HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-29-94 j,
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 29, 1994
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tushie at 7:05 P.M. at City Hall.
Roll call of members was taken. Present: Brantly, Detjen, Emond, Erickson, Krejci, Matasosky,
Pogatchnik, Tushie, Vogel. Absent: none.
Also present: Jim Morrow, Pat Carlberg, Cindy Johnson, Lakeville Chamber of Commerce;
Michael Sobota, Director of Community and Economic Development; Robert Erickson, City
Administrator; Carol Graff, Economic Development Specialist.
94.10 Motion by Emond, seconded by Detjen to approve minutes of November 3, 1994 EDC meeting.
Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous.
Discussion of Strategic Work Plan
Chairman Tushie opened discussion of the Chamber of Commerce recommendations on the
Strategic Work Plan. Chairman Tushie reviewed a proposed revision to Team 3, Communication
and Interaction work p1an.He stated that an action plan that calls for a separate track review
process for commercial and industrial development projects be added to the work plan. Sobota
stated that it had been discussed by staff to use a separate team approach to deal with commercial
and industrial development projects. Emond shared a format that Burnsville uses in development
' projects. The Burnsville report identifies dates of meetings, deadlines, a checklist, and describes
the overall process involved in a development project. Sobota stated that Lakeville planning staff
had in place an extensive residential development checklist. Detjen added that if staffwas already
using a checklist for residential development, that a checklist for commercial and industrial
development projects would be a good thing to try. It was recommended by the commission to
revise Team 3, Action Plan C to add the following Key Program: C. Develop recommendations
for a commercial and industrial development review process. The timeline for accomplishing this
key program is 2nd quarter of 1995.
Tushie stated that another item that was not addressed by the strategic work plan was Airlake
Airport and that it should be added to Team 6's work plan. Sobota stated that an Airport
Advisory Committee was in place that meets quarterly to discuss airport issues. The committee
reviews current information from MAC relating to Airlake Airport. It was decided to revise
Team 6, Action Plan A to state: Verify the continuing existence of railway in Lakeville and
continue support of Airlake Airport facilities.
Pogatchnik referred to Section 6 of the Chamber of Commerce letter that questioned the
feasibility of spending funds on proposed entry point beautification project planning, (Team 6,
Action E.) Jim Morrow, President of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke about the funding of a
beautification project that would not contribute benefits directly to businesses. Tushie stated that
the EDC considered the action plan to be very important because the process is intended to create
. a community identity for Lakeville and tie the community together. Tushie agreed that the action
plan is more faz reaching than pure economic development. He also stated that industrial
businesses would not see a need, however, retail and commercial would. Morrow replied that
beautification projects can add to the community but don't help existing businesses grow. Sobota
explained that several past discussions have taken place that point to enhancing the integration of
retail and commercial development. Any enhancement would become a part of future
construction projects. In the meantime, by having a design plan in place, would facilitate
implementation of the action plan when development took place. Several corridors would be
' affected that are expected to develop in the next 5 years. Discussion took place among the
commission regarding the importance of key design considerations and their benefit to
commercial, retail, and industrial development. Matasosky stated that he had received several
calls of concern on the actual cost of construction. Sobota reviewed the proposed plan to have a
common theme that would impact retail and commercial development. Tushie and Pogatchnik
referred to the tour of Eden Prairie and how key designs had been integrated during development.
Pogatchnik added that the action plan should be made clearer to explain the expenditure and
project objectives. Detjen, Brantly and Matasosky agreed. Detjen added that the key design
action plan could compliment the City's 50-year transportation plan. Morrow stated that several
members of the Chamber had expressed views that the funds would be better spent in other areas
of the strategic plan. Morrow asked if the plan was to tie all the corridors together. Detjen
replied that the objective was to show recognition to people that they were in Lakeville.
Discussion continued among commission members regarding the action plan. Brantly stated that
there are two ways to view Lakeville - as a hodgepodge or well organized. By implementing the
key design program shows that the community takes pride in itself. J. Erickson stated that cost
effectiveness was important but recognition is also important and agreed that the plan would
create a sense of pride. It was agreed to clarify the language.
Morrow referred to the Chamber of Commerce letter and the section regarding Hoops?Hurdles
and Fee Structures. He stated that providing clear procedural steps and information is important
and should become a part of Team 3, Action Plan B. Sobota stated that staff has attempted to
' facilitate the development process, but that additional steps need to be taken to increase
communication and increase understanding of the process. Matasosky stated that he was pleased
with several recent changes. The commission recommended the following key program be added
to Team 3, Action Plan B: Key program F. Review current ordinances and policies to minimize
hoops and hurdles.
Strategic Work Plan Budget
Sobota provided background on the proposed budget for 1995 & 1996. A copy of the revised
budget is attached. While reviewing the budget, he referred to the following items:
Team lA, Marketing Consultant: changed from 1995 expenditure to 1996
Team 1B, Marketing Consultant: reduced from $15,000 to $10,000 with an
expenditure of $5,000 in 1995 and $5,000 in 1996. NAC reduced from $5,000 to
$2,500 and Barton-Aschman should be considered for a part of the work plan.
Note: Previously, Team 1B and 1D were separate action plans. They are now
combined into 1B.
Team 2A, Marketing Consultant: expenditure of $5,000 in 1995 and $5,000 in 1996.
Team 2D; No Change
Team 2E, Video: $500 expenditure was previously omitted in the EDC packet.
Team 3A, SEH: The proposed $10,000 - $15,000 expenditure would be funded by
trunk funds. J. Erickson inquired if use of the trunk funds would take away from
other projects. R Erickson explained the purpose of the trunk fund and that the
action plan fits the focus of trunk fund usage.
Team 3B: No Change
Team 4A: Eapenditure was moved back to 1996. A discussion took place that the
workshop take place in 1995 and move the expenditure to 1996 seemed appropriate
and timely.
Team 4B: No Change
Team 4D, Consultant: It was determined that staff could utilize Metro East
Development Partnership information library and computer to accomplish the
action plan with $1125 budgeted for implementation using the information
gathered.
Team 5A, Decision Resources: Staff determined that the original budget amount of
$2,500 was too low and increased the amount to $3,625.
Team 6E, Barton Aschman: Originally budgeted for 1995, the cost of the project
will be a $10,000 expenditure in 1995, and a $20,000 expeuditure in 1996.
4.12 Motion to recommend approval of the Economic Development Strategic Work Plan and the
revised budget to the City Council was made by Emond, seconded by J. Erickson. Roll call was
taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous.
Before adjournment Morrow expressed the positive feeling among chamber members regarding
the strategic plan and thanked the EDC for the opportunity to comment.
Sobota spoke to the commission regarding the leadership of the commission in 1996 which will be
decided by the members at the January 24, 1996 meeting.
Meeting adjourned: 8:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
Carol Graff, Rec mg Secretary
ATTESTED by:
•
Robert Brantly, Secretary