HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-00-00 City of Lakeville
Economic Development Commission
Meeting Minutes
October 24, 2000, 6:00 p.m.
City Hall Administration Conference Room
Members Present: Pogatchnik, Detjen, Brantly, Matasosky; Emond, Vogel, Ex-Officio
member Bornhauser, alternate member Erickson.
Members Absent: Schubert, Miller, Tushie
Staff Present: Arlyn Grussing, Community & Economic Development Director, Ann Flad,
Economic Development Coordinator, Robert Erickson, City Administrator.
1. Call Meeting to Order. Chair Vogel called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Hail Administration Conference Room.
2. Approval of September 26,2000 Regular Meeting Minutes.
Mr. Grussing stated that Comm. Tushie requested motion 00.26 as recorded in the
September 26, 2000 meeting minutes be amended as follows: "Comms. Pogatchnik/Brantly
moved to conduct acost/benefit analysis on providing funds to Garry Glenna for the
construction of a new hanger with bathrooms and a Lounge within the Lakeville boundaries of
Airlake Airport." Chair Vogel requested that the last sentence of the first paragraph under
agenda item number three be amended to read "He stated this increase would make
Lakeville's fees in the mid-range for commercial and industrial developments compared to
surrounding communities." Chair Vogel also requested that the second sentence in the third
paragraph under agenda item three be amended to read "Therefore they could not be
dedicated strictly for the Gateway & Corridor projects."
Motion 00.28 Comms. Erickson/Emond moved to approve the September 26,
2000 meeting minutes as ammended. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. Review Comparative Development Fees and Park Dedication Fee recommendation.
Mr. Grussing discussed a comparison of area communities commercial and industrial
development fees. He indicated that Lakeville has the second highest sewer connection
charges and the lowest sanitary sewer area charge. Lakeville's water charges are low for
buildings with low water use, but will rank higher with buildings having high water use.
Lakeville ranks in the mid-range compared to other communities for storm sewer area
charges. Additionally, Lakeville's current park dedication fees for industrial land rank in the
middle of the seven cities surveyed, while three cities have a higher commercial park
dedication fee.
Mr. Grussing also provided a calculation forwarded by Comm. Tushie of the fees that would
be incurred in each city based on a one acre commercial project with eight SAC units. Mr.
2ooa, o~ta~~ za ~
G:1AFIad~ECONDEVIEDC\2000mtg51001024 mtglmin 001024a.doc
trussing also provided staff calculations for recent projects in Lakeville that were
• approximately one acre in size and had one to two SAC units.
Comm. Matasosky indicated that the data provided was helpful and should be used to
develop a comparison based on several different sized projects.
Comm. Emond questioned whether there are other fees associated with development
projects which are not reflected in the comparison, such as review plan fees. Mr. Erickson
stated that fees are. incurred for inspection of infrastructure and that the city has data on other
cities' fees, however these fees are similar for each city and therefore do not change the
comparison. Mr. Erickson also stated that Shokapee, Savage and Farmington take these
fees out of TIF for incentivized projects and therefore same developers may not view the fees
as a deterrent to doing a project in those communities.
Comm. Matasosky indicated the Parks and Recreation recommendation to establish a fixed
Park Dedication fee of $4,800/acre for commercial property and $4,000/acre for industrial
property for is agreeable. He indicated, however, that the fee should be calculated based on
net useable land and not on the gross plat, because land gifts and unusable land ie: trout
stream "conservation easements" should not be included in the calculation. Mr. Erickson
then suggested that any land going into a permanent easement could be given an equivalent
credit against the storm sewer charge:
Mr. Erickson also indicated that park dedication fees must be used for acquisition and
improvement of property. He added that the state legislature has placed the greater burden
on residential and not commercial and industrial property if the cost for acquisition and
improvement of parks was levied.
Comm. Vogel identified three issues relevant to the park dedication fee recommendation: 1.)
Competitive industrial fees, 2.) The disparity between industrial and commercial park
dedication fees, and 3.) The incorporation of the Corridor and Gateway Plan into the
Comprehensive Park Plan.
Mr. Erickson indicated that the Parks and Recreation Department has been requested to
amend their Comprehensive Park Plan to include the Gateways and Corridors program prior
to the Plan's approval by the Metropolitan Council. This would allow the Parks and
Recreation Department to utilize Park Dedication Fees and/or other funds to implement
Corridor & Gateway projects.
Comm. Erickson commented that it is important for Lakeville to be competitive in the
development fees, including the park dedication fee.
Comm. Emond questioned whether there was a need for increased Park Dedication revenue
based on the full implementation of the Comprehensive Park Plan's projected acquisitions
and improvements.
•
2000, October 24 2
G:WPIad1ECONDEVtEDC12000mtgs1001024 mtglmin 001024a.doc
There was a discussion on the park dedication fee based on a flat per acre fee as opposed to
• the current system. At present the County Assessor determines the park dedication because
that office determines the land value which is the basis for the park dedication fee.
Motion 00.29 Comms. Detjen/Emond moved to have Park Dedication Fee
Subcommittee meet with major landowners, review a capital
budget projection for park acquisitions and improvements, and
define the difference for commercial and industrial properties.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. Review Labor Force Focus Group Report.
Ms. Flad indicated that the three labor force focus groups have been completed with a total of
eighteen businesses participating. The consultant's report was received on October 6, 2000
and reflects the businesses' comments. It does not reflect the consultant's opinion, nor does
it reflect that some recommended actions are already being done. Additionally, in
consultation with the City Attorney, staff found that the implementation of some
recommended actions pose legal difficulties for the city, ie: advertising jobs on the city's cable
channel. Staff recommends the Labor Force Focus Group Report be sent back to the Labor
Force Subcommittee for their review and prioritization of recommendations.
Comm. Erickson noted that on page foura recommendation was made to have "The City of
Lakeville move forward with its comprehensive plan for providing more affordable housing in
Lakeville. This issue emerged as the most important one for some business
representatives." Comm. Erickson asked for a definition of affordable housing. Mr. trussing
responded that affordable housing guidelines are generally set by the federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and are based on median area income, household
income and family size. These numbers are then adjusted for local economic conditions
through the Livable Communities Act and through the Dakota County Community
Development Agency.
Comm. Brandtly asked if employers were willing to help develop affordable housing. Comm.
Matasosky responded that in the Labor Force Focus Group Report employers expressed
hesitancy in developing affordable housing, but once a program was defined and the role of
employers was explained, the willingness to participate may increase.
Mr. Erickson commented that the City of Lakeville's ordinance encourages the development
of affordable housing by exempting developers of affordable housing from certain standards
and thus reducing a developers cost for a project.
Mr. Erickson referenced item number eight on the agenda and indicated that the $34,814 in
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were allocated to develop an Affordable
Housing Strategy. Erickson stated that these funds could be reprogrammed and used in
conjunction with next year's anticipated CDBG allocation of approximately $100,000 to
undertake another affordable housing project with the Dakota County Community
•
2000, Odo6er 24 3
G:WFIad1ECONDEV5E0C12000mtgs1001024 mtgtrnin 001024a.doc
Development Agency (CDA.) The proposed site for this project would be in close proximity to
• - Airlake Industrial Park employers.
Pogatchnik indicated that the value in the study will be determined by how it is used.
Motion 00.30 Comms. Emond/Erickson moved to send the Labor Force Focus
Group Report-back to the Labor Force Subcommittee for their
review and recommendations. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Overview of Octover 16-22 Manufacturers Week.
Ms. Flad informed those present that she and Mr. Grussing visited twenty-six manufacturers
during Manufacturing Week and that the visits were very well received. The remaining
manufacturers will be visited in upcoming weeks. Ex-Officio member Mr. Bornhauser
indicated that the Manufacturers Recognition Luncheon went very well, with sixty-six
attendees. Nine manufacturers were represented by fifteen attendees. Discussion ensued
about next year's Manufacturers Week activities. Mr. Bornhauser indicated that six months
prior to the 2001 Manufacturers Week, inquiries will be made with manufacturers to
determine what activities or recognition they would find of value. Publicity will also be
increased and the relevance of manufacturers to local residents' lives will be highlighted.
6. Consider convening Incentive Subcommittee.
Mr. Grussing handed out a proposal from the City of Lakeville's financial advisory firm
Springsted, Inc. to conduct an incentive study. Springsted proposes to:
• 1. Meet with City staff and/or EDC, City Council to determine objectives and parameters
of program.
2. Review historical patterns, current programs and estimated current financial capacity
for providing incentives.
3. Provide background information on the range of incentive programs including other
municipalities' incentives.
4. Determine how to interface incentive policies with current Economic Development and
Comprehensive Plans.
5. Discuss various programs' trade-offs, impact on resources, and relevance to
Lakeville's objectives and target industries.
6. Refine a fist of programs for specific application in Lakeville:
7. Discuss related City fees for specific types of incentives and their applicability to
developing acost-recovery system..
8. Development of administrative materials for incentive programs.
9. Development of financial modeling to evaluate applicants and impact on City
resources.
10.Integration of incentive program into City management structure..
Mr. Grussing indicated that Springsted has agreed to do the study for a fee not to exceed
$12,500. The EDC's 2001 budget has $2,000 allocated for this study. An additional $10,500
would need to be requested from the City Council to complete this task.
•
- 2000, October 24 4
_ G:WFIad1ECONDEVlEDC12000mtgs1001024 mtg\min 001024a.doc
Comm. Brandtly suggested that the consultant include development of innovative incentives
• for Lakeville. Comm. Matasosky noted that the proposal would examine conventional
incentives. He suggested that a group of business people and professionals in fields such as
law and public financing develop new incentive ideas for Springsted's analysis in the
proposed financial incentive study. Mr. Bornhauser added that utilizing the expertise of
companies with locations outside of Minnesota might uncover other incentive ideas.
Motion 00.31: Comms. Detjen/Matasosky moved to form a subcommittee of EDC
Comm.'s Barry Pogatchnik, Bob Brandtly and Jim Emond to examine the
issue of Financial Incentives. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion 00.32: Comms. Emond/Pogatchnik moved to enter into a contract with
Springsted for the study of Financial Incentives. Motion carried
unanimously.
Comm. Vogel indicated that he would proceed with requesting additional funds from the
Council for the incentive study as recommended by the EDC in motion 00.24 on September
24, 2000. The request for funds to update the Strategic Plan for Economic Development will
be postponed.
7. Status report on Metropolitan Airports Commissions' Fixed Base Operator. Mr.
Grussing reported that he received a map from Garry Glenna regarding Glenna's proposed
new hanger at Airlake Airport. Cost estimates have not been received yet, therefore a
cost/benefit analysis could not 6e prepared for the EDC's review. Mr. Grussing also reported
that Glenna reiterated his offer to make his new hanger, bathrooms and lounge available to
other businesses.
Comm. Matasosky indicated that he has checked with a number of additional businesses
regarding their satisfaction with the Fixed Base Operator (FBO) at Airlake, and many other
businesses indicate the same problems reported by Heat-N-Glo.
Mr. Erickson indicated that Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) met with City staff regarding the FBO on October 20, 2000. Hamiel,
Director of Reliever Airports Gary Schmidt, and Airside Project Manager Bridget Rief were
present at that meeting to discuss concerns and review options. Erickson explained that
Flyteline leases the land from MAC but owns the building they operate out of. Erickson also
reported that Hamiel assured City staff that MAC would address the business's and City's
concerns with the FBO.
8. Community Development Block Grant funds. A letter was distributed from Lee Smith,
Community Development Supervisor with Dakota County Community Development Agency
(CDA) which outlined the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) national
objectives that must be met in order to use CDBG funds for downtown building
improvements. Mr. Erickson explained that storefront improvements were unlikely to meet
the HUD objective of "creating jobs for low-to-moderate income people', therefore it has been
proposed to use the CDBG funds to meet the HUD objective of "eliminating slums and
2000, October 24 rJ
G:1AFIad1ECONDEV~EDC12000mtgsW01024 mtgUnin 001024a.doc
blights" by funding code improvements. Projects would be funded that propose to address
• both code improvements and storefront improvements consistent with the Historic Fairfield
District of Downtown Lakeville Design Guidelines. The CDBG funds would be used to
address the code improvement portion of the project. A letter was distributed from Christine
Mondus, Executive Director of the Downtown Lakeville Business Association which supports
using the 2000 CDBG funds for code improvements done in conjunction with storefront
improvements rather than exclusively for storefront improvements with low to moderate
income job creation as originally allocated.
Mr. Erickson then referenced the $34,814 allocated from 2000 CDBG funds for the
development of an Affordable Housing Strategy. Erickson stated that Mark Ulfers, Executive
Director of CDA, would be willing to develop another affordable rental townhouse project in
Lakeville if the $34, 814 and the City's 2001 allocation of CDBG funds estimated at $100,000
were committed to the project to offset the cost of site acquisition. The site proposed for the
project is near Airlake Industrial Park. It has been used as a dumpsite in the past and can be
considered a blighted property. Additional funds will be sought from the Metropolitan Council
to finance the clean-up costs associated with the project. The project would be consistent
with the EDC's 2000 Strategic Plan for Economic Development which indicates the EDC will
implement strategies to increase the availability of affordable housing in Lakeville.
Additionally, the project would address the recommendation in the Labor Force Focus Group
Report that suggests the City implement affordable housing projects.
Motion 00.33: Comms. Pogatchnik/Detjen moved to reprogram the $34,819 of 2000
CDBG funds that were allocated for development of an Affordable
Housing Strategy, combine them with an application for $100,000 in
2001 CDBG funds in order to support the Dakota County Community
Development Agency's acquisition of a site in Lakeville on which the
CDA will develop an affordable housing project. Motion carried
unanimously.
Motion 00.34: Comms.. Emond/Matasosky moved to combine $50,000 of 2000 CDBG
funds allocated for Storefront Improvement Loans and $20,000 allocated
for Storefront Improvement Grants and create one program to address
code improvements done in conjunction with storefront improvements for
downtown buildings. Motion carried unanimously.
9. Consider recommendation to change name of Airlake Air News to include a broader
base of businesses,
Ms. Flad reported that Airlake Park News is distributed to a broader number of businesses
than just those in Airlake Industrial Park. Additionally, some articles in the newsletter feature
businesses not in Airlake. Staff has questioned if the name should be changed to reflect a
broader range of business interests. Ms. Flad suggested the purpose of the newsletter be
examined before a change in name take place. Mr. Bornhauser indicated the Chamber of
Commerce prints a newsletter that includes retail and commercial businesses. Comm.
Brandtly indicated that attention needs to be paid to retail businesses. Chair Vogel
2000, OUOber 24 6
G:V+FIadSECONDEV~EDC1200DmtgsW01024 mtgAnin 001024a.doc
suggested studying this issue during a review of the Strategic Plan for Economic
• ' Development early in 2001.
10. Schedule December EDC meeting.
Ms. Flad indicated that the EDC's regular meetings are scheduled for the fourth Tuesday of
each month. In December, the regular meeting would fall on December 26, 2000, the day
after Christmas. Mr. Erickson indicated that efforts are made by all City advisory groups to
eliminate regular meetings in December. Chair Vogel indicated that the regularly scheduled
December meeting would be cancelled and a special meeting would be called during the
month if needed.
11.Adjourn. Chair Vogel called the meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted b Attested to: p
Ann Flad, Recording Secretary R.T. Brantly, Secretary
•
2000, October 24 7
G:WFIadIECONDEVtEDC@OOOmtgs1001024 mtg1min 001024a.doc