The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6. Citizens Attitude Survey - Decision Resources Proposal �� r ` • • � � �; �D� l�l(�l'�l. ��' «� R�'�O r �a� Ll ce'� LtC�. �.x �s �:� �� _. � z��e�r � , �� September 24, 1988 , �: �� ,� Mr. Rollan Hoke � ; Mayor of Rosemount �• � City Hall $, 1367 145th Street East z Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 Dear Mayor Hoke: Decision Resources, Ltd. , is pleased ta present this survey research proposal to the City of Rosemourit. Much of this proposal is based upon your conversations with my partner, Diane Traxler, and related discussians that she and I have had. This prospeetus is organized in three parts: a disCussion af the qaals of �he research; a proposed design and schedule; and, estima�ed project casts. As you will see, I am certain that DRL can provide the City of Rosemount with the information it seeks in both a cost-effective and timely manner. GOALS OF THE RESEARCH: � The survey would assess the needs and attitudes of Rosemount residents an four separate, but interrelated, issues: 1. EVALUATION OF CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS. How satisfied are `� residents with eurrent city services? Are there any services which are rated as duplicative or unsatisfactory? Are there any services which residents feel should be newly c�ffered or augmented? How much would residents be willing to pay to ' continue current service levels? ° �� , F ; , �' 2. IMAGE OF THE CITY. How do residents view Rosemount? Why did : they move there? Have things changed for the better or the ' ' worse? What types af policies should be pu.rsued in order to keep i the city "special."� What do residents mean by the terms "small town atmosphere" or "rural environment"? What alternative futures � i do residents rnost prefer? Is there an existing consensus about � the future, or the possibility of crystallizing a consensus? � 3. FUTURE DEVELQPMENT. What types of development do residents � most welcome? What types would they most oppose? Is �here an � � "optimal mix" of development efforts? What shoul.d be the priorities for development and re-development efforts? What are ' � critieal transpartation needs? What palicies do citizens �'eel � ` r , „ � � � � � 312f3 L�)t�<an (;�x.trt • 1�1ir��af��c:�ti�, l�1Fr�r�c•�c�� 5�41F �* (FI"a} !��) (�;�:3; �� 1: � , . . . . � . . ..;.:'.. . . . . � . . � � � 1. � . . � . • . � . . .. � �U: �'Y � � . . � . � . � � .�`�. that the city should follow for future growth and/or s�.ability? �� 4. CHANGING CITY pEMOGRAPHICS. Does the current populata.on � � � � ,��'� profa.le suggest policy strategies far cf.ty government? What are a��, the possibilities far residential renewal -- tca expand tt�e tax �'. base as well as stabilize the averaqe increasing age of �he '� pa�aulation? Among newer re�idents, what charaeteristics of the �� + hausaholds of the city attracted them to settle? Does the z', ' composition of the households zn the city suggest �he need for �'�' specific types of programs or policies? g�� ,�� The survey questionnaire would contain a series of items aimed at �� ; exploring each of these topics, as weli as any other concerns of } �' the Council and staff. In addition to providing an excellent and '�� aecurate gauge of residential attitudes at the present time, the + ��' responses would also provide a benchmark for any future research, ° �� either updating this study or examining specific topics, such as �, residential mobility or economic development. ¢'' One of the strengths� af our company is the ability to realistically and accurately project current attitudes and ? opinions into the future. Because of the many different types of cities we have warked with, and several Metropolitan Area-wide studies we have conducted, we are able to derive implications about the shape af future decades for a community. As yau may know, suburbs follow a pronounced "life cyCle" -- DRL has worked :;x with municipalities at all stages of this cycle. Consequently, we are able to anticipate probable change, and its effects on `f' residential needs and perceptions, based upon the present. ; , DESIGN AND BCHEDULE OF THE RTiSEARCH: �;"; � � ,� Decision Resources, Ltd. , proposes to conduct a telephone survey �: � of 400 randomly selected 2�ouseholds in Rosemount. A sample of � this size would provide results projectable to the entire city �� within + 5. 0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. _ � � The questionnaire would be administered by DRL trained and super- � � vised personnel. The Company is proud of the fact that the �{ average length of employment of the DRL interviewers is four ,; years; the employment stability of our phoners is unique in the � � industry and provides our clients with the most sophisticated and ' i� proven interviewers available in the region. # i; � � � ��;�, , �� The computer analysis will be obtained from the DRL remote job � ; entry� facility to the University of Minnesota cYBER syste�, �" ' insuring bott� access to the most current statistical analysis ' programs and confidentiality of the data set. ' ! .� �; The Cit of Rosemount will be � � y presented with two baund copies of , � the f�nal report highlighting all the major findings of the ' � study. DRL will also speak to any major differences frc�m and � ' similarities with other recently completed suburban residential � � attitudes studies undertaken for Burnsville, LakevilZe, Eagan, ; +; � � � � � � � � �i �� ;, ;;_ � �3i , � :�: . � • � . ��' � �g., and Inver Grave Heights. A volume of all computer generated �� cross tabulations and other muitivariate statistical techniques ' � �` will alsa be included to pravide the "raw" data required for ;' ` further secondary analyses. In addition, the findings will be ;� ; presented by me at any meetir�gs or work sessions specified by the �, ' C�{..�• a, '� � The com onents of the ro ect ancl the ' _ P p j proposed time sehedule is outiined below; �,t - �}.�; 1. Planning meetings with council, staff, and/or relevant � citizen cammittees, to establish the topics to be covered in the ��'4' survey. Based on these topic concepts, DRL would word specific, neutral questions. This activity to be camg3eted within two weeks of the initiation of the contract. 2. Structuring of questions and final approval af the survey instrument. These activities to be completed within three weeks of the initiation of the contract. 3. Final determination of the field dates for interviewing, 4 . Pre-testing and, if needed, approval of resulting revisions. This activity to be completed by the seeond day of fieid work. 5. Computer anaiysis and preparation of written repart. All analytical analysis and commentar,y wiil be available within �'oUR WEEKS after completion of the field work. 6. Meetings with the City Council, 'staff and/or citizen committees in either a work session or formal presentation to ` explain and discuss the results of the study. The final discussion and strategy sessian ean be arranged at a time convenient for the City Council members and/or staff after delivery of the repart. f�a', DRL personnel are also willing to attend a reasonable number af � additional meetings for dissemination of the data to the public, �: city baards, or other organizations. On-going telephone can- sultation about any part of the study, analysis, or implicatians �;. is also included. � , PROJECT C�STS: e;� � A sixty question unit 4U0 household randam sample of Rosemount �� would cost $4800.U0: Each additional question unit beyond the '{ initial sixty would be $75.00. zr��.ua�a in this cost are two '� bound copies of the written analysis, one volume of crosstabs and �i related statistical tests, an executive summa�y of the highlights `j of the study, and a reasvnable number of presentat.i.ons and wark ,j sessions. } � � �� The cost of any study is driven by the number o€ questa.ot� units ' contained on the survey instrument. DRI, caun�s each questiort as '� `� ;i ;; ,� . � � . . � � . . � . � q�. � . . . . . . . �,f��' :,N,�, •. ` � � �; �'� one or less "units. " For example, a series of ten queries � saliciting respondents to evaivate variQus city services wou2d r� , �, not count as "ten" units. More likely, it would be counted as ��` two or three, depending upon the response required of the � � interviewee, Similarl �`�� y, open-ended questions, or unaided �� response questions requiring top-of-the-mind reactions, also ��' count as one t��nit. Henee, �he� final number� of questions is � �� usually considerably greater than the number o� question units. �� As com an �� p y policy, DRL requires ane-half of the cost prior to the �� ; commencement of field work; the rema�.nder is due upon delivery of � ' the final written report. Unless otherwise arranged, DRL invoices cli�nts at the time o� the �pproval of the survey `�:: �� instrument. �� + � �� ' I hope this proposal sufficiently covers all the information you �. require. If you have any further questians, piease feel free to � contact either Diane Traxler or me. We Iook forward to the �:` opportunity to work with you on �his project! ,�` x ; g Sineerely, � : , , � , -��-� .�1�1�� * William D. Mcarris, Ph:D. �'; � . Fresident � � ��,k �S';'. � � � � � � t:,. . ;a,,,. �;' � � � � � ,� �` 1� � � � � � .,.�f.... . . � . � . . . � . � .��.. . . . . . � . . . . .�+��. .. . . � � � . . � . . � . . �`��".. . . . . . ��,:. . . . . . . � � � . � � . . . � ��: . . . . . � . . . � . . � . . � . '�•. � � � � � � . � � � � . . .� �� . '��. . . . � . � . . � . � . .'�.��:��.�� . . . . . . . . . . . .. � � � . . � i.. . . . .. . . . . . .. . ...:,{ . � . . � . . � � . � � � . � . � I�. . . � .. . � . . . . . . . . . . � � � . . � ,�:� . .. . . .. . . . . . � � � �:. '�,j . � � � � � � . . � . . � 'I. . . � . . . . . � �.;� �. � � � � . . . � .� � � � . � . � . � � . . . :�. � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . � . . � . . � ..�.I�,��.:� . � � � � � . � � . � � � � � . . � � � � . � � . � .� ti; .� . . � � . . � � . � � . � . . . . � � . . � � � . `�'�. � * • . � • .. � . • . . . � � .. � . . �. I��' l�►lC.��l. ��` ..:{. R �;�. esou rce� L,�+d. �� :i �--�.� � ��: CAFAHILITITsB STATEMENT , . � �,� The Firm �. . ��.'' �,_� Decision Resources, Ltd. is a full-service market and research s'�, firm. DRL was incorporated in 1983, and has already served clients across the nation in the rivate ublic and € � P , p � politicai �;; sectors. The firm's main offices are located in Minneapalis, Minnesota, and Divisional Personnel reside in Pittsburgh, Penn- sylvania. As a full-service firm, all word processing, duplication, print- ing, sample selection, interview tabulation, and computer analy- sis are undertaken on-site. All telephone surveys are conduet�d : . at the DRL phonebank located in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Local in- home and elite/specialized interviews are admi.nistered by �ompany personnel. In addition to internal IBM computer facilities, the firm also has a remote entry access to the eYBER system at the University of Minnesata. The eompany is composed af fifty full-time and part-time em- ` ployees. The main prineipals of the firm possess extensive backgrounds in marketing, public affairs, survey r�search, and , statistical methods. This cross-disciplinary background allaws DRL to approach research problems from many different perspec- ' tives, and to evaluate potential strategies from a myriad of theoretical bases. ; � , Recent and Currer�t Clients � : � �z Private and Public Sector Clienta: ��' � i: . . . . . . . ..F:. " Municipalities and State Government City of Plymouth, Park Referendum Analysis, Plymouth, Minnesata ; City� of Plymouth, City Services Assessment, Plymouth, Minnesota { City of Plymouth, Quality of Life Study, Plymauth, Minnesota � City of Bloomington, Quality of Life Study, Bloomington, � �� Minnesota , City of Inver Grove Heights, Solid and Harzardous Waste Disposal � Study, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota ;' City of Inver Grove Heights, Parks and Reereatianal Facilities ; Needs Analysis, Inver Grove Heigt�ts, Minnesota City of Roseville, Quality of Life Study, Roseville, Minnesota • � ! . , � � � � � � � 312� 1:)��11 C;C)liCt • 1��11iltiG�1�)t:)1'F,S, R�1)Illlf_'.SC3{��!"ii41Ei + (��l2) �.�2{)-{)337 � � � � �; , ' . , • • � �_,;.� City of Shoreview, Quality of Life Study, Shoreview, Minnesota ',� City af Cattage Grove, Econamic Development Study, Cottage Grove, � ``� Minnesota �'�� City of Eagan, Parks and Recreational Facilities Needs Analysis, �,, ' Eagan, Minnesota City of Plymouth, Quality of Life Tracking Study, Plymouth, ?;' Minnesota `�; City of Chaska, Community Center Ne�ds Study, Chaska, Minnesata Cit�r of Woad)aury, Referendum Planning for the Administ�ative ��ri' Faailities Proposal, Woodbury, Minnesota �`�'�' City of Little Canada, Farks artd Recreational Facilities Needs " Analysis, Little Canada, Minrtesota r� City of Mounds View, Quality of Life Study, Mounds View, , �• Minnesota , �'w: City of Hopkins, Residential Needs Analysis, Hopkir�s, Minnesota � _; City af Lakeville, Quality of Life Study, Lakevilie, Minnesota � �' � ,� City of Burnsville, Vision: 2010 Project, Burnsville, Minnespta � ;� City of Richfield, MunicipaZ Services/Economic Devel�pment Study, "` Richfield, Minnesota City of Richfield Marketing Task Force, City Image and Popula�.ion Mobiiity Study, Richfield, Minnesota City of Oakdale, Parks and Recreational Facilities Needs Analysis, Oakdale, Minnesota City of New �righton, Residential Needs Analysis, New Brightai�, Minnesota City of Minnetonka, Employee Census, Minnetonka, Minneso�a � Washington County, Residenti,al Attitudes Survey, stillwater, Minnesota Minnesota World Trade Center, Regianal Feasibility. Study, Saint Paul, Minnesata Government Training Services, Study for the Energy Division of ' � the State Department of Administration, Saint Paul, , Minnesata ,,; �;; � : � Corporations .4, • - �; 4:' Cowles Communications, inc. , Theatre Market Segmentatioit Analy- ��; sis, Minneapolis, Minr►esota f t 3M, Public Relations Department, Corporate Culture Analysis, �� Saint Paul, Minnesota� � 3M, Issues Management Task Force, Image and Issues Analysis, � Saint Paul, Minnesota `' 3M, Public Relations Department, Group Facili�ation Methods, i; Saint Paul, Minnesota � 3M, Public Reiations Department, Internal Communications Study, � Saint Pau1, Mit�nesata 3M, Publ:ic Relatzons Department, � External Communications Study, Saint Paul, Minn�sota � 3M, Public Relations Department, Market Analysis of Loca1 Pub- # lications, Saint Paul, Minnesota ; 3M, Public Relations Department, Course on Puhlic Fteiations Strategy, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Public Relations pepartment, Practicum on P�.�bli.e Relations Strategy, Saint Paul, Min»esota �' �: � � 1 �a� . . • 3M, Exeeutive Offices, Crisis Management TeamJProciuct Failure, 5aint Paul, Minnesota � 3M, Leisure Products Division, Packaqing Analysis, saint Paui, Minnesota CFS-Minnesota, Inc. , Planning and Communications Focus Groug °` Sessions, Golden Valley, Minnesota CFS-Minnesota, Inc. , Sexual Harassment and Appr.opriate Behavior Focus Group Sessians, Golden V�lley, Minnesota Financial Institutions and Realtors Franklin State Bank, Rural Viability Study, Franklin, Minnesota Twin City Federal 5avings and Loan, Market Study, Minneagolis, Minnesota James Hoffman and Associates, Rural Housing Study, Willmar, Minnesota First Bank Minneapalis, Metropolitan Area Quality of Life Study, First Banks System, Minneapolis, Minnesvta Business Orqaniaations Greater Minneapalis Chamber of Cammerce, Major Leac}ue B�seball Task Force, Twins Market Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, Convention Center Preference Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota Minnesota Project on Corporate Responsibility, Leadership in Transitian Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota Minnesota Association of Commerce and industry, Memk�ership Survey Series, Saint Paul, Minnesota School Districts Bloomington School �istrict, Communicatians Audit, F3loomington, Minnesota Diocese of Saint Augustine, Catholic Educatian in the Jacksonville Area Study, Jacksonville, Florida Diocese of Saint Augustine, Cathalic Education in the 5aint Augustirae Area Study, Saint Augustine, Flarida Totino-Grace Higfi Sehool, Market Segmentation study, Fridley, Minnesota Sethlehem Academy, Schaol Feasibility Study, Faribaul:t, Minnesota' Holy Angels High school, Alumni Perceptions Study, Richfield, Minnesata Saint� Matthews Elementary School, Farish Family Preference and Future Policies Analysis, Saint Paul, Minnesota ` Archdiocese of Saint Pau1 and Minneapolis, Dakota Caunty School Feasibility Study, Saint Paul, Minnesota ................._ . ....,:,:a;. � ^ • � � � . . � . . � . � . . . Reliqiaus Orqanizat�.ans Archdiocese of 5aint Paul and Mintteapol.is, Development Office, Annual Catholic App�a� Market segmentation Analysis, Saint Paul, Minnesota School Sisters of Notre Dame, Community and Ministry Satisfaction Study, Mankato, MinnesQta Non-Profit and Cultural/Arts Orqanizations Ramsey County Historical Society, Membership Survey and New Member Drive, Saint Paul, Minnesota O'Shaughnessy Dance Series, Market Segmentation Analysis, College of Saint Catherine, Sair�t Paul, Minnesata The Minnesota Opera, Potential AUd�.ellC� S�Ud�� Development Office, Saint Paul, Minnesota The League of Minnesota Cities, Membership Survey, Saint Paul, Minnesota Northwest Community Televisian, Cabie Subseribers S�tisfactian Study, Broaklyn Center, Minnesota C .- ° , � • Political Sector Clients: Barbara Hafer for County Commissioner, Allegheny County, Fennsylvania (1983, 1987) Jim Van Slyke for Congress, . Kansas Second Congressional District (1984} Mike Kavouklis for Congress, Florida Seventh Congressional District (1984) Jim Galbraith for Congress, Washington First Congressional District (1984) Harley Williams for Congress, Maryland First Congressional District (1984, I986) Committee to Re-Elect a Responsible U.S. Senator, State of Iowa {1984) Ted Noble for State Representative, House District G2Ii, State of Minnesota (1984) Friends of Jim Hoffman, Secretary of State, State o� Minnesota (Z�sSj James Lindau far Governor, State of Minnesota {1986) Barbara Hafer for Lieutenax�t Governor, State of Pennsylvania (1986) � Bill Belanger €or State Senate, Forty-first Senate District, State of Minnesota (19g5j Fritz Knaak for State Senate, Fifty-third Senate District, State of Minnesota (1986j Elaine Farmer for State Assembly, Twenty-Eighth Nause pistrict, State of Pennsylvania (1gg6, igggj Terry McVerry for Sta�e Assembly, Forty-Eighth House District, State of Pennsylvania (1988) Barbara Carlson far City Cauncil, Seventh Ward, City of Minneapalis, Minnesota (1988j Florida Republican Party, Vulnerability Study of the First State Senate District, Tallahassee, Florida (1988)