF ISSUE:
Capital & General Expenditures Policy Review
BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
Attached is the city's existing policy on expenditures, adopted in 2002. During our workshop, we will discuss,
what, if any changes or clarifications should be made to this policy.
COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING:
No direct cost.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION:
No Action - Workshop Item
For Clerk's Use:
SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
Motion By:
Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map
Second By:
Vote Record: Ave Nay
�� Lakso Other(specify) POl1Cy
Love
Paar
Koski
Montain
Administration Department Use:
Refer to:
Consent
Tabled Until:
Regular
Other:
3
CITY OF
CEJVrERTILCE
� , n)
itle,
CAPITAI AJVD
GEWEP*,4.Al
EXPEJVD.TTURE
PO-LICY
Dated: November 13, 2002
4
City ofCenterviffie
CayitaCandGeneraCExyen&ture Policy
POLICY
It is the policy of the city of Centerville to maintain appropriate procedures regarding the
procurement, management and disposal of all fixed assets, and to establish and monitor
fiscally responsible spending practices.
PURPOSE
To ensure proper accountability and stewardship of the resources available for capital and
general expenditures, while maintaining a safe and healthy working environment for all
employees and high level service to the residents of the city of Centerville,
DEFINITIONS
I Fixed Asset:
Equipment, property, buildings, vehicles and improvements that have an
original or historic cost of$2,500 or more, have an average useful life of three
years or longer or, when added to the original asset, extend the useful life of
the asset, and meet the following criteria:
Equipment
a. the item retains its original shape and appearance with use;
b. it is non-expendable (not a supply);
C. it represents an investment;
d. it does not lose its identity by incorporating it through a different
or more complex item;
e. includes furniture but excludes built-in equipment which is
considered part of the building;
f. the item is not a repair part.
Property
a. initial acquisition of real estate;
5
b. improvements such as trees, shrubs, wells, septic systems,
walkways, driveways, fences and other man-made improvements.
An improvement must increase the value of the property.
Buildings
a. original cost of acquisition or construction of buildings including
installation of heating and ventilating systems, electrical,
plumbing, fire protection and other service systems, built-in
equipment, paint and other interior or exterior decoration;
b. additions to existing buildings that extend the floor area;
c. improvements that do not extend the floor area but increase the
value of the building or extend its useful life by more than three
years;
d. amounts paid under installment lease contracts which have a
terminal date and result in the acquisition of buildings.
Vehicles
a. original cost of all transport vehicles and trailers that are not
classified as equipment and can be registered for use on public
highways;
b. amounts paid under installment or lease contracts that have a
ten-ninal date and result in the acquisition of the vehicle.
Infrastructure
a. the original cost of street or trail construction, including lighting
systems, sidewalks and bridges-,
b. the original cost of underground and above-ground utility systems,
including water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Includes water
towers, well houses and lift stations.
2. City Council Approval:
Refers to official action of the city council by motion or resolution, as
reflected in the official minutes of the city council.
3. Capital Expenditure:
Purchase of fixed asset(s) as defined by this policy.
2
6
4. General Expenditure:
All other spending in the budgetary accounts of the city. For the purposes of
this policy, general expenditures shall not include expenditures from non-
budgetary accounts (i.e., refunds and reimbursements, trust and agency, etc.)
5. Budgeted Expenditure:
Refers to line item budget accounts as finally approved by the city council.
6. Emer1jency Situation:
Any situation where an expenditure normally requiring city council approval
must be made in order to maintain the health and safety of city employees, or
when the delay of the expenditure would cause substantial interruption or
decrease in city operations or delivery of needed services.
PROCEDURES
1. Approval:
Appropriate approval for all capital and general expenditures must be
obtained, including department director approval and final approval by the
City Administrator. In addition, the following approval procedures apply:
Budgeted Expenditures
a. All budgeted capital expenditures which have been itemized and
previously approved by the city council during the budget process
do not require additional approval before purchase, with the
exception of items exceeding the amount of$50,000.
b. All budgeted capital and general expenditures more than $1,000 or
10%, whichever is higher, above the budgeted amount will require
approval of the city council.
c. Substitutions of budgeted capital and general expenditures in
excess of$1,000 will require approval of the city council.
Unbudgeted Expenditures
a. All unbudgeted capital and general expenditures must be approved
by the city council, except for substitutions as described in section
1(c).
3
7
b. In emergency situations the Mayor may authorize any capital or
general expenditure which might be necessary to maintain
operational status of the city. The expenditure will require
approval at the next regular city council meeting. In the absence of
the Mayor, the Acting Mayor or City Administrator may grant
emergency approval.
2. Bids, Quotations and Bonds:
If possible, three quotations may be obtained for all capital or general
expenditures over $2,500. In accordance with M.S. 471.345, a minimum of
two quotations must be obtained for purchases over $10,000 and less than
$50,000. Purchases over $50,000 shall be made by sealed bid as required by
M.S. 471.345, excepting those purchases made through the State of Minnesota
Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV) Program. A bid bond in the amount of
5% of the bid is required to ensure that the successful bidder enters into a
contract with the city. In addition, a performance bond and a payment bond are
required for all services exceeding $70,000, as defined by M.S.574.26. All
contractors, regardless of the amount of contract for services, are required to
complete Department of Revenue Form IC-134 before final payment.
3. Finance Director:
For cash management purposes, the Finance Director shall be notified of all
encumbrances or payments to be made in excess of$25,000 as soon as city
staff or the council becomes aware of the encumbrance or liability.
4. Internal Control:
All purchases and expenditures are to be organized in such a manner as to
provide the maximum degree of internal control in the most efficient and
effective manner. Specific details are arranged in the city's internal control
policy, which is attached to this policy.
5. Property Identification and Control:
A unique property tag number will be assigned by the Finance Director to be
affixed to all capital equipment purchases. The Finance Director shall
maintain the official inventory of fixed assets, which will be updated on an
am-lual basis. The Finance Director shall be notified when an asset is to be
removed from service or transferred to another department.
6. Disposal and Acceptance of Fixed Assets:
Disposal of fixed assets and other city property will occur only at the discretion
and approval of the city council and will be governed by applicable Minnesota
4
8
Statutes. Acceptance of contributions of fixed assets or other property shall be
in accordance with applicable Minnesota Statutes and shall be the responsibility
of the city council. The Finance Director will be notified of any asset acquired
by means of contribution. Donated fixed assets shall be recorded at fair market
value.
7. Purchase Orders:
Purchases that are not routine in nature and/or are above the amount of$1,000
shall require a purchase order. Pre-numbered purchase order forms will be
available from the City Finance Director and will include an explanation of the
item or service, the cost of the item or service, and a recommendation of where
the expense should be allocated(coded). All purchase orders must be signed
by the appropriate supervisor and the City Administrator.
8. Approval of Claims for Payment:
All expenditures of any department of the city, whether general or capital,
require final approval of the city council before payment. Final approval
consists of council action at an official meeting of the city council. The
following exceptions may be paid by approval of the city administrator and are
given general blanket approval by the city council, provided that a list of all
such claims paid in this manner is presented to the council for approval at the
next regular meeting:
a. disbursements made from trust and agency funds of the city;
b. bond payments including principal, interest, and agent fees;
c. payroll;
d. appropriations of the city council;
e. registration fees for meetings and seminars where a late charge would
be incurred or a deadline missed if payment was delayed to the next
council meeting;
f. postage meter replenishment;
g. contract payments for contracts entered into by the city council that
have specific payment instructions, including construction and
development contracts, with the exception of the final payment;
h. payments in which a substantial discount can be realized by timely
payment;
5
9
I. payments from non-budgetary accounts such as federal and state
agency trust and liability payments (i.e., payroll taxes, sales tax, etc.)
J. monthly lease payments on leases entered into by the city council,
excluding the final payment of a lease-purchase contract;
k. investments.
9. Disclaimer:
Nothing in this policy shall be construed as to override applicable, state or
federal law, state or federal rules or regulations, Governmental Accounting
standards Board (GASB) rules or generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP).
Adopted by the city council of the City of Centerville this 13th day of
November, 2002.
Approved: Attest:
..............
Mayor Clerk
6
10
Ce4tervale I&W 'Main ';Ircet e Centerville, 14.,k 1�5038
001 Established'.185� 42932:32 (65-1)4'29,8621)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
RESOLUTION #02— 055
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF A CAPITAL AND
GENERAL EXPENDITURE POLICY & INTERNAL CONTROL PROCEDURES
BY THE CITY OF CENTERVILLE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Centerville has reviewed and commented on
a proposed capital and general expenditure policy and procedures for internal accounting
controls to be implemented by city staff; and,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA that the City Council hereby adopts the City of
Centerville Capital and General Expenditure Policy and the City of Centerville Internal
Controls Procedures, both dated November 13, 2002, to be effective December 1, 2002
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council this 13th day of November, 2002.
,r
A
r
� � attest
Mayor City Clerk
11
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION Verville
Agenda Item# Department: Requested Council Meeting Date:
WS IL2 Administration February 27, 2019
TITLE OF ISSUE:
City Survey
BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
Attached are the results of a city-wide survey completed in 2007. The work session discussion will focus on
whether or not the council feels that it is time to do another survey and if so, what should that look like.
COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING:
Costs dependent on extent of survey and method.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION:
No Action - Workshop Item
For Clerk's Use:
SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
Motion By:
Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map
Second By:
Vote Record: Ave Nay
�� Lakso Other(specify) 2007 Survey
Love
Paar
Koski
Montain
Administration Department Use:
Refer to:
Consent
Tabled Until:
Regular
Other:
12
Decision
Resources Ltd.
2007 City of Centerville
Residential Survey
Volume One:
Frequencies, Analysis and
Graphics
Decision Resources, Ltd.
April 2008
3128 Dean Court • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 • (612) 920-0337 Fax (612)929-6166
Survey Overview
Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to present the results of this study to the City of
Centerville. This section provides a brief introduction to the specifications of the survey and
a guide to the organization of the written analysis.
While the most statistically sound procedures have been used to collect and analyze the
information presented herein, it must always be kept in mind that surveys are not predictions.
They are designed to measure public opinion within identifiable limits of accuracy at specific
points in time. This survey is in no way a prediction of opinions,perceptions, or actions at any
future point in time. After all, in public policy analysis, the major task is to impact these
revealed opinions in a constructive fashion.
The Principal Investigator for this study was Dr. William D. Morris; the Project Director
overseeing all phases of the research and analysis was Mr. Peter Leatherman.
Research Design
This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 250 randomly selected residents
of the City of Centerville. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers across
the community between November 10 and December 18th, 2007.
The average interview took 22 minutes.
All respondents interviewed in this study were part of a randomly generated sample of the
City of Centerville. In general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to their
respective universe within± 6.0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases.
Interviews were conducted by Decision Resources,Ltd., trained personnel from
telephone banks in St. Paul, Minnesota. Approximately twenty percent of all interviews were
independently validated for procedure and content by a Decision Resources, Ltd., supervisor.
Completed interviews were edited and coded at the company's headquarters in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. Statistical analysis and cross-tabulations were produced by the company's CfMC
Mentor Analysis System and SPSS 15.0 FOR WINDOWS.
1
14
Organization of the Study
Y
The results of this study are presented in the following order:
The Analysis consists of a written report of the major findings. The results contained
herein were also presented verbally to the client.
The Questionnaire reproduces the survey instrument as it was used in the interviewing
process. This section also includes a response frequency distribution for each question.
Any further questions the reader may have about this study which are not answered in this
report should be directed to either Dr. Morris or Mr. Leatherman.
2
15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One: Residential Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Residential Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Residential Longevity . 7
Household Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
HomeOwnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Annual Household Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Chapter Two: Quality of Life Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Quality of Life Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
LikeMost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Most Serious Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Fixed or Improved for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Community Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 j
Appearance of Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Right Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Chapter Three: City Taxes and City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
City Taxes and City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
City Service Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
General Value of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Services in Comparison to Neighboring Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Chapter Four: Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
PublicSafety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Areas Not Felt to be Safe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Amount of Police Patrolling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Amount of Traffic Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Traffic Speeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Residential Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Community Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Crime-Related Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Greatest Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Chapter Five: Parks and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Parks and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Use of Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Meet Needs of Household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3
16
Chapter Six: City Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
City Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Knowledge of Mayor and City Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Mayor and City Council Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Contact with City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Staff Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Contact with City Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Use of Voice Mail System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Chapter Seven: Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Principal Source of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
City Newsletter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Cable Television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Internet Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Chapter Eight: Concluding Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Concluding Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4
17
t
lAWwn-
Al
� z
P 3 ) d
Decision
Resources Ltd.
a e
121
s
...: -
.. . .. .....
Ri
'aA
`:r
y
S
ne
""I...........
aw
ti"Ak�
�
ro
y : :
:. .....-.. ...:: ..,a�,,,, .TAR"
6
19
f
Residents of the City of Centerville were asked a series of questions about their demographic
backgrounds. These questions were asked for two reasons: first,to validate this sample against
the 2002 U.S. Census findings; and, second,to track any differences between subgroups and the
rest of the population. There were no statistically significant differences between the findings of
this survey and the census data. And,throughout the course of this study, subgroup differences
will be discussed.
Residential Longevity
City residents were asked:
Approximately how many years have you lived in
Centerville?
The typical adult resident has lived in Centerville for 9.9 years:
i
LESS THAN TWO YEARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
TWO TO FIVE YEARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%
SIX TO TEN YEARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29%
ELEVEN TO TWENTY YEARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%
TWENTY-ONE TO THIRTY YEARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%
OVER THIRTY YEARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Twenty-two percent have lived there for five years or less, while 23%resided there for over 20
years.
"Two to five years"is posted at a higher rate by:
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• residents that have accessed the city's website
"Six to ten years" is reported at a higher rate by:
• households with children
• women
"Twenty-one to thirty years"is cited more often by:
• those with knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
"Over thirty years" is indicated most frequently by:
7
20
• empty nesters
• households with seniors
• $50,000 to $75,000 annual income households
Household Composition
Respondents were instructed:
Could you please tell me how many people in each of
the following age groups live in your household.
Three age groups were then read:
Persons 65 or over?
Eleven percent of the city's households contain seniors:
NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89%
ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
TWO OR MORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
Senior couples outnumber single seniors.
Adults under 65?
Households composed exclusively of seniors are seven percent of the community:
NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
TWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77%
THREE OR MORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
Over three-quarters of the households contain two adults.
School-aged children or pre-schoolers?
Fifty-two percent of the city's households contain school-aged children or pre-schoolers:
NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
TWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
THREE OR MORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%
8
21
Most households with children report more than one in residence.
Home Ownership
Residents were asked:
Do you own or rent your present residence?
Ninety-two percent own their current residences:
OWN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92%
RENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Only eight percent rent their current homes.
Annual Household Income
Respondents were asked:
And now,for one final question, keeping in mind that
your answers are held strictly confidential....
Is your pre-tax yearly household income over or under
$75,000? Is it over$100,000? Is it over$125,000? Is
it under$50,000?
The median pre-tax household income is $81,750.00 annually:
UNDER$50,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
$50,001-$75,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%
$75,0014100,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%
$100,0004125,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
OVER$125,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
Fourteen percent post incomes of less than $50,000.00, while 27% register incomes greater than
$100,000.00.
9
22
Gender
The gender of each respondent was noted:
MALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
FEMALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Men and women are evenly represented in the sample.
Summary and
Conclusions
The typical adult Centerville resident has lived in the city for 9.9 years. Twenty-two percent
resided there for five years or less, while 23% lived there for over 20 years. Ninety-two percent
own their home; only eight percent rent them. Men and women are equally represented in the
sample.
Seniors reside in 11% of the city's households; in fact, seven percent of the households are
composed exclusively of seniors. Seventy-seven percent of the households contain two adults.
Fifty-two percent of the city's households contain school-aged children or pre-schoolers. The
median pre-tax yearly household income is $81,750.00; fourteen percent report incomes under
$50,000.00, and 26%, over$100,000.00.
10
23
6< Lie
11
24
3
i
Centerville residents were asked a series of questions about their quality of life and how they see
the city and the community. First, strengths and challenges were considered. An overall quality
of life rating was ascertained. The sense of community was discussed, as was the general
appearance of the neighborhood. Finally,the general direction of the community was evaluated.
Like Most
Centerville residents were asked:
What do you like most, if anything, about living in
Centerville?
A large 38%point to "small town feel:"
UNSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
SMALL TOWN FEEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%
SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
QUIET AND PEACEFUL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
LAKES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
FRIENDLY PEOPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
NEIGHBORHOOD/HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
CLOSE TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
CLOSE TO WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
RURAL AND OPEN SPACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
SCATTERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Nine percent cite "quiet and peaceful,"while seven percent indicate "friendly people," and eight
percent, "rural and open space."
"Small town feel" is key to:
• city newsletter readers
Most Serious Issue
Residents were next asked:
What do you think is the most serious issue facing
Centerville today?
12
25
A large 33% cite "high taxes:"
NOTHING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
HIGH TAXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%
ROAD CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
TRAFFIC CONGESTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
LACK OF BUSINESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
TOO MUCH GROWTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
RISING CRIME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
LACK OF CODE ENFORCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
CITY GOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
ROAD CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
SCATTERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
"Road conditions," at 16%, and"too much growth," at 14%, are the only other concern of note.
Four percent are "boosters,"who think there is "nothing" seriously wrong with the community.
"High taxes"troubled:
• residents for eleven to thirty years
• homeowners
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
"Road construction"was a concern among:
• residents for six to ten years
• residents for more than thirty years
• empty nesters
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• City Council meeting viewers
Fixed or Improved for the
Future
Residents were asked:
What, if anything, is not as good as it could be in the
community today that needs to be fixed or improved for
the future?
Sixteen percent each point to "high taxes,""road conditions," and"lack of businesses:"
13
26
UNSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
NOTHING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
HIGH TAXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
ROAD CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
LACK OF SIDEWALKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
LACK OF BUSINESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
TOO MUCH GROWTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
LACK OF YOUTH ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
LACK OF CODE ENFORCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
COMMUNICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
AFFORDABLE HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
LACK OF PARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
MORE POLICE PATROLLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
CITY GOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
MORE RETAIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
ROAD CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
SCATTERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
"High taxes" is posted more often by:
• residents for twenty-one to thirty years
• households with children
• homeowners
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
"Lack of businesses" is suggested more often by:
• residents for eleven to twenty years
Quality of Life
Residents were asked:
How would you rate the quality of life in Centerville—
excellent,good, only fair, or poor?
Eighty-six percent rate the quality of life in Centerville as either"excellent" or"good:"
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Twelve percent rate the quality of life lower.
14
27
Ratings are higher among:
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
They are lower among:
• under$50,000 annual income households
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
Community Identity
Respondents were asked:
How would you rate the strength of community identity
and the sense of neighborliness in Centerville--excel-
lent,good, only fair, or poor?
Eighty percent rate the community identity and neighborliness as either"excellent" or"good:"
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Nineteen percent think they are "only fair" or"poor."
Ratings increase among:
• those rating the quality of life as excellent
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
= UlVbV,IM111r, L11G VaIUG U1 Lj1L.' SM VICCS laVV1auly
They decrease among:
• under $50,000 annual income households
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
15
28
Appearance of
Neighborhood
Residents were asked:
How would you rate the general appearance of your
neighborhood--excellent,good, only fair, or poor?
Eighty-four percent highly rate the general appearance of their neighborhood:
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
ONLYFAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
But, 15% are more critical in their judgments.
Favorable ratings are given more often by:
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
• city newsletter readers
Unfavorable ratings are encountered most frequently by:
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
Right Direction
Respondents were queried:
All in all, do you think things in Centerville are general-
ly headed in the right direction, or do you feel things
are off on the wrong track?
Fifty-nine percent see Centerville "headed in the right direction:"
RIGHT DIRECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%
WRONG TRACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31%
16
29
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
Thirty-one percent feel things are "off on the wrong track."
"Right direction" is posted at a higher rate by:
• residents for five years or less
• those rating the quality of life as excellent
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
"Wrong track" is reported more often by:
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
Summary and
Conclusions
"Small town feel" is the most prized aspect of the community. In second place are "quiet and
peaceful," "friendly people," and "rural and open spaces." The most serious issue facing
Centerville today is "high taxes," with a secondary concerns about"rate of growth" and"road
conditions." Finally, "road conditions,""high taxes," and A"lack of businesses" are the most
often cited characteristics of the community needed to be fixed or improved.
Eighty-seven percent give Centerville a positive rating on its quality of life; in fact, 22% see it as
"excellent." Eighty percent rate the strength of community identity and the sense of
neighborliness in Centerville highly, while 19%are more critical. A comparatively high 84%
rate the general appearance of their neighborhood favorably. All in all, 59%think Centerville is
headed in the "right direction," while 31% see it off"on the wrong track."
17
30
3 s
l
Th
a 4
ax
"1''7;17-
3.
A
'a
18
31
y
Centerville residents were asked a short series of questions about city taxes and services. First,
their rating of a series of city services was ascertained. Then,the value of city services in terms
of the property taxes paid was evaluated. Finally, residents were asked about their perception of
their city services in comparison with neighboring areas.
City Service Ratings
Respondents were instructed:
I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For
each one,please tell me whether you would rate the qual-
ity of the service as excellent,good, only fair, or poor?
A list of twelve city services was then read:
Police service?
Eighty-eight percent rate police services highly:
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Seven percent are more critical.
Ratings peak among:
• homeowners
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those with knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
Fire service?
Eighty-five percent rate the fire service as either"excellent" or"good:"
0
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 44/0
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
19
32
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
Two percent rate the service lower.
Ratings soar among:
• residents for more than twenty years
• homeowners
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
• those with knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
• those that have had contact with city staff
Recycling and garbage?
Eighty-nine percent rate recycling and garbage positively:
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Only eight percent are more negative.
Favorable ratings are given most frequently by:
• residents for twenty-one to thirty years
• homeowners
• over$100,000 annual income households
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
• those with knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
• city newsletter readers
Building inspections?
Sixty-two percent rate building inspections as either"excellent"or"good:"
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58%
ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%
20
33
Thirteen percent rate the service as "only fair" or"poor."
Ratings are higher among:
• homeowners
• men
• those rating the quality of life as good
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those with knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
• city newsletter readers
• City Council meeting viewers
They are lower among:
• households with seniors
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
Park maintenance?
Eighty-four percent rate park maintenance highly:
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Twelve percent rate it lower.
Ratings increase among:
• residents for eleven to twenty years
• those rating the quality of life as good
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those rating the value of city services favorably
They decrease among:
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
Recreation services?
21
34
Sixty-five percent rate recreation services as either"excellent" or"good:"
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
Twenty-two percent rate it as "only fair"or"poor."
Favorable ratings are cited most frequently by:
• those rating the quality of life as good
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
• those that have not had contact with city staff
Unfavorable ratings are reported most frequently by:
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
Animal control?
Animal control is rated either"excellent" or"good"by 75% of the sample:
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68%
ONLYFAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
Nineteen percent are more critical in their evaluations.
Favorable ratings are stated more frequently by:
• residents for eleven to twenty years
• those rating the quality of life as excellent
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• city newsletter readers
Unfavorable ratings are reported more often by:
22
35
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
Code enforcement?
Sixty-nine percent rate code enforcement highly:
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
Twenty-three percent are unfavorable.
Ratings increase among:
• residents for five years or less
• households with children
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
• city newsletter readers
They decrease among:
• residents for more than thirty years
• empty nesters
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
Next, residents were told:
Now,for the next four city services,please consider only
their job on city-maintained streets and roads. That
means excluding interstate highways,state and county
roads that are taken care of by other levels of govern-
ment. Hence, Interstate 35E and Main Street should
not be considered. How would you rate....
Another list of four services was then read:
City street repair and maintenance?
23
36
Fifty-six percent rate city street repair and maintenance either"excellent"or"good:"
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Forty-four percent rate them as "only fair" or"poor."
Favorable ratings are cited more often by:
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
• those that have had contact with city staff
Unfavorable ratings are mentioned more often by:
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
• those that have not had contact with city staff
Snowplowing?
Eighty-eight percent rate snow plowing highly:
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Twenty-two percent rate it lower.
Ratings increase among:
• homeowners
• over $100,000 annual income households
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
• city newsletter readers
They decrease among:
• renters
24
37
• under $50,000 annual income households
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
Street lighting?
Fifty-eight percent rate street lighting favorably:
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Forty-two percent rate it unfavorably.
Favorable ratings are posted at a higher rate by:
• residents for eleven to twenty years
• over$100,000 annual income households
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
Unfavorable ratings are indicated more frequently by:
• residents for six to ten years
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
Street sweeping?
Seventy-four percent rate street sweeping as "excellent" or"good:"
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Twenty-five percent rate street sweeping as"only fair" or"poor."
Ratings are higher among:
25
38
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
• city newsletter readers
They are lower among:
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
General Value of Services
Residents were asked:
When you consider the property taxes you pay and the
quality of city services you receive, would you rate the
general value of city services as excellent,good, only
fair, or poor?
Forty-one percent rate the value of city services as either"excellent" or"good:"
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
But, 56%rate the value as either"only fair"or"poor."
Ratings increase among:
• those rating the quality of life as good
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those feeling empowered
They decrease among:
• homeowners
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those not feeling empowered
26
39
Services in Comparison to
Neighboring Communities
Respondents were asked:
How would you rate Centerville's city services in com-
parison with neighboring communities--excellent,
good, only fair, or poor?
Forty-eight percent rate Centerville's city services in comparison with neighboring communities
as either"excellent" or"good:"
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
But, 35%are more critical with either"only fair" or"poor" evaluations.
Favorable ratings are posted more often by:
• those rating the quality of life as good
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
Unfavorable ratings are cited at a higher rate by:
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
• those that have had contact with city staff
Summary and
Conclusions
City services are generally well regarded by Centerville residents. The table below shows the
positive rating of each service among those posting a judgment:
27
40
City Service Positive Rating
Police service 93%
Fire service 98%
Recycling and garbage 92%
Building inspection 83%
Park maintenance 88%
Recreation services 75%
Animal control 80%
Code enforcement 75%
City street repair and maintenance 56%
Snow plowing 78%
Street lighting 58%
Street sweeping 75%
While the positive ratings of city street repair and maintenance and street lighting appear low, the
former is 14%higher than the suburban norm, while the latter is four percent lower than the
norm. All other ratings are either at the norm or higher than the suburban norm.
Only 41% see the value of city services as either"excellent' or"good,"but this rating is 34%
lower than the suburban norm. However, when city services in Centerville are compared with
neighboring communities, 48% rate them highly, while 35% are more critical.
28
41
IA
V .. r
a �3
29
42
M
3;
E, " r„_ A�
1 ..
Centerville residents were asked a short series of questions about public safety issues. First,
unsafe areas in the community were examined. Neighborhood police patrolling and traffic
enforcement were discussed. Contact with the Centennial Lakes Police Department was talked
about, followed by the identification of crime victims and their experiences. Finally, the greatest
public safety concerns facing Centerville were posted.
Areas Not Felt to be Safe
Residents were queried:
Are there areas in the City of Centerville where you do
not feel safe?
Only eight percent report there are areas in the City of Centerville where they do not feel safe:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
"No” is indicated more often by:
• men
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• city newsletter readers
Residents indicating an area of concern were then asked:
In which areas do you not feel safe?
The majority point to the "parks," "bars," and"apartments:"
EVERYWHERE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
PARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%
TRAILER PARK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
TRAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
BARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%
APARTMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
SCATTERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
They are no statistically significant sub-group differences.
30
43
A second question was then asked:
What would make you feel more safe?
Thirty four percent would like to see "more police patrolling:"
UNSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
MORE STREET LIGHTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29%
MORE POLICE PATROLLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34%
REDEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
ENFORCE CODES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
ADULT SUPERVISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
SCATTERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Twenty-nine percent suggest"more street lighting."
"More police patrolling" is stated more often by:
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
"Redevelopment" is suggested at a higher rate by:
• men
"Adult supervision" is cited most frequently by:
• $75,000 to $100,000 annual income households
Amount of Police
Patrolling
Residents were asked:
How would you rate the amount of police patrolling in
your neighborhood--too much, about the right amount
or not enough?
Eighty-eight percent think there is "about the right amount" of police patrolling in their
neighborhood:
TOOMUCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88%
NOT ENOUGH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Only five percent think there is "not enough."
31
44
"About right amount" is stated more often by:
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• city newsletter readers
Amount of Traffic
Enforcement
Residents were asked:
How would you rate the amount of traffic enforcement
by the police in your neighborhood--too much, about
right amount or not enough?
Seventy-five percent rate the amount of traffic enforcement by the police in their neighborhood is
"about the right amount:"
TOOMUCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75%
NOT ENOUGH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Seventeen percent think it is "not enough."
"About right amount" is posted most frequently by:
• $50,000 to $75,000 annual income households
• city newsletter readers
Traffic Speeding
Respondents were asked:
How serious of a problem is traffic speeding in your
neighborhood-- very serious,somewhat serious, not
too serious, or not at all serious?
Thirty-eight percent consider the problem of traffic speeding in their neighborhood as either
"very serious" or"somewhat serious:"
VERY SERIOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
32
45
SOMEWHAT SERIOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31%
NOT TOO SERIOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40%
NOT AT ALL SERIOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
But, only seven percent see it as "very serious."
"Serious"is stated more often by:
• households with children
"Not serious" is reported more frequently by:
• empty nesters
Residential Services
Residents were asked:
Next, let's discuss the Centennial Lakes Police Depart-
ment. Police work can be divided into three categories:
residential services, community outreach and crime-
related services. Let's talk about each one...
During the past two years have you or any member of
your household contacted the Centennial Lakes Police
Department for a service, such as medical assistance,
animal control, or a car lock out?
Eighteen percent report household members contacted the Centennial Lakes Police Department
during the past two years:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
"Yes"is cited more often by:
• $50,000 to $75,000 annual income households
"No" is mentioned more frequently by:
• over$100,000 annual income households
Residents contacting the Police were asked two follow-up queries. First,they were queried:
33
46
Would you say the way the Police employee handled the
situation was excellent,good, only fair, or poor?
Ninety-three percent rate the way the employee handled the situation as either"excellent" or
"good:"
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Only seven percent are more negative.
They are no statistically significant sub-group differences.
Next, they were asked:
Would you say the time it took the Police to respond
was appropriate?
Ninety-eight percent deem the response time "appropriate:"
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Only two percent disagree.
"Yes"is stated most frequently by:
• city newsletter readers
Community Outreach
Residents were asked:
During the past two years have you or any member of
your household had any contact with the Centennial
Lakes Police Department through community pro-
grams, such as school liaisons,senior programs,
National Night Out, Safety Camp or city open houses?
Twenty-nine percent report they contacted the Police Department through community programs:
34
47
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
"Yes" is cited most frequently by:
• households with children
• those rating the value of city services favorably
"No" is mentioned at a higher rate by:
• empty nesters
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
Crime-Related Services
Respondents were queried:
Have you been a victim of a crime in Centerville during
the past two years?
Seven percent report they have been victims of a crime in Centerville during the past two years:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
"No" is stated more often by:
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those that have not had contact with city staff
Victims were asked a follow-up question:
Did you report the crime to the police?
Eighty-eight percent of the victims reported the crime to the police:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
They are no statistically significant sub-group differences.
Crime victims who reported the crime to the Police were asked two follow-up questions. First,
35
48
the handling of the situation was reviewed:
Would you say the way the Police employee handled the
situation was excellent,good, only fair, or poor?
Seventy-three percent rate the Police employee's handling of the situation as either"excellent" or
"good:"
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Twenty-seven percent rate it lower.
They are no statistically significant sub-group differences.
Next,the response time was considered:
Would you say the time it took the Police to respond was
appropriate?
Everyone rates the response time as "appropriate:"
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
They are no statistically significant sub-group differences.
Crime victims not reporting the crime were also asked a follow-up query:
Why did you not report the crime?
Everyone responded they were "identity theft"victims:
IDENTITY THEFT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%
They are no statistically significant sub-group differences.
Greatest Concern
Centerville residents were asked:
Please tell me which one you consider to be the greatest
36
49
concern in Centerville? If youfeel that none of these
problems are serious,just say so.
Fifty-three percent feel that"none"of these problems are serious:
Violentcrime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Traffic speeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Youth crimes and vandalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
Identity theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Code violations, such as junk cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Business crimes, such as shoplifting and check fraud . . . . . . . . 1%
Residential crimes, such as burglary, and theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
ALL EQUALLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
NONE OF THE ABOVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Twenty-two percent, though, cite "violent crime."
"None"is stated more often by:
• residents for five years or less
Summary and
Conclusions
Centerville residents award the Centennial Lakes Police Department exceptionally high ratings.
Only eight percent think there are areas in the community where they feel unsafe; the majority
point to the city parks, bars, and apartment buildings as their locations of discomfort. In fact,
these residents would like to see more police patrolling and more street lighting there.
Only five percent think the amount of police patrolling is "not enough" in their neighborhood.
Similarly, only seven percent rate the amount of traffic enforcement by the police in their
neighborhood as "not enough." But, 38%think the problem of traffic speeding in their
neighborhood is at least"somewhat serious."
During the past two years, 18%report household members contacted the Centennial Lakes Police
Department for a service. Among those making contact, 93%think the handling of the situation
was either"excellent" or"good,"while 98%rate the response time as "appropriate." Twenty-
nine percent also had contact during the past two years with the Police Department through
community programs.
Seven percent were victims of a crime in Centerville during the past two years. Among these
victims, 88%reported the crime to the Police. Those reporting the crime think the way Police
employees handled the situation positively and everyone says the time it took them to respond
37
50
was appropriate. The even smaller number not reporting the crime did so because it involved
"identity theft."
Amon a set of eight crime problems, 53%think none are a major problem in Centerville.
Among g
Twenty-two percent,though,point to traffic speeding as the greatest concern
s in the city.
38
51
s.
S
x
h
lA'
i
I
I
Ze
nlMl
I
39
52
3
Centerville residents were asked a series of questions about the city's parks and recreation
facilities. First,usage rates were evaluated. Then, residents were asked about the adequacy of
current facilities in meeting their household needs.
Use of Park System
Centerville residents were instructed:
The Centerville park system is composed of larger com-
munity parks and smaller neighborhood parks, trails,
and community ballfields. Of these facilities, which
have you or members of your household used during
the past year?
A list of four park system components was then asked:
Larger community parks?
Sixty-eight percent report households members use larger community parks:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Use increases among:
• residents for six to ten years
• households with children
• women
It decreases among:
• residents for more than thirty years
• empty nesters
• households with seniors
• men
• $50,000 to $75,000 annual income households
• City Council meeting viewers
Smaller neighborhood parks?
40
53
Sixty-five percent report household members use smaller neighborhood parks:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Users tend to be:
• residents for five years or less
• households with children
• those rating the quality of life as excellent
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those feeling empowered
Non-users are typically:
• residents for more than twenty years
• empty nesters
• households with seniors
• $50,000 to $75,000 annual income households
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
• those not feeling empowered
Trails?
Seventy-six percent say household members use city trails:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Users tend to be:
• households with children
• over$75,000 annual income households
• those rating the quality of life as excellent
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
Non-users are more likely to be:
• residents for more than twenty years
• empty nesters
• households with seniors
• $50,000 to $75,000 annual income households
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
• City Council meeting viewers
41
54
Community ballfields?
Thirty-nine percent report household members use the community ballfields:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Use is higher among:
• residents for five years or less
• households with children
• residents that have accessed the city's website
It is lower among:
• residents for more than twenty years
• empty nesters
• $50,000 to $75,000 annual income households
• those rating the quality of life as good
Meet Needs of Household
Residents were asked:
In general, do you feel that existing recreational facili-
ties offered by the City meet the needs of you and mem-
bers of your household?
Eighty-four percent feel existing recreational facilities offered by the City meet the needs of their
household:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
"Yes" is reported more often by:
• those rating the quality of life as excellent
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
"No" is indicated at a higher rate by:
•
households with children
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
42
55
Respondents who feel current recreational facilities do not meet their households needs were
asked a follow-up query:
What additional recreational facilities would you like to
see the City offer its residents?
Twenty-four percent want a"community center,"while 15% urge more "trails," and 12%, "more
youth programs:"
UNSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
ICE RINK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
SWIMMING POOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
TRAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15%
DISC GOLF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
COMMUNITY CENTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%
TENNIS COURTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
YOUTH PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
PARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
BASKETBALL COURTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
SENIOR PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
SOCCER FIELDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Nine percent each hope for a"swimming pool"or"basketball courts."
"Community Center" is posted at a higher rate by:
• renters
"Trails" is stated more frequently by:
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
Summary and
Conclusions
Over 65%of the residents in the community report household members use larger community
parks, smaller community parks, and trails. Thirty-nine percent of the households use
community ballfields.
Eighty-four percent feel the existing recreational facilities offered by the City meet the needs of
their household. Among those dissatisfied,trails, community center, and youth programs lead
the list of desired additions.
43
56
� f
l
I
i
44
57
� F 4
771
Centerville residents were asked a series of questions about City Government. First,
empowerment was measured. Both the Mayor and City Council and the City Staff were
evaluated. Finally, contact with City Hall was examined and discussed.
Empowerment
Residents were asked:
Other than voting, do you feel that if you wanted to,
you could have a say about the way the City of Center-
ville runs things?
A comparatively low 50% feel they can have a say if they wanted to do so:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
A high 43% feel unempowered.
"Yes"is reported more often by:
• over $100,000 annual income households
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those with knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
• residents that have accessed the city's website
"No" is mentioned most frequently by:
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
Knowledge of Mayor and
City Council
Residents were asked:
How much do you feel you know about the work of the
45
58
Mayor and City Council--a great deal, a fair amount,
very little, or none at all?
A very high 59%report they know either"a great day" or"a fair amount" about the work of the
Mayor and City Council:
A GREAT DEAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%
A FAIR AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
VERY LITTLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34%
NONE AT ALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
This level of familiarity is much higher than the suburban norm.
Knowledge levels increase among:
• residents for twenty-one to thirty years
• those feeling empowered
• those that have had contact with city staff
• city newsletter readers
• City Council meeting viewers
They decrease among:
• residents for five years or less
• under$50,000 annual income households
• those not feeling empowered
• those that have not had contact with city staff
Mayor and City Council
Ratings
Respondents were asked:
From what you know, do you approve or disapprove of
the job the Mayor and City Council are doing? And do
you feel strongly that way?
By a narrow 47%-38%margin, residents approve of the job of the Mayor and City Council:
STRONGLY APPROVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
APPROVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%
DISAPPROVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31%
STRONGLY DISAPPROVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
46
59
The five-to-four approval-to-disapproval ratio is comparatively weak.
Ratings are higher among:
• over$100,000 annual income households
• those rating the quality of life as excellent
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
• those with knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
They are lower among:
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
Residents posting an opinion were then asked:
Could you tell me why you feel that way?
Approval ratings are based upon"good job," "listen," "planning for future," and "no problems:"
GOOD JOB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%
LISTEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
NO PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
DON'T LISTEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
COULD IMPROVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
POOR SPENDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
ROAD CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
NOT PROACTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
TOO MUCH GROWTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
NEED MORE BUSINESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
SCATTERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Disapproval ratings stem from "don't listen" and"poor spending."
"Good job" is key to:
• residents for five years or less
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those feeling empowered
"Poor spending" is posted at a higher rate by:
• those rating the quality of life as good
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
47
60
• those not feeling empowered
"Don't listen"is stated more frequently by:
• under $50,000 annual income households
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
"Listen" is selected most often by:
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
Contact with City Staff
Residents were queried:
How much first hand contact have you had with the
Centerville city staff--quite a lot,some, very little, or
none?
Forty-three percent report they had"quite a lot" or"some" first hand contact:
QUITE A LOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
SOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%
VERY LITTLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
"A lot" is stated most frequently by:
• homeowners
• over$100,000 annual income households
• those with knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
• City Council meeting viewers
• reslUGlllS Lll[lL 110.VG accessGU L11G VlLy 5 N%GV51 LG
"Not a lot" is posted at a higher rate by:
• renters
• under$50,000 annual income households
• those without knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
48
61
Staff Ratings
Residents were asked:
From what you have heard or seen, how would you rate
the job performance of the Centerville city staff--ex-
cellent,good, only fair, or poor?
By a solid 65%-17%margin, respondents award the city staff a positive rating:
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
Ratings increase among:
• those rating the quality of life as good
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
• those with knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
• those that have had contact with city staff
• city newsletter readers
They decrease among:
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
• residents that have accessed the city's website
Respondents posting ratings were asked a follow-up query:
Could you tell me why you feel that way?
"Helpful," "friendly," and "good job"are the two main reasons for positive evaluations:
UNSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
GOOD JOB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%
HELPFUL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42%
LISTEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
NO PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
FRIENDLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
DON'T LISTEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
49
62
COULD IMPROVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
NOT FRIENDLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
POOR JOB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
SCATTERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
"Not friendly," "poor job," and "could improve" are the major reasons for negative evaluations.
"Helpful" is key to:
• empty nesters
"Friendly" is indicated at a higher rate by:
• households with children
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
Contact with City Hall
Residents were initially asked:
During the past year, have you contacted Centerville City
Hall?
A high 48%report contact during the past year:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
"Yes" is cited more often by:
• households with children
• homeowners
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those that have had contact with city staff
• residents that have accessed the city's website
"No"is mentioned more frequently by:
• empty nesters
• renters
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those that have not had contact with city staff
Residents reporting contact with City Hall during the past year,were instructed:
50
63
Thinking about your last contact with the City,for each
of the following characteristics,please rate the service
as excellent,good, only fair, or poor....
A list of three quality customer service dimensions was read:
Courtesy and helpfulness of the receptionist?
Eighty-four percent rate the courtesy and helpfulness of the receptionist favorably:
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Ratings are higher among:
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
They are lower among:
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
Ease of reaching a department staff member who could
help you?
Eighty-four percent also highly rate the ease of reaching a department staff member who could
help them:
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Favorable ratings are stated more frequently by:
• those rating the quality of life as good
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
51
64
Unfavorable ratings are cited more frequently by:
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
Courtesy and helpfulness of the department staff?
Eighty-one percent rate the courtesy and helpfulness of the department staff as either"excellent"
or"good:"
EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31%
GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Ratings increase among:
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those rating the value of city services favorably
• those feeling empowered
They decrease among:
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those rating the sense of community identity negatively
• those rating the value of city services unfavorably
• those not feeling empowered
The positive rating on all three dimensions clearly exceeds the 80%threshold indicative of high
quality customer service.
Use of Voice Mail System
Respondents were asked:
Have you used the voice mail system to leave a message
at City Hall? Did you receive a timely response?
Fifteen percent report using the voice mail system to leave a message at City Hall:
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85%
YES/YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
52
65
YES/NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Of those leaving a message, 80% say they received a timely response.
"Yes/yes" is posted at a higher rate by:
• those with knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
Summary and
Conclusions
While 50% feel empowered; thinking they can have a say about the way the City of Centerville
runs things. But, a comparatively large 43%think they could not.
A similarly large 59% feel they know at least"a fair amount" about the work of the Mayor and
City Council. By a 47%-38% margin, residents approve of the job the Mayor and City Council
are doing. Most residents feel they are doing a good job, listen to residents, and no serious
problems have occurred. Dissenters think they are not listened to and criticize the City Council
for poor spending decisions.
A comparatively large 43%report at least"some"contact with the Centerville City Staff. By a
definitive 65%-17%margin, residents rate the City Staff favorably. They particularly comment
on staff being helpful, (doing a) good job, and friendly.
Forty-eight percent report they contacted Centerville City Hall during the past year. On three
dimensions of quality customer service—courtesy and helpfulness of the receptionist, ease of
reaching a department staff member who could help them, and courtesy and helpfulness of the
department staff—residents post favorable ratings of at least 81%. Fifteen percent left voice mail
messages at City Hall; among these residents, 80%received a timely response.
53
66
� 1
77
;..a
p
54
67
3g
Centerville residents were asked a series of questions about the ways in which they acquire
information about City Government and its activities. The principal source of information was
ascertained. Then, the city's newsletter was discussed, followed by the examination of cable
television and the Internet.
Principal Source of
Information
Residents were initially asked:
What is your principal source of information about
Centerville City Government and its activities?
Fifty-two percent rely upon two newspapers—the "Citizen" and the "Quad:"
CITY NEWSLETTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
CITIZEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%
QUAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28%
CABLE TELEVISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
WEBSITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
MEETINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
WORD OF MOUTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
WHITE BEAR PRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
HUGONIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
SCATTERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Sixteen percent rely upon the "City Newsletter." Eight percent choose "cable television."
"Citizen" is key to:
• households with seniors
I
"City newsletter" is posted at a higher rate by:
• households with children
55
68
City Newslefter
Respondents were queried:
During the past year, did you receive the city's news-
letter?
Ninety-four percent report receiving the city's newsletter:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
"Yes" is cited more often by:
• those with knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
Next, residents reporting receipt of the City Newsletter were asked:
Do you or any members of your household regularly
read it?
Ninety percent report household members regularly read the Newsletter:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Readers tend to be:
• homeowners
• those thinking the city is off on the wrong track
• those with knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
• those that have had contact with city staff
Non-readers are more apt to be:
• renters
• those rating the quality of life as good
• those without knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
• those that have not had contact with city staff
56
69
Cable Television
Respondents were asked:
Does your household currently subscribe to cable
television?
Sixty percent currently subscribe to cable television:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
"Yes"is cited more often by:
• residents for more than thirty years
• those with knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
• City Council meeting viewers
"No" is mentioned most frequently by:
• residents for eleven to twenty years
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
• those without knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
Next, cable television subscribers were queried:
How often during the past year have you watched City
Council meeting telecasts on Channel 16—frequently,
occasionally, rarely or never?
Forty percent at least"occasionally" watch City Council meeting telecasts on Channel 16:
FREQUENTLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
OCCASIONALLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%
RARELY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
NEVER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Viewers tend to be:
• empty nesters
• those with knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
• those that have had contact with city staff
57
70
Non-viewers are typically:
• households with children
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
• those without knowledge about the Mayor and City Council
• those that have not had contact with city staff
Internet Access
Respondents were asked:
Do you have access to the Internet at home? Do you
have access to the Internet at work?
Eighty-nine percent have Internet access either at home or work:
HOME ONLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
WORK ONLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
BOTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
NEITHER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
"Home only" is selected more often by:
• residents for more than thirty years
• empty nesters
• households with seniors
• $50,000 to $75,000 annual income households
"Both" is stated most frequently by:
• households with children
• homeowners
• over$75,000 annual income households
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those that have had contact with city staff
reJ1L1G11LJ L11CLL 11aVV CLc A,33% %A L11L. %,Ity J VV%,u LL%,
"Neither" is cited more often by:
• residents for more than thirty years
• households with seniors
• under $50,000 annual income households
• those rating the quality of life as only fair or poor
Next,residents having Internet access were queried:
58
71
Have you accessed the City's website?
A comparatively large 51%of the residents having Internet access report visiting the City's
website:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
"Yes" is cited more often by:
• residents for five years or less
• households with children
• those rating the quality of life as excellent
• those feeling empowered
• those that have had contact with city staff
"No"is mentioned more often by:
• empty nesters
• $50,000 to $75,000 annual income households
• those not feeling empowered
• those that have not had contact with city staff
Website visitors were asked a trio of follow-up questions. First, the ease of finding information
was considered:
Were you able to find what you were looking for?
Ninety-four percent report they were able to find what they were looking for:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
"Yes" is stated more often by:
• those rating the sense of community identity positively
• those thinking the city is going in the right direction
Then the type of information sought was examined:
What information were you looking for?
Sixteen percent looked for"road repair updates,"while 14% sought"parks and recreation
information," and 13%, "general information:"
UNSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
COMMUNITY EVENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
59
72
GENERAL INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%
DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
ORDINANCES/CODES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
PERMITS/LICENSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
JOB LISTINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
GARBAGE/RECYCLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
PARKS AND RECREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
ROAD REPAIR UPDATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
SNOW PLOWING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
GARAGE SALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
SCATTERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
"Parks and recreation" is reported more often by:
• residents for six to ten years
• households with children
• those that have not had contact with city staff
Next, all residents having Internet access were queried:
What information would you like to see on the City's
website?
Thirteen percent each would like to see "development and planning information"or"road repair
updates:"
UNSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
COMMUNITY EVENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
GENERAL INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
ORDINANCES/CODES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
PARKS AND RECREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
ROAD REPAIR UPDATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%
BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
SCATTERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
There are no statistically significant sub-group differences.
Summary and
Conclusions
The three principal sources of information about City Government and its activities are the city
o o
newsletter, cited by 16%, the"Quad"newspaper, at 28/o, and the "Citizen" newspaper, relied
60
73
upon b y 26%. "Cable television"is relied upon by eight percent. No other source of
information is relied upon by more than five percent.
During the past year, 94%received the city's newsletter. Among those receiving the newsletter,
90%report regularly reading it. The reach of the city newsletter, then, is 85% of the households
in the city.
Sixty percent currently subscribe to cable television. Among those subscribers, 40% at least
"occasionally"watch City Council meeting telecasts on Channel 16. The reach of City Council
meeting telecasts is 24% of the households in Centerville.
Eighty-nine percent of the sample reports having access to the Internet at home or at work. Fifty-
one percent of the residents having Internet access visited the City's website. Among visitors,
94%report they were able to find what they were looking for. Information sought by visitors
include"general city information,""road repair updates," and"parks and recreation
information." In discussing subjects they would like to see on the city's website, "development
and city planning information" as well as "road repair updates"lead the list.
61
74
3 �
v„r
sr .,
: 0
” di
c,
� 5 _ -� �� �
�� f
'� � ME,
t ,
NO,
.1 walli-4,
N
62
75
The following conclusions can be reached from this analysis:
1. The "small town" attributes of the City of Centerville are most important to community
members. Decision-makers need to keep this in mind when deliberating about
development and zoning. The quality of life rating is very high, and positive feelings
about the strength of community identity and sense of neighborliness are also solid. Most
residents rate the general appearance of their neighborhood favorably. Overall, in
addition, a strong majority think the City is headed in the right direction.
2. Three issues emerge as concerns in the community: first and most important, high taxes;
second, growth; and third, road construction.
3. City services are generally viewed positively. But, residents express some upset with city
street repair and maintenance and lack of street lighting. However, a majority think the
property Ytaxes they pay and the quality of city services received is of negative value.
However, only a plurality believe their city services are comparatively better than in
neighboring communities.
4. Crime is not a key issue in the community. The Centennial Lakes Police Department is
extremely well regarded. Evaluations of the way Police handle situations are very high,
as is the rating of the response time. Victims of crime in Centerville are also very
complimentary of Police Department efforts.
5. Parks and recreation facilities are very well used by the community. And, in general,
most residents view existing recreational facilities as adequate in meeting their household
needs.
6. Ratings of the Mayor and City Council tend to be marginal, as a result of past spending
decisions; ratings of the City Staff, though, are comparatively very high. Similarly,
contact with City Hall reinforces a positive feeling toward City Government.
7. The principal sources of information for a majority of the community are the City
Newsletter and the local newspapers. Residents' evaluation of the newsletter are
particularly favorable. Cable telecasts of the City Council have about one-third of the
raonl, of tha P;cT fxr_nlna narrant of( antarc�illa hnrneahn1Ac! rar%nrt nrnaee to
ivuvu vi �aav aiv��.�av«vi. i..abu�J -•uaav Nvivvaa� vi vviiwi•uav aav u.�vaivau.�avNvi�uvvv.�. w
the Internet at home or at work, suggesting the website could be an effective means of
communicating with the technologically fluent
As a maturing, though changing, community, Centerville residents are generally satisfied with
the operation of the City enterprise. But,tax hostility and road conditions are taking their toll.
There is some room, though,to sharpen the city's image and align it with the aspects of the
community which drew residents,particularly small town ambience. In view of the existing
large reservoir of good will residents possess toward the City,public support should remain very
high during the next few years as changes occur, if the rationale for further growth is persuasive.
63
76
N
Nf
3
fr
k'^
y Y
Decision '
Resources Ltd. LU
f.
.. . ......
y S
d
s
n
Lp
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. CENTENNIAL LAKES
3128 Dean Court Residential Survey
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 FINAL OCTOBER 2007
CEN'7C ERVIlL]LE
(lNf=250)
Hello, I 'm of Decision Resources, Ltd. , a polling firm
located in Minneapolis. We have been retained by the City of
(Circle Pines/Centerville/Lexington) to speak with a random
sample of residents about issues facing the community. This
survey is being conducted because the City Council and City Staff
are interested in your opinions and suggestions about current and
future city needs . I want to assure you that all individual
responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of
the entire sample will be reported.
1 . Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS. . . . 3%
you lived in (Circle Pines/Center- TWO TO FIVE YEARS. . . . . 19%
ville/Lexington) ? FIVE TO TEN YEARS. . . . . 29%
TEN TO TWENTY YEARS. . . 26%
20 TO 30 YEARS. . . . . . . . 13%
OVER THIRTY YEARS. . . . . 10%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
2 . What do you like most, if anything, about living in (Circle
Pines/Centerville/Lexington) ?
UNSURE, 4%; SMALL TOWN FEEL, 38%; SCHOOLS, 5%; QUIET AND
PEACEFUL, 9%; LAKES, 5%; LOCATION, 4%; FRIENDLY PEOPLE,
7%; NEIGHBORHOOD/HOUSING, 4%; CLOSE TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS,
3%; CLOSE TO WORK, 6%; RURAL AND OPEN SPACE, 8%; SCAT-
TERED, 5%.
3 . What do you think is the most serious issue facing (Circle
Pines/Centerville/Lexington) today?
NOTHING, 4%; HIGH TAXES, 33%; ROAD CONDITIONS, 4%; TRAF-
FIC CONGESTION, 5%; LACK OF BUSINESSES, 9%; TOO MUCH
GROWTH, 14%; RISING CRIME, 2%; LACK OF CODE ENFORCEMENT,
2%; CITY GOVERNMENT, 6%; ROAD CONSTRUCTION, 16%; SCAT-
TERED, 5%.
4 . What, if anything, is not as good as it could be in the
community today that needs to be fixed or improved for the
future?
UNSURE, 12%; NOTHING, 3%; HIGH TAXES, 16%; ROAD CONDI-
TIONS, 16%; LACK OF SIDEWALKS, 2%; LACK OF BUSINESSES,
16%; TOO MUCH GROWTH, 3%; LACK OF YOUTH ACTIVITIES, 2%;
LACK OF CODE ENFORCEMENT, 3%; COMMUNICATIONS, 2%; AFFORD-
ABLE HOUSING, 2%; LACK OF PARKS, 2%; MORE POLICE PATROL-
LING, 2%; CITY GOVERNMENT, 4%; MORE RETAIL, 2%; ROAD
CONSTRUCTION, 7%; SCATTERED, 6% .
1
78
5 . How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
life in (Circle Pines/Center- GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65%
ville/Lexington) -- excellent, ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
good, only fair, or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
6 . How would you rate the strength of EXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
community identity and the sense GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60%
of neighborliness in (Circle Pines ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
/Centerville/Lexington) -- excel- POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
lent, good, only fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
7 . How would you rate the general EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%
appearance of your neighborhood GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
-- excellent, good, only fair, or ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
8 . All in all, do you think things in RIGHT DIRECTION. . . . . . . 59%
(Circle Pines/Centerville/Lexing- WRONG TRACK. . . . . . . . . . . 31 %
ton) are generally headed in the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 10%
right direction, or do you feel
things are off on the wrong track?
I would like to read you a list of a few city services . For
each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of
the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? (ROTATE)
EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R
9 . Police service? 42% 46% 6% 1 % 4%
10 . Fire service? 44% 41 % 2% 0% 12%
11 . Recycling and garbage? 32% 57% 7% 1 % 3%
12 . Building inspections? 4% 58% 9% 4% 26%
13 . Park maintenance? 14% 70% 9% 3% 4%
14 . Recreation services? 5% 60% 16% 6% 14%
15 . Animal control? 7% 68% 16% 3% 6%
16 . Code enforcement? 4% 65% 19% 4% 8%
Now, for the next four city services, please consider only
their job on city-maintained streets and roads . That means
excluding interstate highways, state and county roads that are
taken care of by other levels of government . Hence,
IN LEXINGTON AND CIRCLE PINES: Interstate 35W, Lake Drive and
Lexington Avenue should not be considered. How would you
rate. . . .
IN CENTERVILLE: Interstate 35E and Main Street should not be
considered. How would you rate . . . .
EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R
17 . City street repair and
maintenance? 2% 54% 36% 8% 0%
2
79
EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R
18 . Snowplowing?
1 6 %2%1
lowin ? %
p g o 60 30 0%
19 . Street lighting? 6% 520 350 7% 0%
20 . Street sweeping? 50 690 21 % 4% 10
21 . When you consider the property EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
taxes you pay and the quality GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
of city services you receive, ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . .44%
would you rate the general value POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
of city services as excellent, DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .4%
good, only fair, or poor?
22 . How would you rate (Circle Pine ' s/ EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4%
Centerville ' s/Lexington' s) city GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44%
services in comparison with nei- ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . 29%
ghboring communities -- excellent, POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
good, only fair, or poor? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 17%
Thinking about another topic. . . .
23 . Are there areas in the City of YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8%
(Circle Pines/Centerville/Lexing- NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 %
ton) where you do not feel safe? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
IF "YES, " ASK: (N=21 )
24 . In which areas do you not feel safe?
EVERYWHERE, 50; PARKS, 380; TRAILER PARK, 5%;
TRAILS, 5%; BARS, 190; APARTMENTS, 100; SCHOOLS, 5%;
SCATTERED, 14% .
25 . What would make you feel more safe?
UNSURE, 5%; MORE STREET LIGHTING, 29%; MORE POLICE
PATROLLING, 34%; REDEVELOPMENT, 9%; ENFORCE CODES,
9%; ADULT SUPERVISION, 9%; SCATTERED, 5% .
26 . How would you rate the amount of TOO MUCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7%
police patrolling in your neigh- ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT. . . . 88%
borhood -- too much, about the NOT ENOUGH. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
right amount or not enough? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
27 . How would you rate the amount of TOO MUCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
traffic enforcement by the police ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT. . . . 75%
in your neighborhood -- too much, NOT ENOUGH. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
about right amount or not enough? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1 %
28 . How serious of a problem is traf- VERY SERIOUS. . . . . . . . . . . 7%
fic speeding in your neighborhood SOMEWHAT SERIOUS. . . . . . 31 %
-- very serious, somewhat serious, NOT TOO SERIOUS. . . . . . . 40%
not too serious, or not at all NOT AT ALL SERIOUS. . . . 22%
serious? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
3
80
Next, let ' s discuss the Centennial Lakes Police Department .
Police work can be divided into three categories: residential
services, community outreach and crime-related services . Let ' s
talk about each one. . .
29 . During the past two years have you YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
or any member of your household NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82%
contacted the Centennial Lakes DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
Police Department for a service,
such as medical assistance, animal
control, or a car lock out?
IF "YES, " ASK: (N=46)
30 . Would you say the way the EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 65%
Police employee handled the GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28%
situation was excellent, ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
good, only fair, or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
31 . Would you say the time it YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98%
took the Police to respond NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
was appropriate? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
32 . During the past two years have you YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
or any member of your household NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 %
had any contact with the Centenn- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
ial Lakes Police Department
through community programs, such
as school liaisons, senior pro-
grams, National Night Out,
Safety Camp or city open houses?
33 . Have you been a victim of a crime YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
in (Circle Pines/Centerville/Lex- NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93%
ington) during the past two years? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
IF "YES, " ASK: (N=17)
34 . Did you report the crime to YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88%
the police? NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
IF "YES, " ASK: (N=15)
35 . Would you say the way EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%
the Police employee han- GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40%
dled the situation was ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%
excellent, good, only POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
36 . Would you say the time YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%
it took the Police to NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
respond was appropriate? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .0%
4
81
IF "NO" IN QUESTION #34 , ASK: (N=2)
37 . Why did you not report the crime?
IDENTITY THEFT, 1000.
38 . Please tell me which one you consider to be the greatest
concern in (Circle Pines/Centerville/Lexington) ? If you
feel that none of these problems are serious, just say so.
Violent crime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 %
Traffic speeding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22%
Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Youth crimes and vandalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
Identity theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Code violations, such as junk cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Business crimes, such as shoplifting
and check fraud. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Residential crimes, such as burglary,
and theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
ALL EQUALLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 %
NONE OF THE ABOVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%
DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Moving on. . . . .
The (Circle Pines/Centerville/Lexington) park system is composed
of larger community parks and smaller neighborhood parks, trails,
and community ballfields . Of these facilities, which have you or
members of your household used during the past year?
YES NO DKR
39 . Larger community parks? 680 32% 0%
40 . Smaller neighborhood parks? 650 35% 0%
41 . Trails? 76% 24% 0%
42 . Community ballfields? 39% 60% 1 %
43 . In general, do you feel that YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84%
existing recreational facilities NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
offered by the City meet the DON 'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 3%
needs of you and members of
your household?
IF "NO, " ASK: (N=33)
44 . What additional recreational facilities would you like
to see the City offer its residents?
UNSURE, 3%; ICE RINK, 6%; SWIMMING POOL, 9%; TRAILS,
15%; DISC GOLF, 3%; COMMUNITY CENTER, 24%; TENNIS
COURTS, 60; YOUTH PROGRAMS, 12%; PARKS, 3%; BASKET-
BALL COURTS, 9%; SENIOR PROGRAMS, 60; SOCCER FIELDS,
3%.
5
82
Changing topics. . . .
45 . Other than voting, do you feel YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
that if you wanted to, you could NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .430
have a say about the way the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 70
of (Circle Pines/Centerville/
Lexington) runs things?
46 . How much do you feel you know A GREAT DEAL. . . . . . . . . . 11 %
about the work of the Mayor and A FAIR AMOUNT. . . . . . . . . 480
City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE. . . . . . . . . . . 340
fair amount, very little, or none NONE AT ALL. . . . . . . . . . . . 80
at all? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
47 . From what you know, do you approve STRONGLY APPROVE. . . . . . . 30
or disapprove of the job the Mayor APPROVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .440
and City Council are doing? (WAIT DISAPPROVE. . . . . . . . . . . . 31 %
FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. . . . 7%
strongly that way? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 17%
IF A JUDGMENT IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=207)
48 . Could you tell me why you feel that way?
GOOD JOB, 24%; LISTEN, 100; NO PROBLEMS, 50; DON' T
LISTEN, 140; COULD IMPROVE, 50; POOR SPENDING, 16%;
ROAD CONSTRUCTION, 7%; NOT PROACTIVE, 4%; PLANNING
FOR THE FUTURE, 60; TOO MUCH GROWTH, 20; NEED MORE
BUSINESSES, 30; SCATTERED, 40.
49 . How much first hand contact have QUITE A LOT. . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
you had with the (Circle Pines/ SOME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%
Centerville/Lexington) city staff VERY LITTLE. . . . . . . . . . .41 %
-- quite a lot, some, very little, NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15%
or none? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1 %
50 . From what you have heard or seen, EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
how would you rate the job per- GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%
formance of the (Circle Pines/ ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
Centerville/Lexington) city staff POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
-- excellent, good, only fair, or DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 18%
poor?
IF A JUDGMENT IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=205)
51 . Could you tell me why you feel that way?
UNSURE, 20; GOOD JOB, 13%; HELPFUL, 42%; LISTEN, 2%;
NO PROBLEMS, 5%; FRIENDLY, 180; DON'T LISTEN, 2%;
COULD IMPROVE, 3%; NOT FRIENDLY, 5%; POOR JOB, 3%;
SCATTERED, 5%.
52 . During the past year, have you YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48%
contacted (Circle Pines/Center- NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
ville/Lexington) City Hall? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
6
83
II " -
IF YES, ASK. (N-121 )
Thinking about your last contact with the City, for each of
the following characteristics, please rate the service as
excellent, good, only fair, or poor. . . .
EXC GOO FAI POO DKR
53 . Courtesy and helpfulness of
the receptionist? 38% 46% 8% 8% 0%
54 . Ease of reaching a department
staff member who could help
you? 34% 50% 8% 8% 0%
55. Courtesy and helpfulness of
the department staff? 31 % 50% 12% 7% 0%
56 . Have you used the voice mail NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85%
system to leave a message at YES/YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
City Hall? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) YES/NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Did you receive a timely DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
response?
Moving on. . . . . .
57 . What is your principal source of information about (Circle
Pines/Centerville/Lexington) City Government and its activi-
ties?
CITY NEWSLETTER, 16%; CITIZEN, 26%; QUAD, 28%; CABLE
TELEVISION, 8%; WEBSITE, 4%; MEETINGS, 5%; WORD OF MOUTH,
6%; WHITE BEAR PRESS, 2%; HUGONIAN, 3%; SCATTERED, 2%.
58 . During the past year, did you YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94%
receive the city ' s newsletter? NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
IF "YES, " ASK: (N=234)
59 . Do you or any members of your YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90%
household regularly read it? NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
60 . Does your household currently sub- YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
scribe to cable television? NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40%
DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
IF "YES, " ASK: (N=150)
61 . How often during the past FREQUENTLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
year have you watched City OCCASIONALLY. . . . . . . . . . 33%
Council meeting telecasts on RARELY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
Channel _ -- frequently, NEVER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37%
occasionally, rarely or DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
never?
7
84
62 . Do you have access to the Internet HOME ONLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
at home? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do WORK ONLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
you have access to the Internet BOTH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48%
at work? NEITHER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
ASK ONLY IN CENTERVILLE AND CIRCLE PINES:
IF "YES, " ASK: (N=220)
63 . Have you accessed the City' s YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 %
website? NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
IF "YES, " ASK: (N=113)
64 . Were you able to find YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94%
what you were looking NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
for? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%
65 . What information were you looking for?
UNSURE, 3%; COMMUNITY EVENTS, 7%; GENERAL INFOR
MATION, 13%; DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING, 9%; CITY
COUNCIL MINUTES, 6%; ORDINANCES/CODES, 8%;
PERMITS/LICENSES, 5%; JOB LISTINGS, 2%; GARBAGE/
RECYCLING, 6%; PARKS AND RECREATION, 14%; ROAD
REPAIR UPDATES, 16%; SNOW PLOWING, 4%; GARAGE
SALES, 3%; SCATTERED, 4%.
66 . What information would you like to see on the City' s
website?
UNSURE, 41 %; COMMUNITY EVENTS, 7%; GENERAL INFORMA-
TION, 2%; DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING, 13%; CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES, 6%; ORDINANCES/CODES, 3%; PARKS AND RECREA-
TION, 6%; ROAD REPAIR UPDATES, 13%; BUDGET, 2%;
SCATTERED, 7% .
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes . . . .
Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following
age groups live in your household.
67 . Persons 65 or over? NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89%
ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4%
TWO OR MORE. . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
68 . Adults under 65? NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77%
THREE OR MORE. . . . . . . . . . 6%
8
85
69 . School-aged children or NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48%
pre-schoolers? ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
THREE OR MORE. . . . . . . . . 110
70 . Do you own or rent your present OWN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92%
residence? RENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
And now, for one final question, keeping in mind that your an-
swers are held strictly confidential. . . .
71 . Is your pre-tax yearly household UNDER $50, 000 . . . . . . . . . 14%
income over or under $75, 000? $50, 001 -$75, 000 . . . . . . . 26%
IF "OVER, " ASK: $75, 001 -$100, 000 . . . . . . 26%
Is it over $100 , 000? (IF "YES, " $100 , 000-$125, 000 . . . . . 18%
ASK: ) Is it over $125, 000? OVER $125, 000 . . . . . . . . . . 9%
IF "UNDER, " ASK: DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 7%
Is it under $50 , 000?
72 . Gender MALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
FEMALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
73 . REGION OF CITY CENTERVILLE. . . . . . . . . . 100%
CIRCLE PINES. . . . . . . . . . .NA
LEXINGTON. . . . . . . . . . . . . .NA
9
86
�f
b-
1�
1� �1
AM
3
Decision
Resources Ltd.
�� 3a
4� 1�
33t
3
;,
lull;i 70 65
60 �
40 34
30
13
74 ..447 g 1210
.....
i
x,
Excellent Good Only Fair Poor Unsure
.
' mstlCenkervilie MCircMe Fines eaLexingtan
Lfll,ce Mostabout City Mosti ii ibu IISSUe
"WtMApEll"L.
WI Tman9RaatlCTTan MUSK �uCenYerville ��
.. .w_.. C vcfe Pines niwmq ann I (^ircle Pines
wnormNw er+ ,.. ]rx ngtar chy oowommmra �nmwuPsnwweuv V=7Lex�n Yon
wmrghhornannm 0
Rosa corvafruesnn
Cma m WI
1 ;w•"^a UhnoIF , �.
s uN.Gi✓m >�. 'i Unsure
j I) 10 20 3dl 40 50 0 5i 10 1PS 2'0 25 30 15 40 �
88
Fixed orIIrn� u
� eil, °�u : uir�i t �d&ii fi
unsure ti_..
High T.— Excellent 24
' is
rroedcorons Mmvevwummmpeo-
ao
L.k or sk—A,tl f Goad
Lk
wa
:'lea
rnn Muah KirrliMh
�mllllo Only Fair 18
Lxk M vwth ActW"t. C IPCIe Ph i25 y,..>.u.0 2
Leok of C«te ernor—M r3i exington q
Lank d1 Perke .-..—. _ Poor Z
Mnre Ponce Patralling
0
l
i
Raa:e CenMruchon Y ,.�� � I LYnsure D ,
ftM—A „ 1
Motlili 0 10 20 90 40 50 00 70
CD .r 1(7 95 90 75 30 � �NRGenYerville �Ckcle Pines oG11_exdn t0n1 i..
iCllarn�,-m,wdty Idenflty, Neighborhood Appearance
I24
et1 ..... ..541 49_ _ .. Excellent Z;7
-- M, t4
50
Good 55
4(1 „„..........
r 39
fa"T
30 10 Ce"
o � Only Fav 14 Pines
➢texrngton
TCv �
5
f5{70f14
4
0
0 Uncture a
FFxr„(lent. Ca00r9 Only Fair Poor Unsure
�_...... ._...... _._............ ......__;.__ '._......_.__._.
PE61995 fittldy W1999 Study C-37001 Study_I 0 10 20 30 40 7 60 FO E50
89
I iu ii m li f' con"Irm"Inity City S e rvi es :.elitervHHe
100
f Police Serve
75 T - —
m:.+rrau ..... Bui d np ;/Gamagne
_ ...
ic
80 g p
gRCanterviilePark Maintenance r
6g
,I 430 % Recreation Servictes
O CIr!e I., as Animal Control r
OrtFex{nytorr City Street Repair/Maintenance� ,�
Code
i
Is ... 6 Snow Plowing a
20 % 10 +
Street
Lighting
Street Sweeping 0 20 40 60 80 ,
too 1m
Right IOireotion Wrong Track Llnsore - ( Positive I®CNegativai�
I
f j i
(:;,qty SerOces gird [." nes iii: ervk,,,esn If,...exir iitori
1
Pcritcvr`�ervi�,a notice Service
Fireeo,Pe � Fire Service
Re"ohng/Garbage^. �uae i Recycling/Garbage
r
Rodding Instra?rkians F'~n Building Inspections ;to
Park Maintenance Park Maintenance
Recreation EServlees .M Rerraation Semmes
Animal Control Animal Control
N ! !
ado
' nfrroewnet 6.1 WNgP"o"sitVve .�µ
Code Enforcement
Ctyftraet Repair/Maentenance 'set Repair/Maintenanoe
„now Plotnq Gy Snow Plowing
Street Lightng u ;treat Lighting
Serest Sweeeng Street Sweeping
)n t 60 57oo
an.
r
�a
m
1201 I 0 20 40��9Rasltiva 60
&fYa 't 00 120
f �Ne�atu€a
90
- -
/" .... 1 :Somewhat Senor-rS
60a1 52 32%
50 44
Very Serious '
40 %%` 13%
G
22 23 y /
i 17
12
10 2
Not Too Serious ,�/ Not Al All Serious
Excellent (3ood Onl E&ir Woar Unsure { 14% 224%
�CentervilieC1rc4e Winas C'WV_exVng7an,�
Servs ces hn Com par so neg� mod, m'od Poke Acfivi ie
i. Too Much .
f 50 ..... _.... kP-.- ---- __... ___ 12
44
f
40 __.. _._ ._ 81
About Right
p24
30 Po'lUl ;
22 Nat IEnough ¢�
Uris
112
1t3
o rtre
E:xoei4enE Good Onlyall Poor -Insure 0 20 40
60 TraRrc Enfnrceme,nC�O 1(10
f.;t.crternllcr Cttr ls.C'irrces 011�axrn Cnn
91
Cor� tactfor F,(Ai ce Serycj iatin"i of (,.Irkne
Crnpli,lw,H-cift
RevW®d Cfte as
Be
6"Iplly-EHI-Ift
20
w sa
B
G..d 35 "1 1ply-H11alltu,
i VA E..i- 20
0,*N,FM, 5
G.. 14
P,,r 4 na
OdyF.1, f7
P
N., Apr
P—pt
Prompt Be
by%
Be
Contact during Past Victim of Crime during oar
P—vt
0 20 40 60 80 M, 1,,D Post Two Years
Two Yen. 0 20 40 W on IDO
ubhc Safefy Co nm ns ase of Far* Systeni
Violent Chinn 100
Traffic Speeding
coup'" p 30
71
Youth GrimesNandaliten
Identity Theft 1 60
51
Code Violations 1 46
business Curries, 40
Residential Grimes
Equally 20
None
Unfunew. 8.�Wghb�.Pee.
10 20 30 a.) 6o
92
-
10070
Hb
..
��_
4 I
- _
-50
50 43
60 ��1 &�UCcriter4le 40 -
F 6C irle ip ew
40 EILemn on 30 i
9 /
j/ (, 1 .. 1 y0 f 7 5 1f1
20 '10
..........�.. ....._.._..�.. Yes NoUn5tJfe
Yee NO (Jnsure m�Cenfervlfle �Ctrcle.Anes L3 LtxIDgtnn� ;
Mayor yo elle ("'�ty COLVICH Dty Staff
l 1;1 - _..... ._. .._ ------
55
......
50
42
40 I
40
10
ae
{ a �
iib l
........ ! f3. v 0 / 6 XM
10
n a v w
QuYtma W.bm«���Corrterville��OGirclr Pne �EJLexi�to�atr r'+a4r
rvL 1M u�un .a tJn4x{(P.
�sCerrCervllla VWD'WCtrt Pe K G7eaa &"'0V a rat 1orr�
93
I _
Flu indp a� O arc e of �n ' iiniat oui
co ......—.__.-..�..__ __....._........_ _....._........-..– -------------
�n _ I
4o m
X30 i%-2% .. ---- __ -- - 29 ----
24
20
� I
7
CITY Naw4aMar CMim TalsNaion MaMVr�gz (Mmm�t.roral NxwaPapan
lm�nd NamPWa� Weballm Wwd of M4UH5 .�<ape+eH '.
� CenRervrllu,_,�EClrcke V'Ine� P�Laxi�xyton.
94
CITY OF CENTERVILLE 02/22/1911:10 AM
Page 1
Check Detail - February 27, 2019
Check
Date Check# Vender Name Comments Amount
2/22/2019 001305E MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE STATE W/H -PAY PERIOD 4
Check Nbr 001305 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE $1.037.24
2/22/2019 001306E OPTUM BANK- H.S.A. H.S.A. W/H -PAY PERIOD 4
Check Nbr 001306 OPTUM BANK-H.S.A. $1.262.37
2/22/2019 001307E PERA PERA W/H -PAY PERIOD 4
Check Nbr 001307 PERA $3,267.12
2/21/2019 001308E PSN ACH CHARGES-UTILITIES-3AN.2019 $243.26
2/21/2019 001308E PSN ACH CHARGES-PERMITS&FEES-JAN. 2019 $148.52
2/21/2019 001308E PSN ACH CHARGES-UTILITIES-JAN.20192$ 43.26
Check Nbr 001308 PSN $635.04
2/21/2019 001309E TASC F.S.A. W/H -PAY PERIOD 4
Check Nbr 001309 TASC $110.41
2/22/2019 001310E IRS/EFTPS FED.W/H -PAY PERIOD 4 $2,061.90
2/22/2019 001310E IRS/EFTPS FICA/MED W/H -PAY PERIOD 4 $3,803.46
Check Nbr 001310 IRS/EFTPS $5.865.36
2/27/2019 032476 BELDEN RIVER PROPERTIES, LLC. OVER PD RENTAL APP-7139 MILL RD
Check Nbr 032476 BELDEN RIVER PROPERTIES.LLC. $55.00
2/27/2019 032477 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. 2085 W CEDAR ST-COPIER MAINT-SERV THRU 2-28-19
Check Nbr 032477 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. $33.13
2/27/2019 032478 CITY OF CIRCLE PINES REGIONAL SAFETY GROUP-COVERS 10 SESSION $444.44
2/27/2019 032478 CITY OF CIRCLE PINES REGIONAL SAFETY GROUP-COVERS 10 SESSION $444.45
2/27/2019 032478 CITY OF CIRCLE PINES REGIONAL SAFETY GROUP-COVERS 10 SESSION $444.44
Check Nbr 032478 CITY OF CIRCLE PINES $1,333.33
2/27/2019 032479 CITY OF ROSEVILLE IT PHONE SERVICES-JANUARY 2019 $95.00
2/27/2019 032479 CITY OF ROSEVILLE IT PHONE SERVICES-JANUARY 2019 $95.00
2/27/2019 032479 CITY OF ROSEVILLE IT SUPPORT SERVICES-JANUARY 2019 $381.75
2/27/2019 032479 CITY OF ROSEVILLE IT SUPPORT SERVICES-JANUARY 2019 $381.75
2/27/2019 032479 CITY OF ROSEVILLE IT SUPPORT SERVICES-JANUARY 2019 $381.75
2/27/2019 032479 CITY OF ROSEVILLE IT SUPPORT SERVICES-JANUARY 2019 $381.75
Check Nbr 032479 CITY OF ROSEVILLE $1.717.00
2/27/2019 032480 DELTA DENTAL MARCH. 2019 DENTAL INS.
Check Nbr 032480 DELTA DENTAL $436.78
2/27/2019 032481 GREEN LIGHTS RECYCLING,INC. RECYCLING EVENT-2-12-19
Check Nbr 032481 GREEN LIGHTS RECYCLING.INC. $576.74
2/27/2019 032482 INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS LL OFFICE SUPPLIES
Check Nbr 032482 INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS LL $13.74
2/27/2019 032483 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES MN CITIES STORMWATER COALITION CONTRIBUTIONS
Check Nbr 032483 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES $530.00
2/27/2019 032484 LINCOLN NATIONAL FINANCIAL GRO MARCH 2019 LONG TERM DISABILITY INS.
Check Nbr 032484 LINCOLN NATIONAL FINANCIAL GRO $287.69
2/27/2019 032485 MARCO,INC. STANDARD PYMT-PER CONTRACT
Check Nbr 032485 MARCO,INC. $241.32
2/27/2019 032486 MET.COUNCIL ENV. SERV. (SDS) WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR MARCH 2019
Check Nbr 032486 MET. COUNCIL ENV.SERV. (SDS) $19.163.78
2/27/2019 032487 MN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH J. HUISENGA WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM OPERATOR EXAM
Check Nbr 032487 MN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH $32.00
2/27/2019 032488 SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY MARCH 2019 LIFE INSURANCE $92.18
2/27/2019 032488 SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY MARCH 2019 DISABILITY INSURANCE1$ 39.93
Check Nbr 032488 SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY $232.11
2/27/2019 032489 TASC ADMINISTRATION FEE-COBRA
Check Nbr 032489 TASC $10.00
2/27/2019 032490 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE-SERV THRU 2-9-19 $51.01
2/27/2019 032490 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE-SERV THRU 2-9-19 $51.01
2/27/2019 032490 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE-SERV THRU 2-9-19 $51.01
2/27/2019 032490 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONES-SERV THRU 2-9-19 $102.02
Check Nbr 032490 VERIZON WIRELESS $255.05
95
CITY OF CENTERVILLE 02/22/19 11:11 AM
Page 2
Check Detail - February 27, 2019
Check
Date Check# Vender Name Comments Amount
2/27/2019 032491 XCEL ENERGY 7300 MILL RD-SERV THRU-2-4-19 $146.82
2/27/2019 032491 XCEL ENERGY 1880 MAIN ST-SERV THRU 2-6-19 $867.21
2/27/2019 032491 XCEL ENERGY 1880 MAIN ST-CITY HALL/FIRE STAT-SERV THRU 2-6-19 $595.15
2/27/2019 032491 XCEL ENERGY 7285 MAIN ST-SERV THRU 2-4-19 $54.50
2/27/2019 032491 XCEL ENERGY 1889 CENTER ST-SEWER LIFT-SERV THRU 2-4-19 $32.52
2/27/2019 032491 XCEL ENERGY 1600 LAMOTTE DR-WARMING HOUSE-SERV THRU 2-4-19 $248.39
2/27/2019 032491 XCEL ENERGY 1875 FOX RUN-PUMP-SERV THRU 2-4-19 $427.88
2/27/2019 032491 XCEL ENERGY STREET LIGHTS-SERV THRU 2-4-19 $1,997.46
2/27/2019 032491 XCEL ENERGY 7098 CENTERVILLE RD-SERV THRU 2-4-19 $19.32
2/27/2019 032491 XCEL ENERGY 6970 LAMOTTE DR-SERV THRU 2-4-19 $509.99
2/27/2019 032491 XCEL ENERGY 1745 MAIN ST-SERV THRU 2-4-19 $19.32
2/27/2019 032491 XCEL ENERGY 1682 MAIN ST-SERV THRU 2-4-19 $141.57
2/27/2019 032491 XCEL ENERGY 1601 LAMOTTE DR-SERV THRU 2-4-19 $23.27
2/27/2019 032491 XCEL ENERGY 1600 LAMOTTE DR-BALLFIELD LIGHTS-SERV THRU 2-4-19 $191.88
Check Nbr 032491 XCEL ENERGY $5,275.28
Total Checks$42,370.49
Voided Ck#32455
96
CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE DEPT Check Register-Police GL without invoice numbers Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 2/8/2019-2/8/2019 Feb 22, 2019 11:56AM
Report Criteria:
Report type: Summary
GL Check Ck No Description Check
Period Issue Date Payee Amount
02/19 02/08/2019 12382 MN DRIVER&VEHICLE SERVICES NEW LICENSE PLATES 17.00- V
02/19 02/08/2019 12412 SIGNS NOW GRAPHICS RESERVE CAR 577.64- V
02/19 02/08/2019 12444 ANOKA COUNTY 4TH QTR CJDN/MDT 540.00
02/19 02/08/2019 12445 ANOKA CO TREASURY OFFICE FEB BROADBAND 75.00
02/19 02/08/2019 12446 ASPEN MILLS, INC UNIFORMS 155.34
02/19 02/08/2019 12447 AXON ENTERPRISE, INC HOLSTER 128.00
02/19 02/08/2019 12448 BLAINE LOCK&SAFE, INC REKEY LOCK 164.00
02/19 02/08/2019 12449 CHASE TACTICAL, LLC TACTICAL TROOPER T CARRIER 219.17
02/19 02/08/2019 12450 CITY OF CIRCLE PINES 2019 EMP ASSIST PROGRAM 1,500.67
02/19 02/08/2019 12451 DVS RENEWAL 2016 FORD VEH TABS 329.00
02/19 02/08/2019 12452 DEPUTY REGISTRAR#150 2 FORFEITURE VEH TRANSFERS 43.50
02/19 02/08/2019 12453 DON'S CIRCLE SERVICE VEHICLE REPAIRS &MTC 116.00
02/19 02/08/2019 12454 EMERGENCY AUTO TECH ,INC '16 FORD SUV RADAR INSTALL 210.00
02/19 02/08/2019 12455 EMERGENCY CONTRACTORS SNOW REMOVAL SERVICE FEB 815.00
02/19 02/08/2019 12456 KENNEDY&GRAVEN, CHARTERED DEC LEGAL 289.38
02/19 02/08/2019 12457 MN DRIVER&VEHICLE SERVICES NEW LICENSE PLATES SQUAD 25.00
02/19 02/08/2019 12458 O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC SQUAD CARGO STRAPS 9.78
02/19 02/08/2019 12459 QUILL CORPORATION OFFICE SUPPLY DISC PROGRAM 24.00
02/19 02/08/2019 12460 CITY OF ROSEVILLE JANUARY IT SUPPORT 773.00
02/19 02/08/2019 12461 SHRED-N-GO, INC JAN SHREDDING SERVICE 48.83
02/19 02/08/2019 12462 TACTICAL SOLUTIONS CERTIFICATION OF RADAR/TUNING F 305.00
02/19 02/08/2019 12463 TELECIDE PRODUCTIONS, INC JAN COMPUTER MTC&SUPPORT 930.00
02/19 02/08/2019 12464 VERIZON WIRELESS SQUAD LAPTOPS JAN 1,104.27
02/19 02/08/2019 12465 SIGNS NOW GRAPHICS RESERVE CAR 577.64
Grand Totals: 7,787.94
M = Manual Check, V=Void Check
97
CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE DEPT Check Register-Police GL without invoice numbers Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 2/13/2019-2/22/2019 Feb 22, 2019 09:27AM
Report Criteria:
Report type: Summary
GL Check Ck No Description Check
Period Issue Date Payee Amount
02/19 02/13/2019 12466 ABRAMS &SCHMIDT LLC NOV LEGAL FEES 174.00- V
02/19 02/13/2019 12480 ABRAMS &SCHMIDT LLC NOV LEGAL FEES 174.00
02/19 02/22/2019 12484 CENTENNIAL UTILITIES JAN UTILITIES 1,118.73
02/19 02/22/2019 12485 CONNEXUS ENERGY ELECTRIC JANUARY 2,662.60
02/19 02/22/2019 12486 DELTA DENTAL MARCH DENTAL INS 1,389.00
02/19 02/22/2019 12487 DON'S CIRCLE SERVICE VEHICLE REPAIRS &MTC 177.00
02/19 02/22/2019 12488 E C S I, LLC ANNUAL FIRE ALARM MONITORING 360.00
02/19 02/22/2019 12489 HEALTH PARTNERS MARCH HEALTH INS 12,770.45
02/19 02/22/2019 12490 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST 2018 PROPERT/LIAB/VEH INS 1/1-12/3 46,152.00
02/19 02/22/2019 12491 MMKR INC PROGRESS BILLING 2018 AUDIT 1,390.00
02/19 02/22/2019 12492 POPP COMUNICATIONS DSL LINE FOR WIFI 70.90
02/19 02/22/2019 12493 QUILL CORPORATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 96.82
02/19 02/22/2019 12494 THE SIGN PRODUCERS FACILITY UPDATING 1,240.00
02/19 02/22/2019 12495 SUPPLYWORKS TOWELS/TISSUE/LINERS 629.41
02/19 02/22/2019 12496 TASC 2ND QTR COBRA ADMIN FEE 60.30
Grand Totals: 68,117.21
Payroll Check#12481-12483
M = Manual Check, V=Void Check
98
CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE DEPT Check Register-Police GL without invoice numbers Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 2/9/2019-2/12/2019 Feb 12, 2019 06:10PM
Report Criteria:
Report type: Summary
GL Check Ck No Description Check
Period Issue Date Payee Amount
02/19 02/12/2019 12466 ABRAMS &SCHMIDT LLC NOV LEGAL FEES 174.00
02/19 02/12/2019 12467 CENTURY LINK FEB COMMUNICATIONS 119.54
02/19 02/12/2019 12468 CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS PHONES FEB 372.22
02/19 02/12/2019 12469 COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES INC FEB CLEANING SERVICE 780.00
02/19 02/12/2019 12470 DEARBORN NATIONAL MARCH LIFE/DISABILITY INS 1,436.09
02/19 02/12/2019 12471 DON'S CIRCLE SERVICE VEHICLE REPAIRS &MTC 1,863.43
02/19 02/12/2019 12472 HOLIDAY COMPANIES FUEL JANUARY 2,825.50
02/19 02/12/2019 12473 IMAGE PRINTING&GRAPHICS, INC OFFICE ON PREMISE NOTICE 220.19
02/19 02/12/2019 12474 KNOWLAN'S SUPER MARKETS GOVERNING BOARD MEETING SUPP 40.11
02/19 02/12/2019 12475 METRO SALES, INC COPIER CONTRACT USAGE CHG 81.56
02/19 02/12/2019 12476 NEAL A. NOREN JAN BLDG MTC HOURS 165.00
02/19 02/12/2019 12477 OFFICE OF MN IT SERVICES WAN SERVICES JANUARY 57.20
02/19 02/12/2019 12478 QUILL CORPORATION HANGING FILE FOLDERS/TONER/BIN 197.42
02/19 02/12/2019 12479 TRANSUNION RISK&ALTERNATIVE INVESTIGATION EXPENSES JAN 50.00
Grand Totals: 8,382.26
M = Manual Check, V=Void Check
99
CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE DEPT Check Register-Police GL without invoice numbers Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 1/31/2019- 1/31/2019 Feb 12, 2019 06:03PM
Report Criteria:
Report type: Summary
GL Check Ck No Description Check
Period Issue Date Payee Amount
01/19 01/31/2019 2019002 U S BANK VISA EFT-BCA DMT-G CERTIFICATION 1,319.94
Grand Totals: 1,319.94
M = Manual Check, V=Void Check
100
CENTENNIAL FIRE DISTRICT Check Register-FIRE GL Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 2/9/2019-2/21/2019 Feb 21, 2019 02:13PM
Report Criteria:
Report type: Summary
GL Check Check Vendor Description Check
Period Issue Date Number Number Payee Amount
02/19 02/21/2019 8459 31137 CONNEXUS ENERGY JAN ELECTRIC STATION 1 709.05
02/19 02/21/2019 8460 40045 DELTA DENTAL MARCH DENTAL CHIEF&ASST 196.25
02/19 02/21/2019 8461 120331 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TR 2019 WORKERS COMP 2/12/19- 26,589.00
02/19 02/21/2019 8462 120443 THE LINCOLN NATL LIFE INS C MARCH LIFE/DISABILITY INS C 343.61
02/19 02/21/2019 8463 220200 VERIZON WIRELESS 1/5-2/4 MONTLY PH ASST CHIEF 53.66
02/19 02/21/2019 8464 10293 ALL SAFE INC FIRE EXTINGUISHER INSP STA 256.95
02/19 02/21/2019 8465 60300 FIRE SAFETY USA, INC BW CLIP SIGNLE GAS DISPOSA 277.25
02/19 02/21/2019 8466 130205 MMKR, INC PROGRESS BILLING 2018 AUDI 1,390.00
02/19 02/21/2019 8467 200152 THREAD ART LLC UNIFORMS 17 SWEATSHIRTS 558.00
02/19 02/20/2019 2019004 210300 US BANK VISA-MRTC MEMBERSHIP 9 INS 1,226.41
Grand Totals: 31,600.18
Payroll Checks#8454-8458
M = Manual Check, V=Void Check
101
CENTENNIAL FIRE DISTRICT Check Register-FIRE GL Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 1/25/2019-2/8/2019 Feb 08, 2019 04:04PM
Report Criteria:
Report type: Summary
GL Check Check Vendor Description Check
Period Issue Date Number Number Payee Amount
02/19 02/08/2019 8442 30040 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC TONER 357.54
02/19 02/08/2019 8443 220200 VERIZON WIRELESS MOBILE BROADBAND 12/16-1/1 210.06
02/19 02/08/2019 8444 10850 ANOKA COUNTY TREASURY DE FEB BROADBAND 112.50
02/19 02/08/2019 8445 11565 ASPEN MILLS, INC FIREFIGHTER JACKET/SHIRTS/ 458.10
02/19 02/08/2019 8446 30480 CENTENNIAL UTILITIES JAN UTILITIES STATION 1 655.27
02/19 02/08/2019 8447 30575 CITY OF CIRCLE PINES 2019 EAP SERVICES REIMB 1,500.66
02/19 02/08/2019 8448 31050 COMFORT PLUS, HEATING and STATION 3 FURNACE REPAIR 1,063.00
02/19 02/08/2019 8449 50120 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAI ENGINE 11 GAS SPRING 172.33
02/19 02/08/2019 8450 80280 HEALTH PARTNERS MARCH HEALTH INS CHIEF &A 1,675.95
02/19 02/08/2019 8451 130555 MSFCA 2019 ALEX FOTOS TRAINING M. 570.00
02/19 02/08/2019 8452 180600 CITY OF ROSEVILLE JANUARY IT SUPPORT SERVIC 900.00
02/19 02/08/2019 8453 230325 WEX BANK FUEL JAN 375.02
01/19 01/31/2019 2019003 200128 TASC Cobra 2019 annual fees 816.44
Grand Totals: 8,866.87
Check#8438-8441 Payroll
M = Manual Check, V=Void Check
102
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION l
Agenda Item# Department: Requested Council Meeting Date:
VIL4 Public Safety February 27, 2019
TITLE OF ISSUE:
Support for Legislation Requiring Local Approval for Ambulance Service Changes
BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
Currently, ambulance services may be changed without local consent. For instance, if Company A holds rights
to provide ambulance service to our area, they could discontinue serving our area and contract that work out to
Company B, without our consent. This may affect response times and the working relationship between
ambulance service and our public safety personnel.
Attached are a letter from Lino Lakes public safety, addressed to their Council with some background info, a
resolution in support of the legislation and the proposed legislation itself.
COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING:
No direct cost.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to adopt Resolution 19-XX Support of Legislation Requiring Local Municipal Approval of any Change
Affecting its Ambulance Primary Service Area.
For Clerk's Use:
SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
Motion By:
Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map
Second By:
Vote Record: Ave Nay
�� Lakso Other(specify) As noted above
Love
Paar
Koski
Montain
Administration Department Use:
Refer to:
Consent
Tabled Until:
Regular
Other:
103
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 4B
STAFF ORIGINATOR: John Swenson, Public Safety Director
MEETING DATE: January 14, 2019
TOPIC: Ambulance Primary Service Area—Legislative Change
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Passage of this Council Resolution would demonstrates the City of Lino Lakes desire to
address lack of local input in the assignment and management of the Ambulance Primary
Service Area(PSA) as regulated by the EMSRM though a legislative language change.
BACKGROUND
The Minnesota Emergency Medical Services Regulatory Board(]I 3)was created by the
Minnesota Legislature in 1995 to regulate emergency medical services in the state. As such the
EMSRB oversees the assignment of Primary Service Areas (PSA) for all ambulance services in
the State.
The ambulance PSA that covers all of Lino Lakes is assigned to Fairview Hospital in
Wyoming. North Memorial Ambulance continues to provide ambulance service to Lino Lakes
through a contract with Fairview. This contract has been reviewed twice in the past 4 years by
Fairview with no changes in the ambulance provider, with the current contract due to be
reviewed in June of 2019. It should be noted that when this contract was reviewed by Fairview
no input was solicited from local jurisdictions nor is there any requirements for such input.
This failure to require local approval in ambulance PSAs creates the potential for significant
changes to emergency services provided to communities with no local input.
The Lino Lakes Public Safety Department responds to all medical calls for service in Lino
Lakes and provides emergency medical services in partnership with our ambulance provider.
As a result of this collaborative partnership any changes to the emergency medical system
would have an impact to the services provided. For example, if the ambulance provider
reduced the number of ambulances providing services to this area the response time for
ambulance service would increase. This increase in ambulance response times would require
our staff to spend more time on medical calls for service and require a higher level of care
provided. If this scenario were to occur it would have a budgetary impact for the Lino Lakes
community.
In order to proactively address this, staff has drafted a resolution seeking a legislative change
that would require local jurisdiction approval for changes to ambulance PSA. This proposed
legislative change reflects the collaborative nature of our current emergency medical services
104
system and safeguards local jurisdictions from potential changes in ambulance service and
subsequent budgetary impacts.
If the Council would like to move forward with this resolution, staff will work with other
jurisdictions interested in supporting a legislative change as well. Staff will also work with our
local legislative delegation to address this matter.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council approve Resolution 19-07 seeking legislative language change
to require local approval of any changes to ambulance primary service area resulting in change
in the provider or level of emergency medical services.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution 19-07
105
City of Centerville
Res.#19-0
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION
REQUIRING LOCAL MUNICIPAL APPROVAL FOR ANY CHANGE
AFFECTING ITS AMBULANCE PRIMARY SERVICE AREA
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Emergency Medical Services Regulatory Board (EMSRB) is empowered to
regulate and assign a Primary Service Area (PSA)for all ambulance services in the State of Minnesota;
and
WHEREAS, current law and rules do not require local jurisdiction approval for changes to an ambulance
PSA; and
WHEREAS, changes in ambulance services impact emergency medical services delivered to a local
jurisdiction's residents; and
WHEREAS, local jurisdictions first response agencies are a vital member of emergency medical services;
and
WHEREAS, any changes to ambulance services in local jurisdictions may require a local jurisdiction to
change response protocols resulting in budgetary impacts for the local jurisdiction.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Centerville, Minnesota does
hereby states its support for legislation that requires local municipal approval for any change affecting
its ambulance primary service area as regulated by the EMSRB.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Centerville this day of 2019.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member
and was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
ATTEST:
Teresa Bender, City Clerk Jeff Paar, Mayor
106
02/11/19 10:01 am HOUSE RESEARCH BV EK061-1
1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 relating to health;requiring consultation with and approval by affected
1.3 municipalities before approval or implementation of a change in services provided
1.4 by an ambulance service;amending Minnesota Statutes 2018,sections 144E.001,
1.5 by adding a subdivision; 144E.07,by adding a subdivision; 144E.11,subdivisions
1.6 3,4,6,7; 144E.14; 144E.15;proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes,
1.7 chapter 144E.
1.8 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.9 Section 1.Minnesota Statutes 2018,section 144E.001,is amended by adding a subdivision
1.10 to read:
1.11 Subd. 5i. Change in services provided by an ambulance service. "Change in services
1.12 provided by an ambulance service"means:
1.13 (1)a change in the ambulance service designated by the board to serve the primary
1.14 service area where the municipality is located;
1.15 (2)a change in the ambulance service operating ambulances in the primary service area
1.16 where the municipality is located,by entering into or terminating a contract with the
1.17 ambulance service designated by the board;
1.18 (3)a change in the number of ambulances being operated in the primary service area
1.19 where the municipality is located;
1.20 (4)a change in the number or type of ambulance service personnel staffing ambulances
1.21 in the primary service area where the municipality is located;
1.22 (5)a transfer of the license or ownership of the ambulance service in the primary service
1.23 area where the municipality is located;
Section 1. 1
107
02/11/19 10:01 am HOUSE RESEARCH BV EK061-1
2.1 (6)relocation of an ambulance service's base of operations in the primary services area
2.2 where the municipality is located;
2.3 (7)a change in the type of service provided in the primary service area where the
2.4 municipality is located; or
2.5 (8)a change in the boundaries of the primary service area where the municipality is
2.6 located.
2.7 Sec.2. Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 144E.07,is amended by adding a subdivision to
2.8 read:
2.9 Subd. 4a. Municipal consultation and approval required.An ambulance service
2.10 seeking to change its primary service area under this section must consult with each
2.11 municipality affected by the proposed change. The board shall not approve an ambulance
2.12 service's application under this section unless the change is approved by each municipality
2.13 affected by the proposed change,as required by section 144E.105.
2.14 Sec.3. [144E.1051 MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION AND APPROVAL REQUIRED.
2.15 Subdivision 1. System to inform and consult with municipalities.The board shall
2.16 establish a system for the board and licensed ambulance services to inform an affected
2.17 municipality of a change in services provided by an ambulance service in the primary service
2.18 area where the municipality is located,and to consult with affected municipalities about
2.19 the proposed changes prior to implementation. The system shall be designed to inform
2.20 municipalities of a proposed change in a timely way;allow affected municipalities to provide
2.21 feedback and express any concerns about a proposed change;provide a mechanism for
2.22 affected municipalities to approve or disapprove a proposed change; and allow the board,
2.23 ambulance services,and affected municipalities to cooperatively modify aproposed change
2.24 to address any concerns expressed by affected municipalities.
2.25 Subd. 2.Affected municipality;consultation and approval required.Before the board
2.26 approves or an ambulance service implements a change in services provided by an ambulance
2.27 service,the board or ambulance service must consult with each municipality affected by
2.28 the proposed change. The board shall not approve,and an ambulance shall not implement,
2.29 a change in services provided by an ambulance service,unless the change is approved by
2.30 each municipality affected by the proposed change.
Sec.3. 108
02/11/19 10:01 am HOUSE RESEARCH BV EK061-1
3.1 Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 144E.11, subdivision 3,is amended to read:
3.2 Subd. 3. Comments;consultation.Each municipality,county,community health board,
3.3 governing body of a regional emergency medical services system,ambulance service,and
3.4 other person wishing to make recommendations concerning the disposition of the application
3.5 shall make written recommendations or comments opposing the application to the board
3.6 within 30 days of the publication of notice of the application in the State Register.If approval
3.7 of the application would result in a change in services provided by an ambulance service,
3.8 the board and ambulance service must consult with each municipality affected by the
3.9 proposed change,as required by section 144E.105.
3.10 Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 144E.11, subdivision 4,is amended to read:
3.11 Subd. 4. Contested case exemption; procedure.(a)If no more than five written
3.12 comments opposing the application have been received by the board under subdivision 3,
3.13 and the board has determined,after considering the factors listed under subdivision 6,that
3.14 the proposed service or expansion of primary service area is needed,the applicant shall be
3.15 exempt from the contested case hearing process under subdivision 5.
3.16 (b)An applicant exempted from a contested case hearing under this subdivision shall
3.17 furnish additional information,as requested by the board,to support its application. The
3.18 board shall approve the application and grant a license to the applicant within 30 days after
3.19 final submission of requested information to the board,and upon a determination by the
3.20 board that the applicant is in compliance with the rules adopted by the board and with the
3.21 inspection requirements of section 144E.18. If approval of the application would result in
3.22 a change in services provided by an ambulance service,the board shall not approve the
3.23 application unless the application is approved by each affected municipality that is located
3.24 in the applicant's primary service area,as required by section 144E.105.
3.25 (c)If an applicant does not comply with the inspection requirements under section
3.26 144E.18 within one year of the board's approval of its application,the license shall be denied.
3.27 The one-year time limit applies to any licensing decision made by the board or to any prior
3.28 licensing decision made by the commissioner of health or an administrative law judge.
3.29 (d)If, after considering the factors under subdivision 6,the board determines that the
3.30 proposed service or expansion of primary service area is not needed,the case shall be treated
3.31 as a contested case under subdivision 5,paragraphs(c)to(g).
Sec.5. 3
1
02/11/19 10:01 am HOUSE RESEARCH BV EK061-1
4.1 Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 144E.11, subdivision 6,is amended to read:
4.2 Subd. 6. Review criteria.When reviewing an application for licensure,the board and
4.3 administrative law judge shall consider the following factors:
4.4 (1)the recommendations or comments of the governing bodies of the counties,
4.5 municipalities,community health boards,and regional emergency medical services system
4.6 designated under section 144E.50 in which the service would be provided;
4.7 (2)the deleterious effects on the public health from duplication,if any, of ambulance
4.8 services that would result from granting the license;
4.9 (3)for a change in services provided by an ambulance service,whether the change was
4.10 approved by each affected municipality;
4.11 (4)the estimated effect of the proposed service or expansion in primary service area on
4.12 the public health; and
4.13 (4) 5�whether any benefit accruing to the public health would outweigh the costs
4.14 associated with the proposed service or expansion in primary service area. )The
4.15 administrative law judge shall recommend that the board either grant or deny a license or
4.16 recommend that a modified license be granted. The reasons for the recommendation shall
4.17 be set forth in detail. The administrative law judge shall make the recommendations and
4.18 reasons available to any individual requesting them.
4.19 Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 144E.11, subdivision 7,is amended to read:
4.20 Subd. 7. Licensing decision.After receiving the administrative law judge's report,the
4.21 board shall approve or deny the application and grant the license within 60 days if the
4.22 application is approved,and upon determination by the board,that the applicant is in
4.23 compliance with the rules adopted by the board and with the inspection requirements of
4.24 section 144E.18.If approval of the application would result in a change in services provided
4.25 by an ambulance service,the board shall not approve the application unless the application
4.26 is approved by each affected municipality that is located in the applicant's primary service
4.27 area,as required by section 144E.105.In approving or denying an application,the board
4.28 shall consider the administrative law judge's report,the evidence contained in the application,
4.29 and any hearing record and other applicable evidence. The board's decision shall be based
4.30 on a consideration of the factors contained in subdivision 6.If the board determines to grant
4.31 the applicant a license,the applicant must comply with the inspection requirements under
4.32 144E.18 within one year of the board's approval of the application or the license will be
Sec.7. 4
1
02/11/19 10:01 am HOUSE RESEARCH BV EK061-1
5.1 denied. This one-year time limit applies to any licensing decision by the board or to any
5.2 prior licensing decision made by the commissioner of health or an administrative law judge.
5.3 Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 144E.14,is amended to read:
5.4 144E.14 TRANSFER OF LICENSE OR OWNERSHIP.
5.5 A license,or the ownership of a licensed ambulance service,may be transferred only
5.6 upon approval ofd the board,based upon a finding that the proposed licensee or proposed
5.7 new owner of a licensed ambulance service meets or will meet the requirements of sections
5.8 144E.101 to 144E.127;and(2)each affected municipality,as required by section 144E.105.
5.9 If the proposed transfer would result in an addition of a new base of operations,expansion
5.10 of the service's primary service area,or provision of a new type or types of ambulance
5.11 service,the board shall require the prospective licensee or owner to comply with section
5.12 144E.11. The board may approve the license or ownership transfer prior to completion of
5.13 the application process described in section 144E.11 upon obtaining written assurances
5.14 from the proposed licensee or proposed new owner that no expansion of the service's primary
5.15 service area or provision of a new type or types of ambulance service will occur during the
5.16 processing of the application.If requesting a transfer of its base of operations,an applicant
5.17 must comply with the requirements of section 144E.15.
5.18 Sec. 9. Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 144E.15,is amended to read:
5.19 144E.15 RELOCATION OF BASE OF OPERATIONS.
5.20 To relocate the base of operations to another municipality or township within its primary
5.21 service area,a licensee must provide written notification to the board prior to relocating.
5.22 The board shall review the proposal to determine if relocation would adversely affect service
5.23 coverage within the primary service area. The applicant must furnish any additional
5.24 information requested by the board to support its proposed transfer. The board shall not
5.25 approve the relocation proposal unless the proposal is approved by each affected municipality
5.26 that is located in the licensee's primary service area,as required by section 144E.105.If the
5.27 board does not approve the relocation proposal,the licensee must comply with the application
5.28 requirements for a new license under section 144E.11.
Sec.9. 111
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION Verville
Agenda Item# Department: Requested Council Meeting Date:
Administration February 27, 2019
TITLE OF ISSUE:
Election to Cover Elected and Appointed Officials
BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
Each year, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) asks City Council, as part of the insurance
contract renewal, to decide if they want to cover elected and appointed officials under the city's Worker's
Compensation Policy for accidents that may occur while on city business. An accident that renders a council
member or board member unable to work could be catastrophic if it means no income for a lengthy period of
time. Staff feels it is appropriate to cover all city council and board members. Our existing resolution from
2012 does not list the Economic Development Authority members as being covered. We wish to add them
since our renewal of coverage starts on March 1, 2019.
COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING:
Modest cost to be funded through general fund insurance money allocated in the budget.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution as presented.
For Clerk's Use:
SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
Motion By:
Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map
Second By:
X
Vote Record: Ave Nay
Lakso Other(specify)
Love
Paar
Koski
Montain
Administration Department Use:
Refer to:
Consent
Tabled Until:
Regular L=
Other:
112
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
Resolution # 19-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WORKERS COMPENSATION COVERAGE
FOR ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the City Council has investigated the cost and benefits of providing worker's
compensation coverage to elected and appointed officials; and
WHEREAS,the Council determines that elected and appointed officials have some risk of injury while acting
on behalf of the City which could leave an official unable to work at his/her regular job, thus putting them at
serious financial peril,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Centerville that:
1. Pursuant to Minnesota Workers Compensation Act, Minnesota Statutes 176.011, subd. 9, clause 6 the
following officers of the City of Centerville, elected or appointed are hereby included in the City's
workers compensation coverage:
• The Mayor and Council Members
• Members of Parks & Recreation Committee
• Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission
• Members of the Economic Development Authority
2. This action shall be effective and coverage shall be provided with the next policy renewal.
Passed and Adopted by the City of Centerville this 27th day of February, 2019.
Mayor, Jeff Paar
City Clerk, Teresa Bender
113
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION l
Agenda Item# Department: Requested Council Meeting Date:
VIII.1 Planning February 27, 2019
TITLE OF ISSUE:
Bay View Villas - Revised CUP/PUD
BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
The developer of Bay View Villas would like to revise their approved Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Unit Development to allow swimming pools and hot tubs, under limited circumstances.
The original request put in front of the planning commission asked only for small, motorized lap pools and
hot-tubs. However, at the meeting, the developer asked to revise that request to include larger pools,provided
they meet city code. The attached email from the developer, outlines his current request.
The Planning Commission took the following action: Motion by Commissioner Broussard Vickers,
seconded by Commissioner Haiden to Table this item Allowing Council to Take Action if Deemed Suitable
with the Inclusion of Swimming Pools. All in favor. Motion carried.
COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING:
No direct cost.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to approve the revisions to the Conditional Use Permit for Bay View Villas based on the attached
request, with specific language to be approved by the City Attorney.
For Clerk's Use:
SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
Motion By:
Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map
Second By:
Vote Record: Ave Nay
�� Lakso Other(specify) Note from Developer
Love
Paar
Koski
Montain
Administration Department Use:
Refer to:
Consent
Tabled Until:
Regular
Other:
114
From: Tom Budzvnski
To: Mark Statz; Rich Defoe;Jim Boo
Subject: Bayview Villas water features
Date: Wednesday,February 20,2019 9:29:33 AM
Mark,
Here is what looking for
Hot tubs and pools will be allowed that fit within the setbacks as defined by
Centerville City code.
Hot tubs will be allowed under decks and porches and not exceed 96 sq ft in
size. Hot tubs must follow all safety requirements.
No perimeter yard fences are allowed.
If a pool is approved the fence shall only enclose the pool area and not the
yard. The fence shall be allowed to go beyond the pool edge to a max of 15'.
The Homeowners Association shall approve all fencing and water features. If
pool fencing is allowed it shall be of the decorative style Aluminum/wrought
iron picket style.
This cover everything that I saw
Call with questions
Jim, Rich any other thoughts?
Tom
m
115
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION Verville
Agenda Item# Department: Requested Council Meeting Date:
1X.1 Administration February 27, 2019
TITLE OF ISSUE:
Rebranding Committee
BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
As part of our 2018 goals, we identified rebranding the city as a priority. City staff would like to have a small
working group to coordinate these efforts with made up of 2 members of the City Council and 1 member of the
EDA. Having this committee would allow staff to gain input in a timely fashion without creating open meeting
law issues by soliciting input from the entire City Council.
We envision an initial, in-person meeting, after which, the committee may often meet via phone conference
and/or through simple email correspondence.
COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING:
No direct cost.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to appoint two members of the City Council to a Rebranding Committee.
For Clerk's Use:
SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
Motion By:
Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map
Second By:
Vote Record: Ave Nay
�� Lakso Other(specify)
Love
Paar
Koski
Montain
Administration Department Use:
Refer to:
Consent
Tabled Until:
Regular
Other:
116
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION Verville
Agenda Item# Department: Requested Council Meeting Date:
IX.2 Administration February 27, 2019
TITLE OF ISSUE:
Joint Goal Setting Meeting
BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
Annually, the city invites all Committees/Commissions to a joint meeting for the purposes of setting goals for
the upcoming year.
COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING:
$750 (per meeting stipends) - General Fund
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to set Joint Committee Goal Setting Meeting for March 27, 2019 at 5:30 PM.
For Clerk's Use:
SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
Motion By:
Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map
Second By:
Vote Record: Ave Nay
�� Lakso Other(specify)
Love
Paar
Koski
Montain
Administration Department Use:
Refer to:
Consent
Tabled Until:
Regular
Other:
117
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION Verville
Agenda Item# Department: Requested Council Meeting Date:
IX.3 Planning February 27, 2019
TITLE OF ISSUE:
Block 7 Soil Borings
BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
One of the major questions surrounding the feasibility of constructing a building on Block 7, in the downtown
is whether or not the soils and groundwater conditions will support the use of underground parking. In
conversations with our realtor, we have concluded that having a limited scope soils investigation done,
including a measurement of the water table, would allow prospective buyers to better understand what can be
built on site. We have obtained two quotes for the work.
American Engineering Testing - $4,450
Northern Technologies, Inc. - $3,750
COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING:
$3,750 - General Fund- Economic Development
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to approve proposal from Northern Technologies, Inc.
For Clerk's Use:
SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
Motion By:
Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map
Second By:
Vote Record: Ave Nay
�� Lakso Other(specify) Proposals
Love
Paar
Koski
Montain
Administration Department Use:
Refer to:
Consent
Tabled Until:
Regular
Other:
118
NTI" Riva i Gl'ovi Height MIN J✓6
� ,L,� �J�ia'rl o- ��L4���J.�a .J�� Unearthingconfidence-
NORTHERN
oU"i idonCo-
NORTHERN
'TECHNOLOGIES,LLC www.NTigeo.com
February 18, 2019
City of Centerville
Attention: Mark Statz, PE
1880 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55038
RE: Proposal for Geotechnical Services
7073 Centerville Road Development
Centerville, Minnesota
NTI Proposal P9095
We are pleased to submit our proposal to perform Geotechnical Services for the above referenced project. The
purpose of this study is to collect representative soil samples, analyze the subsurface soil and groundwater
conditions, and to furnish a preliminary geotechnical engineering report with preliminary design and
construction recommendations.
The proposed project concept is still under development but is likely to consist of an apartment building that is
two to four stories in height and may have a below-grade basement level. The proposed project will also include
the construction of the associated underground utilities and at grade parking/drive lanes.
SCOPE OF WORK
The following is our proposed work scope based on the request for proposal provided by the City of Centerville.
NTI will mark the proposed boring locations. We will make you aware of these field activities before proceeding
to the site to allow you the option to notify any pertinent parties prior to NTI's field work.
NTI will contact the Minnesota "One-Call" system for clearance of public utilities within the area of the soil
borings. NTI assumes that a representative of the owner will locate any existing private utilities that may be
onsite. If the owner is unwilling or unable to locate the private utilities, NTI can provide a private locator. The
cost of the locator would be a reimbursable expense and is not included within the fee indicated below.
NTI will then mobilize a truck mounted drill to the site to drill two borings each to a depth of approximately 25
feet below existing grade. The total lineal feet of drilling proposed is 50 feet. Borings may be terminated early if
soil/bedrock conditions resulting in practical auger refusal are encountered prior to the proposed termination
depths. If soft soils,fill or organic soils are encountered near termination we will continue drilling a reasonable
depth until a minimum of 10 feet of suitable foundation soils are observed.
;i', �>q
Proposal for Geotechnical Services
7073 Centerville Road Project
Centerville, Minnesota
NTI will install a temporary water level indicator to check ground water elevations approximately 24 hours later.
The borehole will then be abandoned per Minnesota Department of Health guidelines.
NTI has assumed that there is reasonable access to the proposed borehole locations. This would include slopes
suitable for traversing with a geotechnical drill rig, safe working distances from utilities, removal of site
obstructions that prohibit access to the proposed borehole locations, etc. In addition, drill rig access to the
proposed boring locations may result in cracking of onsite pavements or sidewalks and rutting of site soils. NTI
will take reasonable precautions to prevent such damage but repair and final restoration inclusive of settled
borings shall be performed by others at no charge to NTI.
Soil sampling in the borings will be performed at 2-1/2-foot intervals to a depth of 15 feet with additional
samples obtained at 5-foot intervals thereafter. Soil sampling will be performed in general accordance with
ASTM D 1586. A geotechnical engineer will visually classify field-collected samples in general accordance with
ASTM D 2488. Each soil sample's color, relative moisture, SPT N-value, relative density, consistency and
estimated compressive strength will be documented on soil boring logs.
We will measure for the presence of groundwater or lack thereof when we complete each soil boring. We will
backfill the soil borings with soil cuttings or high solids bentonite grout to comply with current Minnesota
Department of Health Regulations.
We will perform laboratory tests on selected soil samples, this may include:
1. Plastic/liquid limit tests on cohesive soils.
2. Moisture tests.
3. Gradations.
4. Organic content tests.
Upon completion of the field and laboratory work, a preliminary geotechnical engineering report will be
prepared. The report will include the logs of the borings, location drawing, and the results of the field and
laboratory tests. In addition, the report will include our preliminary engineering opinions and recommendations
regarding:
120
Proposal for Geotechnical Services
7073 Centerville Road Project
Centerville, Minnesota
1. Site preparation and excavation recommendations.
2. Engineered fill and compaction recommendations.
3. Estimated depths of unsuitable soils to be removed at each boring location.
4. Anticipation and management of groundwater for design and construction.
5. Recommendation for foundation design.
6. Bearing capacity and allowable loads.
7. Potential construction difficulties regarding excavation and backfill.
8. Estimated R-Value for use in bituminous pavement design.
9. Estimated subgrade modulus "K"for floor slab and concrete pavement design.
10. Recommended pavement design thickness.
11. Lateral earth pressure parameters for below-grade wall design.
12. Estimated stormwater infiltration design rates based upon soil type correlation with the Minnesota
Stormwater Manual.
Additional field exploration and engineering analysis will be required to develop the final geotechnical
evaluation report once the project concept is finalized.
NTI's engineers are also available to provide geotechnical guidance to the design team, evaluate value
engineered alternatives, review earthwork, groundwater control, and other civil plans and specifications as an
additional service. NTI's engineers, special inspectors and technicians are available to provide construction and
materials testing services once the project construction begins. This provides professional continuity of services
throughout the design and construction of the project.
DELIVERABLES
NTI will provide an electronic PDF copy of the final report to the client. Two bound hard copies are available
upon request.
COST
We will perform the base geotechnical exploration and report described above for a fixed fee of$3,750.
Additional services outside of the scope of services outlined above will be invoiced as shown below. NTI will
contact the design team for these additional services prior to commencement.
121
Proposal for Geotechnical Services
7073 Centerville Road Project
Centerville, Minnesota
Additional Item Cost
Additional 25-foot deep borings at $650 per additional boring requested.
The time of the original mobilization
Additional Mobilizations $500 each
Additional MDH permits $125 each
Post report consultation, in excess of 2 hours $125 per hour
Private Utility Locate Services Not Anticipated to be Needed. Cost plus 10 percent,if
required.
Other services Per our standard fee schedule, less 10%
Our fees assume that the soil can be disposed of on site, such as by thin spreading near the borehole. Additional
fees may apply for handling the spoils or for containerizing (drumming) spoils. Environmental hazard testing may
be required for disposal to a landfill, if needed.
NTI's fees assume that the work may be performed with standard construction Personal Protective Equipment
(PPE), including hard hats, safety glasses, hearing protection and visibility equipment such as vests. If additional
PPE is required, such as for drilling in an environmentally contaminated area or in a confined space, additional
fees will apply.
As of July 1, 2017, MDH has modified the requirements for abandonment of geotechnical soil bore holes. The
new mandate requires that a bore hole permit application is submitted along with a sealing report for each site
where borings deeper than 15 feet have been performed.Additionally, any boring 15 feet or greater must be
sealed using bentonite grout.This proposal includes our fee for this additional requirement.
SCHEDULE
Upon receiving authorization to proceed, the field work will typically begin in approximately 8 to 12 business
days and will take approximately 1 day to complete. The report will be issued to you within 7 to 10 business
days of completion of the field work. Boring logs and verbal information regarding our findings can be provided
within 2 to 3 days after the field work has been completed.
ACCEPTANCE
Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal by signing on the signature block below and returning a copy to
us. The attached General Conditions are an integral part of this proposal. This proposal is effective until March
30, 2019.
122
Proposal for Geotechnical Services
7073 Centerville Road Project
Centerville, Minnesota
We thank you for the opportunity of submitting this proposal and look forward to working with you through
both the design and construction phase of this project. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please
contact the undersigned at 763-433-9175.
NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC CITY OF CENTERVILLE
By
Richard S. Jett, EIT
Staff Engineer
Printed Name:
Ryan M. Benson, PE
Vice President
Title:
Attachments: General Conditions Date:
123
m�un�0
GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS
1.0 CONTRACT
a. The foregoing Proposal and these General Terms and Conditions b. Client will immediately transmit to NTI any new information that
constitute the contract (hereinafter, "Contract") between Northern becomes available to Client or Client's contractors or subcontractors,
Technologies, LLC, (hereinafter, "NTI") and the party signing the so that recommended actions can be reviewed.
Client Authorization(hereinafter,"Client") C. Client will provide a representative to answer questions about the
b. If Client directs NTI to proceed with Services(as defined below)prior project when required by NTI upon 24-hour notice.
to execution of this Contract,or if Client allows NTI to continue with d. Client will not hold NTI liable for any incorrect advice,judgment, or
Services after having received this Contract, it is understood that decision based on any inaccurate information furnished by or on
each party is bound by the terms and conditions of this Contract behalf of Client,and Client will indemnify NTI against liability arising
whether or not Client has signed this Contract. out of or contributed to by such information.
2.0 SERVICES e. NTI shall be entitled to additional compensation for all extra work
a. NTI will provide Client with the services specified in the Proposal caused by or resulting from the failure of the information provided
(hereinafter, "Services" or "Scope of Services") in accordance with to accurately describe the Site conditions.
the Contract's terms.Services enumerated in writing in the Contract f. With the exception of those specified as NTI's responsibility in the
are considered Basic Services. Services not specifically enumerated Scope of Services, Client shall timely obtain all necessary permits,
in writing in the Contract are not included in the scope of NTI's governmental approvals and access agreements to allow NTI and its
Services and are not NTI's responsibility. agents access to the Site and any buildings thereon.
b. Should the need arise for NTI to expand our services in response to g. Client is responsible for notifying property owner(s) of the nature,
conditions or events outside our control, NTI would, under Client's scope and timing of NTI's work, along with any potential damage
direction, submit a separate proposal providing such Additional that may occur during the execution of said work.
Services.Additional Services are not included under Basic Services nor h. Client shall provide reasonable safe access to the proposed location
are theycovered by the compensation for Basic Services. of work including but not limited to slopes, distance from unities,
C. NTI will provide Services to Client as an independent contractor and removal of site obstructions,etc.
not as the Client's employee,agent,partner,orjoint venturer. 5.0 NTI RESPONSIBILITIES
d. NTI shall have no responsibility for the discovery,presence,handling, a. NTI will perform its Services consistent with the level of care and skill
removal or disposal of, or exposure of persons to, hazardous ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical and materials
materials or toxic substances in any form at the project site.If,while testing profession currently practicing under similar conditions(the
performing the Services any hazardous substances or conditions are "Standard of Care"). No warranty of any kind,expressed or implied,
discovered or encountered that pose unanticipated risks or costs, it is made by NTI.
is agreed that the scope of Services, time schedule and the b. NTI will be responsible for its data, interpretation and
estimated Contract costs shall be reconsidered and that this recommendations, but will not be responsible for interpretation by
Contract may,at NTI's option,be re-negotiated or terminated.If the others.
Contract is so terminated, Client shall pay NTI for the Services C. NTI will take reasonable precautions to prevent damage to property.
performed up to the date of termination plus NTI's reasonable However, unless specifically included in the Scope of Services NTI
termination and demobilization costs and expenses. will not be responsible for the repair or cost of repairs of property
e. If NTI's performance of the Services is delayed by Client or by any including but not limited to pavements, turf, walks, vegetation,
other circumstance beyond NTI's direct and reasonable control,then utilities,irrigation,buildings or any other site improvements.
the time for NTI's completion of the Services shall be automatically 6.0 INSURANCE
extended based upon the duration and impact of each such delay a. NTI will carry worker's compensation insurance and public liability,
and NTI shall be entitled to additional compensation from Client property damage,and errors and omissions insurance policies,which
3.0 GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES NTI considers adequate. In addition to any other limitations set
a. NTI shall not be responsible for the performance of any activity or forth in this Contract, it is agreed that in no event will NTI be
obligation other than the Services specified in the Contract,and NTI's responsible for loss, damage or liability beyond the limits and
performance shall not be construed as relieving Client or any third conditions of NTI's available insurance. NTI will not be responsible
party of their responsibilities. NTI shall have no responsibility for,or for any loss or liability arising from the negligence of Client or by
any liability pertaining to: (1) the superintending, supervising, or other persons or entities employed by Client.
directing of the work of any independent contractor, agent or 7.0 COMPENSATION
employee of Client or any third party; or (2) the results or a. NTI's Proposal specifies if the fee is a fixed fee or an estimate based
consequences of work performed by any such independent on set rates. Unless specifically stated in the Proposal Client
contractor,agent or employee of Client or any third party;or(3)any acknowledges that the fee estimate will not be construed to be a
claims or allegations of rights by any person or party other than maximum or not to exceed amount.
Client relating to NTI's Services; or (4) for job site safety at the b. NTI will submit invoices to client monthly, and a final invoice upon
location which is the subject of this Contract(hereinafter,"Site"). completion of Services. Invoices will show charges based on current
b. NTI will be responsible for obtaining only those government permits, NTI Fee Schedule or other basis agreed upon in writing. A detailed
approvals and authorizations that are specified in the Scope of separation of charges and backup data will be provided at Client's
Services of the Contract. NTI is not responsible for project delays, request.
damages or impacts due to the government's failure to issue said C. Client shall notify NTI immediately if there are any issues relating to
permits in a timely fashion. the invoice format,amounts,name of responsible party or any other
C. Unless otherwise expressly agreed by NTI and Client in writing NTI's factors preventing payment ofthe invoice as submitted.
performance of its Services is solely and exclusively for the benefit of d. Unless specifically stated in the Proposal, NTI's fees will not be
the Client and no party other than Client shall be entitled to rely subject to retainage.
upon any documentation, representation, report, statement or e. Unless specifically stated in the Proposal,payment of invoices for NTI
service made or performed by NTI. Services shall not be contingent upon project financing or payments
4.0 CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES received by the Client from other parties.
a. Client will make available to NTI all known information regarding f. The Client will pay the balance stated on the invoices unless Client
existing and proposed requirements which affects the work, notifies NTI in writing of the particular item that is alleged to be
including but not limited to: specifications, contracts, incorrect within fifteen (15) days from the invoice date. NTI will
recommendations,plans and change orders. strive to resolve Client's concerns in a timely manner as long as the
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
124
m�un�0
GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS
balance of the invoice is paid within the terms of this Contract. In like indemnity and limitations of liability on their part as against NTI.
the event Client fails to bring a billing dispute to NTI's attention In the event the Client fails to obtain a like limitation and indemnity,
within the 15-day period,Client waives the right to later dispute the Client agrees to indemnify NTI for any liability to any third party.
invoice. d. NTI shall have no liability for any failure to perform or delay in
g. Payment is due upon receipt of invoice and is considered past due performance due to any circumstances beyond its reasonable
thirty(30)days from invoice date. On past due accounts,Client will control.Additionally,in no event shall NTI be liable or responsible to
pay a late charge of 1.5(%) per month,or the maximum allowed by Client or any other person for any consequential,special,incidental,
law. exemplary, or punitive damages, including but not limited to,
h. In the event Client fails to pay NTI within sixty(60) days following governmental fines, penalties or liabilities, lost profits or other
invoice date, NTI may consider the default a total breach of this economic loss (whether arising from negligence, errors, omissions,
Contract and all duties of NTI under this Contract will be terminated. breach of contract, breach of warranty, tort, strict liability or
i. Partial payments received will first be applied to accrued late otherwise), resulting from any claimed defect or deficiency in the
charges,then expenses and then to the principal balance. Services provided by NTI or any failure by NTI to provide Services.
j. Client agrees that NTI may increase its billing rates/fees on each 11.0 TERMINATION
anniversary of this Contract. a. This agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven (7)
8.0 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS/SAMPLES days written notice if there is substantial failure by the other party to
a. The Client acknowledges that the reports, data,plans,specifications, perform. Termination will not be effective if substantial failure is
representations, correspondence and all other documents remedied before expiration of the seven days. Upon termination,
prepared by NTI as part of its Services under this Contract other than for NTI's default, NTI will be paid for Services rendered
(collectively referred to as"Documentation") are instruments of plus reasonable termination expenses.
NTI's service to Client. Client agrees to save,defend,indemnify and b. If the Contract is terminated prior to completion of all reports
hold NTI and its officers, directors, shareholders, employees and contemplated by the agreement,or suspended for more than three
agents harmless from and against all claims, damages, losses and (3)months, NTI may complete analysis and records as are necessary
related expenses (including, without limitation, all reasonable to complete its files and may complete a report on the Services
attorney fees,disbursements, expert witness fees and all costs of performed. Termination or suspension expenses will include direct
court and litigation) in any manner arising from or pertaining to: costs of completing analysis,records and report.
(a) any re-use of the Documentation without the prior written 12.0 ASSIGNS
authorization of NTI or,(b)claim(s) by any third party (other than a. Neither party may assign duties or interest in the Contract without
Client) to whom Client distributed or provided any of the the written consent of the other party.
Documentation,either directly, through an agent,or by requesting 13.0 MISCELLANEOUS
that NTI provide it to the third party, without the prior written a. If any provision or provisions of this Contract shall be held to be
authorization of NTI. invalid, illegal, unenforceable or in conflict with the law of any
b. Client agrees that all reports and other work furnished to the Client jurisdiction,the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining
or his agents,which are not paid for,will be returned upon demand provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.
and will not be used by the Client for any purpose. b. This Contract is the entire agreement between NTI and Client and
C. NTI will retain all pertinent records concerning Services performed it supersedes all prior written or oral agreements with respect to
for a period of two(2)years after the report is sent;during that time the subject matter hereof. No amendment or assignment of the
the records will be made available to the Client during NTI's normal Contract shall be effective unless agreed to in a writing signed by
business hours. authorized representatives of both parties.
d. NTI will retain representative samples for 30 days after submission C. The provisions of this Contract relating to the limitation of
of NTI report. Upon request by Client, samples can be shipped, liability and damages, warranties, indemnification, use of plans,
charges collect, to destination selected by Client; or NTI can store specifications, reports and all other Documentation provided by
them for an agreed upon storage charge. NTI and those specifying choice of law,dispute resolution, notice,
9.0 DISPUTES waiver,and severability shall survive termination of this Contract.
a. All claims, disputes, and controversies arising out of or in relation d. The terms of this Contract and its enforcement and
to the performance,interpretation,application, or enforcement of interpretation shall be governed by the laws of the state where
this Contract, including, but not limited to,breach thereof,shall be the project is located. If any provision of this Contract is
referred for mediation under the then current Construction determined to be unlawful, invalid or unenforceable, that
Industry Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association provision shall be severed from the Contract and shall not
prior to any recourse to litigation. render this Contract, or any other of its other provisions,
b. In the event of any litigation arising out of or relating to this Contract unlawful,invalid or unenforceable.
or the Services, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable 14.0 PRE-LIEN NOTICE
attorneys'and experts'fees,court costs and other costs of collection a. By signing this Contract Client represents and warrants that it either
including NTI's labor costs in connection with the prosecution of any owns fee title to, or has the legal right to direct NTI to perform
collection lawsuit. Services in connection with,the site of the project and that there is
10.0 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY presently nothing to prevent NTI from filing a lien against the site of
a. CLIENT understands that the Services provided by NTI involve the the project.
application of scientific and technical skill,judgment and discretion b. ANY PERSON OR COMPANY SUPPLYING LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR
that is not an exact science and that NTI cannot and does not THIS IMPROVEMENT TO YOUR PROPERTY MAY FILE A LIEN AGAINST
guaranty the results of its Services. Instead, NTI agrees to perform YOUR PROPERTY IF THAT PERSON OR COMPANY IS NOT PAID FOR
the Services according to the Standard of Care. THE CONTRIBUTIONS.
b. NTI's liability to the Client and all contractors and subcontractors on C. UNDER MINNESOTA LAW, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PAY PERSONS
the project,for damages due to professional negligence, negligence WHO SUPPLIED LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT
or breach of any other obligation to Client or others,will be limited DIRECTLY AND DEDUCTTHIS AMOUNT FROM OUR CONTRACT PRICE,
to an amount not to exceed$20,000 or NTI's fee,whichever is less. OR WITHHOLD THE AMOUNTS DUE THEM FROM US UNTIL 120 DAYS
C. Client will notify any contractor or subcontractor who performs work AFTER COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENT UNLESS WE GIVE YOU A
in connection with any work done by NTI of the limitations of liability LIEN WAIVER SIGNED BY PERSONS WHO SUPPLIED ANY LABOR OR
for design defects,errors,omissions,or professional negligence,and MATERIAL FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND WHO GAVE YOU TIMELY
to require as a condition precedent to their performing their work,a NOTICE.
125
AMERICAN CONSULTANTS
EWRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING GEOTECIANICAL
TESTING, INC.
FORENSlCS
PROPOSAL FOR PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
AET Proposal No. 01-20372
February 18, 2019
American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) is pleased to present this proposal for a preliminary
geotechnical exploration and report for the referenced project. Our services were requested by Mark Statz
from City of Centerville on February 15, 2018.
Project: Proposed Apartment Building Site
Centerville Road& Sorel Street
Centerville,Minnesota
Our Client: City of Centerville
1880 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55038
Attn: Mark Statz Qqs?_t.Li. entervillemn, of
Phone: (651)792-7931
PROJECT INFORMATION
The City of Centerville is anticipating developing a site at the intersection of Centerville Road and Sorel
Street. The proposed construction will be a multi-level apartment building, possibly with a full basement
level. Finished floor elevation for the building is unknown at this time; however, we anticipate floor
grades will be very close to existing site grades. The basement level, if constructed, will have a floor
elevation about 10 feet to 12 feet lower than the first level.
On-grade parking is anticipated on the site. The pavements will be used primarily by automobile and
light truck traffic with axle loads up to 4 tons. Heavy duty traffic for moving vans and refuse vehicles
will be confined to designated areas. The heavier truck traffic will have axle loads up to 10 tons.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Based on an email fi-oni Mark Statz from the City of Centerville,we understand our scope of services will
include the following:
• Locate and stake a total of 2 borings.
® Contact the Gopher State One Call to arrange clearance of public underground utilities in the areas of
the borings.
® Drill 2 standard penetration test borings, each to a depth of 21 feet.
• Measure for the presence of groundwater in the boreholes.
® Determine ground surface elevations at the boring locations using a nearby permanent benchmark.
® Backfill all boreholes with soil cuttings obtained from the borings and patch all paved surfaces.
• Seal the boreholes in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health regulations.
550 Cleveland Avenue North�Saint Paul,NI N 55114
Phone(651)659-9001 i(800)972-6364�Fax 1 659-1379�vowmaamen gtest.cong�AA/EEO
This document shMi not be reproduced,except en ftfli,without written approvafrorn Am er1can EngIneering Testing,Inc.
City of Centerville
Proposal for Preliminary Geotechnical Services
AET Proposal No. 01-20372
February 18, 2019
Page 2 of 4
® Perform a limited laboratory testing program on selected soil samples taken from the borings.
® Prepare a Preliminary Geotechnical Report that includes logs of the borings, a map showing the
boring locations, the laboratory test results, general descriptions of the soil conditions and their
properties, apparent groundwater levels (if any), and our preliminary recommendations for the
following:
Grading of the building areas for structural support;with and without a basement level.
Compaction levels of fill soils for structural support.
Discussion about using on-site soils as structural fill.
Allowable soil bearing pressures that could be used for design of the building footings.
Estimated post-construction foundation settlements.
Support of the on-grade floor slabs, including the need for moisture/vapor membranes.
Soil types to be used as backfill against the below-grade walls (if any), and the need for drain
tiles.
Soil parameters for design of the below-grade walls(if any).
Grading of pavement subgrades for pavement support.
Bituminous pavement thickness designs.
Other information that is pertinent for project design, such as frost susceptibility of soils, drainage
considerations, and safe excavation slopes.
In addition to the above, we propose to install a temporary piezometer in one of the boreholes to more
accurately determine the groundwater level. Typically, it may take several days for the groundwater level
to stabilize in slow draining soils, such as those anticipated at this site. We propose to leave the
temporary piezometer in place for 3 to 5 days before removing it.
AET's services are provided for geotechnical purposes only. We understand that environmental sampling
and testing is not planned. Identification of any detected contamination will be based on human sight or
smell only. It is not the intent of these services to explore for the presence or vertical/horizontal extent of
potential contamination.
SCHEDULE
Based on our current drilling schedule, we estimate that we can begin our field services about 3 weeks
after receiving authorization to proceed. We expect to complete the soil borings in I working day. We
will; however, have to send the drill rig back to the site to remove the temporary piezometer and seal the
borehole. Logs of the borings and preliminary information should be available about I week after the
completion of the drilling. The preliminary report should be available about 2V2 to 3 weeks after
completion of the soil borings.
127
City of Centerville
Proposal for Preliminary Geotechnical Services
AET Proposal No. 01-20372
February 18, 2019
Page 3 of 4
FEES
Our services will be invoiced as a Jump sum cost. Based on the scope of services presented in this
proposal, including installing the temporary piezometer and the extra trip for removing it, our not-
to-exceed lump sum cost will be $4,450.00. This amount includes a$200.00 budget for laboratory testing
of soils and the necessary MN Department of Health filing fees(see below).
If soil conditions dictate that additional drilling is needed beyond our estimated boring depths, due to poor
conditions or to evaluate other areas,this will be invoiced at a unit rate of$27.00 per linear foot. We will
contract you regarding additional work, and receive your authorization to proceed, prior to performing
additional services. If additional mobilizations of the drill crew and equipment are needed because of the
additional drilling,these will be invoiced at a unit cost of$325.00 per trip.
PRIVATE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
Before we drill, we will contact Gopher State One Call to locate public underground utilities. Gopher
State One Call does not currently charge for this service; however, they will not locate private
underground utilities or structures. Examples of private utilities include, but are not limited to, propane
and some gas lines, sewer laterals, sprinkler systems, site lighting, and electric and data lines between
buildings. It is the responsibility of the client and/or the landowner to clear underground private
utilities,if any,in the vicinity of the boring locations.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS AND FEES
Effective July 1, 2017,the Minnesota Department of Health(MDH)has changed the borehole sealing and
notification requirements. For sites where borings are drilled to a depth of 15 feet or deeper, all licensed
drilling companies are required by law to submit written notification to the MDH prior to drilling, along
with a fee of $75. If one or more of the boring depths vary by 25 feet, or more, the MDH requires an
additional written notification and fee of $75 per boring. Projects that span multiple properties will
require multiple notifications. The NIDH also requires that these borings be grouted and that a Sealing
Record be submitted to the MDH, with a copy to you, after the borings are completed. The above fee
estimate for our geotechnical services includes the MDH fee for the proposed scope of drilling; however,
because final boring depths can change, for example, due to possible unanticipated poor soil conditions,
the final MDH fee(including an administrative charge of$65 per notification)will be added, if necessary,
to our final invoice to you.
The MDH Sealing Record requires the Property Owner name and mailing address (the Property Owner
will also receive a copy of the Sealing Record). PLEASE PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION
BELOW.
128
City of Centerville
Proposal for Preliminary Geotechnical Services
AET Proposal No. 01-20372
February 18, 2019
Page 4 of 4
Property Owner's name/company name:
Property Owner's mailing address:
CONDITIONS
AET's services will be provided subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth in the Contract Agreement
for Professional Services between the City of Centerville and AET, dated September 7,2010.
ACCEPTANCE
AET requests written acceptance of this proposal in the form of signatures on the required lines below;
but the following actions shall constitute your acceptance of this proposal together with the Terms and
Conditions and Amendments: 1) issuing an authorizing purchase order for any of the Services described
above, 2) authorizing AET's presence on site or 3) written or electronic notification for AET to proceed
with any of the Services described in this proposal. Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal by
signing below and returning a copy to us. When you accept this proposal, you represent that you are
authorized to accept on behalf of the Client.
By authorizing this proposal,AET is of the understanding that the current property owner is aware
that AET will be performing this work,and has also authorized our firm to operate our equipment
on the property. The use of our drill rigs may cause damage to those areas which we drive over and
drill on. We will attempt to minimize such damage; however,we have not included costs to restore
those areas to their original condition.
AET Representative: City of Centerville Acceptance:
Michael P.McCarthy,PE Mark Statz, PE
Principal Geotechnical Engineer City Administrator/Engineer
Date Date
129
Administrator/Engineer's Report
February 27, 2019
ADMINISTRATION
Centennial Ptilblic Faimoils
Oty staall'aamai aattom°amey paaave been an contact watpa seiaooimpl16aak aammi are nlaap<uamgTM progress
towaas(ps tine resom uutimma ol'tiae�r llnaa� pkat ksuaes.
Part-Time Receptionist Position
Staff interviewed 4 candidates for the position on February 20'h and plans to interview the
final 2 candidates on February 27�h. We are confident that this pool of candidates will
produce a well-qualified employee.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Economic I:)eveloillamnent Atiltitoirity.
Ttie ll,i A meeting I'or Feism•uuaay 20, was eaaa ceHemi as we aawaak p:ropmosak flroni (lee )p er
I'or ttie fflocp< 7 pmm•ojeet.
Farines rs Market
I was aaNe to meet watpa tine event o gaatmarer tiaaat nns ttie Wtike Bear L il<c "Maal<edest".
Stie was very pae�pmp'iu� an expmkflningTM ttie dog kties op.suuepa an event aammi wpaaat nim g tit work I'or
as seaapemi (iowam vem•6)n in Ceamtervafle. Stie wifl be p:muuttaamgTM togTMetiaer as p:rop osaa� I'or tie; pm ng
to p kin an(] manage smmavetidagm imeree are �nkiaaiiy tida7<uagm malas 3 weep< run of
Ttwrsaiaay evetmaamgTMs an August, between ttie eammi of aarl<e flest an(] ttie State F flr We are
expmlom•iamgTM dots imp"�mieaas, but may try to start smamaaH witpa as pew I'ooai tm•uua°p<s an(] v<;mumiors in
Cornerstone Paarl<, to buuH(I oll'ttie crowmi at ttie Bak] L agTMp<; Watersl<i stiow.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Cmmimnl) Flan
Comments on ou r suubniktemi pmpaaam paaave now been rete;veal 1rommm Met Couuameip. Oty staall
aaami mau;um emaasuu�taaat name wm�ampuagTM tmm aamimpmess timeamu m�mae mmI:'tiae em�aavaveats aapmpmeaam• tm�abe
substantive
Peltier Estates
Staall'reee�vemi as caapi Ironi an aattomvuey I'or timet; miexeim�apmer, worl<< ng on pinaaH iagt
I�onieowamer's Asso6aation i oeu:unieamts We are tiop:mep`uu� bass k as sag n t7maat ttie
miexeim�apmaveat k niovusugTM p'orwaa•(ptowaaxmis constrmtion
Waterworks Site/DeFoe Property
Changes to the pool restrictions in the Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development are being presented at this City Council Meeting.
130
Landscape Nan and other kenis are stffl beng worl<ed on by ttie dev6)per and 6ty stall'
AAS u; documents must be subnikted, revawed and approved, piior to recordng ol'ttle
Ilmd pat
Old Mill Estates
0ty stall'and ttie dev6)per continue worl<Ang on ttie I)cv6)per's Agreement and reated
documents, ppior to biin&g a Fn�,d Nat 1'orward 1'or approvd
Block 7 Property
City staff and our realtor are continuing to work with two interested parties as they
prepare more detailed concept plans for the Block 7 property.
Proposals for obtaining soil borings to help determine water table issues and general soils
information on the property are being presented at this meeting for approval.
General Downtown Redevelopment Interest
City staff made contact with both the owner and realtor for the Old Creamery Apartment
building to let them know about some of the tools the city may be able to offer, should a
buyer be interested in a redevelopment of the property.
City staff met with the ownership of Kelly's and the Sothern Rail to discuss their future
plans and gain input on downtown redevelopment. Also discussed, were their
involvement in Fete des Lacs, and possible participation in a farmers market or similar
events.
Commerce Drive Property
Negotiations on the possiWe purctiase ol'ttie Commerce 1)iive sibs; by Mdwelt hest
Water continue The architect for Midwest Best Water is drafting some potential
building facade treatments and hopes to present these to the City Council along with their
counter offer.
20' Avenue Corridor Zoning
City staff met with the City Attorney and City Planner to discuss a variety of issues
related to zoning conflicts that have come up along 20th Avenue over the past several
years. The city's real estate agent for the Commerce Drive properties has suggested a
"Service District" and there have been several proposals which have struggled to fit in the
zoning code, despite seeming like appropriate uses for the land.
Out of this meeting will come a staff recommendation for addressing these issues, which
will be brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further consideration.
131
CODE ENFORCEMENT—RESIDENTIAL
General
• A small area of sidewalk snow removal which had been neglected was cleaned up
by city staff to address a citizen complaint. No charges were levied against the
homeowner.
• Several reminder letters were sent out for folks who have zoning violations which
will need to be addressed in the spring.
• A follow-up letter was sent to a homeowner who removed one of the vehicles
from the rear yard as requested in the initial enforcement letter, but has not
removed a large construction trailer or other vehicles to come into compliance.
CODE ENFORCEMENT—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Llaa's Lawn and 'Ttiurr, LLQ' .... Conditional lJse Perinit
Tiu<; city uubtomey iu is suubmittx<p (Irap"b paunguua ge 1'or ttu<; new "gun(pitmonau lJse Permit to
A ixx's uubtorney an(] weare waiting 1'or tiu<;ir response
CenterMart Conditional lJse Pu rinit
City stal'I'met witpu enb<;u•Mart ownerstiipu to upiscu;uss u.°ouuup:uiiuunce issuues uunup pool< at
p otenbiuui revisions to tticir onupibionau lJse Permit We bpuinl< ttie e are some issues biuuub
COU i<p be uuuibigate(H wiuiin nniuuunning biunir business opup ortu:unities. Ouur conversuubions wipe
continue an(p.wiH worl< towuur(l.s conruffliuunce an(] iyotentia� ctia uges in ttie CIA)
Ready Landscaping
Ready Landscaping's tenant has taken down all of their signage.
Rehbein Black Dirt
The Rehbein Black Dirt operation off of 21st Ave. was granted an Interim Use Permit by
the City Council at the last meeting, based on a recommendation from the P&Z
commission.
7129 20'Ave.
New outdoor lighting fixtures attached to the building at 7129 20th Ave. have become a
nuisance to area residents. The lights were put up due to safety concerns. City staff
mediated a meeting between the building owner and the residents. The building owner is
going to install hoods on the fixtures and/or lower voltage fixtures and communicate with
the homeowners to make sure they are satisfied with the results. A follow-up date was
set to ensure progress is being made towards a solution.
Kelly's
City staff met with Kelly's ownership on February 21. They have agreed to work out a
plan to reduce their signage to comply with city code. Jeff and Vicki also discussed their
plan to remove the dilapidated garage near the Southern Rail, this summer.
132
Wholesome Health
A follow-up letter was sent, requesting a response to earlier notices regarding the need
for a sign permit.
STORMWATER/WETLAND
Centerville/Peltier LakeI'MI)L
Ttie TM DLs I'or ttiese ial<es were conifflete(l 151 years ago an(] tuive never tui(l ttie lind
step ol'an Inifflementation Nan conifflete(l an(] approve(I by ttie MPCA TI'ds llnap step k
now pn progress an(] stiouk] unpocl< iniportant I'un(]png I'or projects ttiat acwffly work to
re(luce ttie poutants i(Ientflie(l an ttie TMI)L stwly Stall'k worl<ung wkti lytice Creel<
Waterstie(] I)ktiict Stall'on ttie pogkdcs ol'ttds process
SEWER AND WATER
Wellhead Protection Plan
A public input meeting has been scheduled for March 27, at our regular City Council
meeting, to review the results of the amended Part I Wellhead Protection Plan. This
meeting will be noticed in the paper among other outlets.
Downtown Water Main and Street Reconstruction
City staff recently met with representatives from the County regarding our Community
Development Block Grant application. They have asked us to resubmit our application
with some small changes. We have reason to believe we will be successful with our
application and that we will be able to provide financial relief to income-qualified
residents in the downtown area for a water and street reconstruction project.
PUBLIC WORKS/STREETS
Snow Removal
Staff has been very busy with snow removal and de-icing.
PARKS
Committee Vacancy
The parks committee now has two open seats. Please talk with friends and neighbors
about this opportunity to serve.
Luang 11ange Ca�lIital hn�lIroivenient Plan
Worl< tuis begun on ttie llnai (locument wtdcti wffl be ttie I'oun(lanon I'ora wep justille(I
Parl< I)e(]icadon Fee
Skating Rinks
The rinks are in good condition and have seen a lot of use during some of the mild
temperatures.
133
FETE DES LACS—JULY 16—21, 2019
Fete des Lacs Committee
The 1estivWs coniniktee wffl hok] ks next meeting on Monlay March 1 a 6 �'M at 0ty
lkffl
Tl,icf,)ic��ni�n,iiyscl,ic(li��cti,istticb,in(ini�)vc(lt�) Fi-�(i,iyn�gl,it Tlicl'�icw�)il<sw��� ienii�n
on Fii(lay tdght Otherwke, the sche(lubwffl be niosdy the same as fast year
PUBLIC SAFETY
Centennial Fire District
• These are the 2019 goals that were discussed at drill.
• Training—standardize the way we do things (Triple Lay deployment,
Scene size-up)
• Training—have SME's conduct drills. Send people to get trained on
subjects.
• Start using EPCR in FDM
• Provide specialized training on new Stokes/USAR kit on Ll.
• Mount LED lightbars on El I & E31
• Radiant heaters & furnace at station 3 plan for replacement
• Replace AC unit at station I & 3
• Have all businesses inspected by December 1, 2019
• Gear dryer
• Asst. Chief retirement/replacement
• Officers promotion process late summer early fall
• Hire Firefighters from Local businesses
• Sale G11/pods
• Replace/repair floor drains at station I
• Acquire CAT suburban from the state
• Implement Gross Decon/clean cab
• Get the home survey program going again. Start small try to get 30 homes
done this year.
• Ensure that we are checking smoke alarms on all calls possible. Not
during late night calls when people are sleeping.
• Set up two free blood pressure checks at station 1. During April and
September.
• Reduce response time. Get people moving faster when they arrive at the
station?
• Station 3 firefighters becoming more familiar and comfortable on all the
apparatuses. Also encouraging more people to get involved with
instructing and/or teaching.
• Sundays Firefighter Fitness 2pm at Station 1
134
A Anoka County
Am COUNT' Y ADWINIST RATin
ON
Linda Hedstrom
Community Development Program Assistant
Phone: 763.324.4601
E-mail: linda.hedsLromffco.anoka.mn.us
MEMO TO: The Township and Cities within Anoka County
FROM: Linda Hedstrom, Community Development Program Assistant
DATE: February 14, 2019
SUBJECT: Minnesota Housing's 2019 Start Up Program for First-Time Homebuyers is OPEN
Minnesota Housing's 2019 Start Up Program for first-time homebuyers is open for business. Anoka County's 2019
allocation is $5,736,658. This mortgage/loan program offers affordable, fixed interest rates, down payment and closing
cost assistance to qualified buyers and includes a large network of experienced lending partners (buyers must use an
MN Housing-approved lender). FYI: Anoka County itself does not fund a down payment assistance program.
Buyers must qualify financially and may also be required to attend a home buyer education class. Buyers have two
education options available to them: an in-person class (HomeStretch)or an on-line class (Framework). To locate
classes, buyers can contact the Minnesota Homeownership Center at 651-659-9336 or www.hoc
MN Housing continues to offer another loan program "Step Up"for non first-time homebuyers. The program has many
of the same benefits and requirements as the Start Up program. Although the county does not get an allocation for it, it
is available to all qualified homeowners. This program is for existing homeowners or repeat homebuyers who are
looking to either refinance their current mortgage or purchase a home.
Advertising is key to making this a success, so please include info about this program in any upcoming newsletters,
utility billing, web site or any other venue at your disposal. Just a reminder to please carefully proof what you publish
so that wrong numbers or information don't create problems for you or your residents. Your help in getting the word
out is invaluable to making this another successful year.
Attached for your information is a copy of the info packet I provide to callers who request program information.
Updates to the program may occur during the program year, so advise residents to check the MN Housing website
for the most current information.
If you have any questions, please call me at 763-324-4601 or email me at linda.hedstrom(a-)co.anoka.mn.us. Also, feel
free to visit MN Housing's website at www.mnhousing.gov as they have other homeowner programs including Rehab or
Fix-Up loans that might benefit your residents. Thanks!
Ree(is tf'LO,
S_F["' V\/250 A, Ano[,a W,4 55203 A, wv\1,v\1 ano[,,acoi_ny _s/cd
763 224 4650 A, Fax� 763 224 4610
Aff'urirnaflve A,,,IfjIEqWfl]
First-Time Homeby grs
1_
Are you a first-time homebuyer interested in buying a home in Anoka County?
Minnesota Housing, the state's housing finance agency, funds various homebuyer and homeowner programs. The County,
on behalf of its municipalities, participates in Minnesota Housing's Start Up program for first-time homebuyers. The program
offers affordable fixed-rate mortgages to qualified buyers; down payment and closing cost loans may also be available, This
year over five million dollars ($5,736,658) is available for loans to qualified first-time buyers who wish to purchase homes in
Anoka County, FYI: Mobile home purchases don't qualify unless the home is permanently attached to a lot and taxed as
real property.
Municipalities in Anoka County: Andover,Anoka, Bethel, Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbia Heights, Columbus, Coon Rapids,
East Bethel, Fridley, Ham Lake, Hilltop, Lexington, Lino Lakes, Linwood Township, Nowthen, Oak Grove, Ramsey, Spring Lake Park and
St. Francis
Minimum Start Up Reguirements for 2019:
You may be eligible if you:
® are a first-time homebuyer or haven't owned a home in the past three years
® meet minimum credit score requirements as set by Minnesota Housing
• don't exceed income limits- Combined household INCOME limits are: 1.2 Persons -$94,300*
3+ Persons - $108,400*
® don't exceed purchase price limit- Home PURCHASE PRICE limits are: $328,200*
*Interest rates, income limits and home purchase prices are subject to change during the program year
Check Minnesota Housing's web site www,mnhoqabg,,n for current rates, limits and prices
1, The first step in the process is contacting an approved lender- you must use a lender approved by Minnesota
Housing. You can find one by visiting their website at www.mnh0USiDg.q0V look under the "Homebuyers &
Homeowners"tab, click"Find a Lender"
2. You may be required to attend a homebuyer education class as part of this process; if so, here are two options:
® HomeStretch- an in-person class offered by the Anoka County Community Action Program (ACCAP)AAw�,acca org
• Framework- an on-line course offered by the Minnesota Homeownership Center www.hocmn.org
3. Minnesota Housing also offers qualified buyers down payment and closing cost loans up to $15,000,
Anoka County does not fund its own down payment assistance program.
-Minnesota Housing also helps with refinancing and rehabbing homes, visit their website to /earn more-
CONTACTS:
4. To have an information packet mailed to you - call Linda at Anoka County (763)324-4601;
5. For the local HomeStretch class, call ACCAP at (763) 783-4747 or visit www.accap.org
6. For Framework or other homeowner info, call MN Homeownership Center at 651-659-9336 or visit www.liocmn.org
7. For more program information, including finding an approved lender, call Minnesota Housing at (651) 296-8215 or
800-710-8871 or visit www,mnhousing,gov
Check Anoka County's Community Development website www.AnokaCo:untLuslcd for additional info on
county-run Homeowner programs including: Low-Interest WellFse—ptic Loan Program, Home Rehab Loans and more.
136
As of: 2/14/19
i / f� ✓iii/�i iii I� � ilii i i i i i
� I I IIIIII �I�IIII II i� Itl a
s�a
I i
Make your dream of homeownership a reality. Minnesota Housing can help! Our network of participating
lenders around the state will help you find the right Minnesota Housing loan for your sitution and your budget.
If you're a first-time homebuyer, our Start Up program is just for you. If you're ready to buy your next home or
refinance the one you're in, check out Step Up. Both have money-saving benefits that will make buying a home
work for you.
As little as % down, plass downpayment loans cep. to $15,000.
�iy0l1�1 I�
You don't need 20% down to get into a home. At Minnesota Housing, eligible borrowers can go as
„1 low as 3%, and even add a downpayment and closing cost loan up to $15,000.
�11111<� AfFordable rates.
Minnesota Housing offers affordable, fixed interest rates. Current rates can be found on our
1111 website at www.mnhousing.gov and are subject to change.
torr or no mortgage insurance options.
OJJf1�
With our exclusive conventional loan products, options for reduced or no mortgage insurance are
available to lower your monthly payments.
Contact a participating Minnesota Housing lender to start your path to homeownership.
OT A 651.296.8215
HOUSING
usld1 ov
�,
In connection with Single Family Division loan programs,Minnesota Housing does not make or arrange loans. It is neither an originator nor creditor and is not affiliated with 1��
any Lender. The terms of any mortgage finance transactions conducted in connection with 7programs,including important information such as loan fees,the annual
percentage rate(APR),repayment conditions,disclosures,and any other materials which are rt fired to be provided to the consumer are the responsibility of the Lender. EQUAL ROUSING
OPPORTUNITY
s
r r
IT
IN
l
�u
I
�r 1111111
V
f
ri
r
r"
/i m 11 viii
Homebuyer education or counseling is a great place to start your homeownership journey. Worried about your
credit? Curious about closing costs? Wondering how mortgage insurance works? Your advisor will teach you
about the process, answer your questions and help you decide if homeownership is right for you. Homebuyer
education is required for most of our homebuyers. It's easy and convenient with both in-person and online
options available. Choose from the following approved providers and courses:
Minnesota Homeownership Center 1651.659.9336 or www.hocmn.or
• Framework®: Online homebuyer education on your own time and at your own pace
• Home Stretch TM:
In-person workshops around the state taught by experienced housing professionals
• Realizing the American Dream: An interactive, in-person course covering the aspects of purchasing a home
Minnesota Housing HomeownershipCapacity ro ra
Check out our Homeownership Capacity Program if you need additional assistance with improving your credit,
developing a spending plan, developing a savings plan, or reducing debt. One of our partner organizations can
provide in-depth financial coaching to set you up for success when you're ready to purchase a home.
• African Development Center: 612.333.4772, • LSS: 888.577.2227, www.issmn.org
www.adcminnesota.org • Minneapolis Urban League: 612.302.3100,
• Bii Gii Wiin: 612.354.2249, www.bgwcdlf.org www.mul.org
• Build Wealth: 612.877.4182, www.build- • NeDA: 651.292.0131, www.nedahome.org
wealthmn.org • NeighborWorks Home Partners: 651.348.5076,
• CLUES: 612.746.3500, 651.379.4200,www.clues.org www.nwhomepartners.org
• Community Action Duluth: 218.726.1665, • PRG, Inc.: 612.721.7556, www.prginc.org
www.communityactionduluth.org • PPL: 612.455.5300, www.ppl-inc.org
• Community Action of Hennepin County: • SWMHP: 888.468.8010 ext. 1604, www.swmhp.org
952.697.1326, www.caphennepin.org • Three Rivers Community Action: 800.277.8418,
• Hmong American Partnership: 651.495.9160, www.threeriverscap.org
www.hmong.org
%j/ MINNESOTA 651.296.8215
��
I HOUSING www.mnhousing.gov
In connection with Single Family Division loan programs,Minnesota Housing is neither an originator of loans nor a creditor and is not affiliated with any Lender. To find out if ::
you are eligible,or to apply for a loan,please contact a participating Lender. 38
EQUAL HOUSING
U OPPORTUNITY
r�[ i min ww.
i Fav � y I
1 I
iYp
Need help with your downpayment? Concerned about paying for closing costs? We can help! Minnesota
Housing downpayment and closing cost loan programs provide up to $15,000 to help you bridge the gap and
become a homeowner. Depending on your need and eligibility, choose from the Monthly Payment Loan with
the same affordable interest rate as your first mortgage or a Deferred Payment Loan with 0% interest.
Additional eligibility requirements, including income limits, minimum credit score, and home cost limits apply.
Loans must be fully repaid.
Monthly Payment Lean
• Loans up to $15,000
• Interest rate equal to first mortgage rate
• 10-year loan term with monthly payments
• Available with Start Up and Step Up loan programs
Deferred Payment Loan
• Loans up to $8,000 (up to $10,000 for borrowers who meet criteria for Deferred Payment Loan Plus)
• 0% interest, repaid when property is sold, refinanced, or first mortgage is paid off
• Loan term equal to first mortgage term
• Available with the Start Up loan program
Contact a participating Minnesota Housing lender to start your path to homeownership.
'I ' ll,
M
651.296.8215
MINNESOTA
HOUSING www.mnhousing.gov
In connection with Single Family Division loan programs,Minnesota Housing does not make or arrange loans. It is neither an originator nor creditor and is not affiliated with
any Lender. The terms of any mortgage finance transactions conducted in connection with Qp rograms,including important information such as loan fees,the annual
percentage rate(APR),repayment conditions,disclosures,and any other materials which are rtrlred to be provided to the consumer are the responsibility of the Lender. EQUAL HOUSING
OPPORTUNITY
Y 4 Y pY
b mm
Y 'aa m
m m s m m Y
�-iow da B get started?' �� �
," �', 1.Learn about Homeownership � � „�11
Homebuyer education is a great place '
to start learning about the process. It's
required for most of our homebuyers. "
To find a course,visit www.hocmn.org.
2.Contact a Lender
OP
p„
Contact a Minnesota Housing yo;
participating lender to discuss your needs
and learn more about which program is
right for you.Visit www.mnhousing.gov ? �
to search for a lender near you.
3.Find a Home
Work with a real estate professional to
find the right home for you. It must fall
within our home cost limits,which you
651.296.8215 800.710.8871
can find at www.mnhousing.gov.
mnhousing.solution@state.mn.us ,
4.Mission Accomplished! www.mnhousing.gov
IncounPrtonwth5ng'eFam"° =.n da,ar°grariM."a.°°aHou ng
Finish up the paperwork,close on your
e i an or g nator of loans nor a,,own and to not affiliated—h any
loan,grab those keys,and Celebrate lender.To find out if you are eligible,or to a pply for a loan,please contacts 6 `
O parfid ing Lender
your accomplishment. 2018.12.14 ommoaruYnf� I
I don't think I have enough saved for a
ti
downpayment or closing costs.
f �
Don't let this stop you from buying a home
, Our downpayment and closing cost loan
� programs provide up to$15,000 to help you
bridge the gap.
Depending on your need and eligibility,
choose a:
/ `I/
• Monthly Payment Loan with the same
I'm interested in buying my first home. What are the benefits? affordable interest rate as your first
The path to owning a home is closer than you We offer programs that layer on top of your mortgage and a 10-year term.
think.Contact a Minnesota Housing lender mortgage to save you money.These programs • Deferred Payment Loan with 0%interest
about our Start Up loan program and how are just for Minnesotans and a wide variety of and no monthly payments.
you can get all our money-saving benefits. homebuyers are eligible. You must get a Start Up or Step Up first
Our easy process doesn't involve additional mortgage loan to access our downpayment
I already own a home,but I'd like to programs. Loans must be fully repaid.
applications.Simply work with a Minnesota
buy a new one. Housing approved lender to access:
You don't need to be a first-time buyer to This sounds great.',gym I eligible?
.
• Affordable,fixed interest rates(see current
take advantage of our affordable programs. rates at www.mnhousing.gov) You may be eligible if you:
If you're a current homeowner(or owned in . As little as 3%down with our exclusive • Qualify for an underlying mortgage
the last three years)and want to buy your conventional loans product(FHA,VA,RD,Conventional)
next home,our Step Up loan program is just . Downpayment and closing cost loans up to • Purchase or refinance a home that meets
for you! $15,000 our home cost limits
• Low or no mortgage insurance options • Meet our income limits-they're higher
lower your monthly payment than you might think!
Meet our minimum credit score
MITI
requirements
Talk to an approved lender for more
" information about eligibility requirements.For
�
more information about Minnesota Housing,
F
MINNESOTA visit www.mnhousing.gov.
`Homeownership in one sentence means stability, HOUSING
security and strength. Being a homeowner is the Find a lender near you at
lest decision I've ever made." www.mnhousing.gov or 651.296.8215
-Alesia,Minnesota Housing borrower