HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-27-2025
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
January 27, 2025 - 6:00 PM
Lakeville City Hall, Marion Conference Room
Members of the public can participate in person at Lakeville City Hall, Marion Conference Room. Members of the public may join
the meeting via Teams Meeting, Meeting ID: 276 485 596 886 or by calling Toll Number 1-323-433-2142; Conference ID: 432
130 403#. The mayor will allow for public comments and questions at the appropriate time.
The City Council is provided background information for agenda items in advance by staff and appointed commissions,
committees, and boards. Decisions are based on this information, as well as City policy, practices, input from constituents, and a
council member’s personal judgment.
1. Call to order, moment of silence and flag pledge
2. Citizen Comments
3. Discussion Items
45 minutes a. 2025 Legislative Priorities
30 minutes b. Proposals for Food Truck Festivals in Downtown
Lakeville
Joseph Masiarchin,
Brad Paulson
20 minutes c. Lakeville Fire Relief Association Pension Amendment Michael Meyer, Julie
Stahl
30 minutes d. Discussion of Zoning Ordinances Related to Missing
Middle Housing
Tina Goodroad
15 minutes e. 2025A Bond Issuance - Street Reconstruction & CIP
Project
Julie Stahl
4. Items for Future Discussion
5. Committee/ City Administrator Updates
6. Adjourn
Page 1 of 64
Date: 1/27/2025
2025 Legislative Priorities
Proposed Action
No action required – discussion only.
Overview
As the 2025 Minnesota State Legislature gets underway, there will be many legislative
initiatives and bills considered. The adoption of legislative priorities is intended to portray the
city's positions on a variety of issues and to communicate to Lakeville’s residents, legislators,
county and state officials, lobbying organizations, and other interested parties Lakeville’s
position on a variety of significant legislative topics. These priorities have been separated into
two sections - primary and additional priorities.
For 2025, the primary priorities include:
• Downtown Lakeville Social District
• State Mandates on Local Authority
• Post Office Improvements
• County Road 50/Interstate 35 Interchange Capacity
The city is excited to welcome our state, county, and regional representatives to the January
work session to share and discuss our legislative priorities.
Supporting Information
1. 2025 Legislative Priorities (Final)
Financial Impact: $ Budgeted: No Source:
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Good Value for Public Service
Report Completed by: Allyn Kuennen, Assistant City Administrator
Page 2 of 64
City of Lakeville
2025 Legislative Priorities
Adopted: December 16, 2024
Page 3 of 64
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Primary Legislative Priorities ....................................................................................................................................3
A. Downtown Lakeville Social District ...................................................................................................3
B. State Mandates on Local Authority: ...................................................................................................3
C. Post Office Improvements: ..................................................................................................................3
D. County Road 5/50 Interchange Improvements at Interstate 35: ....................................................3
Additional Legislative Priorities ...............................................................................................................................5
A. Regulation of Adult-Use Cannabis and Cannabinoid Products:....................................................5
B. Expansion of Wine and Strong Beer Sales in Grocery/C-Stores: ...................................................6
C. Elections: ................................................................................................................................................6
D. Met Council Governance: ....................................................................................................................6
E. Revenue Restrictions: ...........................................................................................................................7
F. Data Practices Act: ................................................................................................................................7
G. Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution: ....................................................................................................7
H. Targeting Property Tax Relief Directly to Individuals: ....................................................................7
I. Cyber Security .......................................................................................................................................8
J. Regulation of Massage erapists .......................................................................................................8
K. Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases .......................................................................................9
Transportation ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
A. Transportation System Improvement and Maintenance Funding: ............................................ 10
B. Dan Patch Commuter Rail Corridor: .............................................................................................. 11
Economic Development ..................................................................................................................................... 11
A. Workforce Readiness: ........................................................................................................................ 11
B. On-Sale Liquor or Wine Licenses: ................................................................................................... 12
C. Expansion of the Job Creation Fund (JCF) and Minnesota Investment Fund (MIF): ............. 12
D. Expansion of Broadband Highspeed Internet: ............................................................................... 12
E. Tax Increment Financing (TIF): ...................................................................................................... 13
Housing ................................................................................................................................................................ 13
A. City Role in Housing: ........................................................................................................................ 13
Page 4 of 64
3
Primary Legislative Priorities
A. Downtown Lakeville Social District
e City of Lakeville is requesting the Minnesota State Legislature grant a special provision to
allow the City of Lakeville to designate a “Social District” within the Downtown area, modeled
aer the City of Anoka legislation adopted in 2022.
B. State Mandates on Local Authority:
Lakeville opposes statutory changes which erode local control and authority including, but not
limited to:
• Mandates that limit the city’s ability to manage our development standards, zoning regulations,
and the use of right-of-way.
• Unfunded mandates that cause increased property taxes which impede the city’s ability to fund
traditional services.
• Regulations prohibiting the imposition of infrastructure fees so new development pays its fair
share of the off-site, as well as the on-site, costs of public infrastructure to adequately serve the
new development.
C. Post Office Improvements:
In March of 2021, the United States Postal Service released its 10-year plan, ‘Delivering for
America,’ to return the organization to financial sustainability and achieve service excellence while
maintaining universal six-day mail delivery and expanding seven-day package delivery. e
Lakeville Post Office currently struggles to make consistent daily deliveries to residents, much less
expanding to delivery seven days a week. e report indicates the successful implementation of the
10-year plan requires partnership from legislative and regulatory stakeholders. e City of
Lakeville has contacted our local elected federal representatives and requested a review of the
operations of the Lakeville Post Office. It is essential, for a growing city of over 75,000 residents,
that the Federal Government implement improvements to Lakeville’s Post Office including the
renovation and expansion of the sorting and distribution facility, upgrades to technology, increased
staffing and training, and updated vehicle fleet and logistics to provide improved customer service
and consistent and reliable handling, sorting and delivery of mail services. Further, the City desires
a path forward to consolidate the city into one contiguous zip code to help avoid confusion related
to mailing addresses.
D. County Road 5/50 Interchange Improvements at Interstate 35:
County Road 5/50 is categorized as a minor arterial with an annual average daily traffic volume of
28,000 vehicles that pass through the interchange. Interstate 35 (I-35) has an annual average daily
traffic volume between 75,000 to 80,000 vehicles at this interchange. e Interchange has high crash
rates and significant traffic congestion due to insufficient capacity, sight distance, and turn lanes,
and requires replacement to improve safety and delays. As the largest city in Dakota County and
one of Minnesota’s fastest-growing populations, the City (along with Dakota County) has been
Page 5 of 64
4
planning to replace this deficient Interchange for more than 20 years and made significant local
investments (more than $22 million) in right-of-way acquisition, local road reconfiguration, and
draining improvements, along the County Road 5/50 corridor and within the Interstate 35
interchange area in preparation for future safety and capacity improvements.
Replacing the County Road 5/50 Interchange at I-35 will provide the necessary infrastructure and
investment to make safety and capacity improvements, improve existing and future regional
mobility along the County Road 5/50 and I-35 corridors (E-ZPass, auxiliary or general purpose
lane), and encourage additional job creation and tax base through new commercial and industrial
development. e City is partnering with Dakota County and potentially MnDOT to coordinate
interchange improvements to increase efficiencies and reduce impacts to the traveling public and
existing businesses (MnDOT’s Capital Highway Investment Plan programs replacement of the I-
35 bridges over CSAH 60 and 205th Street, repairs to the I-35 bridges over Lake Marion and
pavement improvements between CSAH 70 and the I-35E/35W split in 2029 to address existing
deteriorating infrastructure). Currently, Dakota County is developing preliminary plans for a new
County Road 5/50 Interchange at Interstate 35 as part of a $5,040,000 federal funding
appropriation.
Page 6 of 64
5
Additional Legislative Priorities
Local Control, Municipal Revenue & Taxation
A. Regulation of Adult-Use Cannabis and Cannabinoid Products:
e 2023 legislative session enacted legislation making Minnesota the 23rd state in the country
to legalize adult-use cannabis. e new law, ch. 342, created a statewide regulatory framework
for adult-use cannabis establishing state-issued licenses for the industry from seed to sale. e
regulatory structure includes local regulation, with cities responsible for registering certain
cannabis businesses that are licensed by the state and conducting compliance checks. e law
requires businesses to comply with local zoning ordinances, authorizes cities to implement
license limits, and authorizes cities to implement ordinances to establish a petty misdemeanor
for public use of cannabis and cannabinoid products. ese authorizations aside, cities have
very limited discretion in the regulation of the industry. In addition to the adult-use cannabis
market, cities continue to navigate the regulation of cannabinoid products legalized by the 2022
legislative session under chapter. § 151.72. As the Office of Cannabis Management is created
and rulemaking is conducted, cities have continued to implement local licenses for the
products.
Finally, the new law authorizes cities to impose an interim ordinance to study the issue and
restrict, regulate, and prohibit cannabis businesses until January 1, 2025. However, estimates
from state agencies and the rulemaking timeline established by law indicate that final rules will
not be available until early 2025. e authority to conduct an interim ordinance study should
better align with the establishment of rules for the new law to allow cities to properly study the
issue. Many questions remain for what is to be seen from the Office of Cannabis Management
and the cannabis industry as it is established. Cities will be a critical component of the
regulation and enforcement of this industry.
In any future legislation, the following should be considered:
• e timeline authorized for interim ordinances to conduct studies on the adult-use
cannabis industry should be extended to better align with the conclusion of
rulemaking for ch. 342 to provide adequate time for cities to study the rules once
adopted.
• Any legislation considered should be responsive to the needs of cities as they arise
from the implementation of this industry, including evaluating and potentially
increasing the appropriation provided through the Local Government Cannabis Aid
fund to ensure adequate funding for local governments to respond to challenges
resulting from the cannabis industry.
• Legislation should increase, and at a minimum maintain, any discretion and local
control granted to cities in current legislation.
Page 7 of 64
6
• e City opposes any proposals to diminish local control related to the cannabis
industry.
B. Expansion of Wine and Strong Beer Sales in Grocery/C-Stores:
Lakeville Liquors provides over $1.5 million in property tax relief annually to our property
taxpayers. Lakeville opposes any legislation that would allow the expansion of the sale of wine
and strong beer beyond existing licensed premises due to significant detrimental economic
impacts on city revenues and the negative effect on preventing drunk driving and underage
alcohol sales and consumption. Minnesota law already allows grocery stores, gas stations,
convenience stores, and wherever beer is sold to sell 3.2 beer.
C. Elections:
In 2024, the City of Lakeville spent $116,312 and 19,185 hours of staff time on three elections
(presidential primary, general primary, and general election). Cities are essential in
administering state and federal election laws and conducting voting activities. To strengthen
the effectiveness of election administration, the Legislature should:
• Seek input from cities on proposed changes to voter registration, election law, and
needed improvements and updates to the Statewide Voter Registration System
(SVRS).
• Provide Cities with ongoing and sufficient funding through the Voting Operations,
Technology, and Election Resources Account (VOTER) fund to provide cities with
resources to conduct elections and meet the mandated requirements outlined in the
statute.
• Provide ongoing resources to cities that administer absentee balloting and early
voting for the extended early voting period and additional weekend hours required
during a general election.
• Ensure that local government units are fully reimbursed for all anticipated and
unanticipated costs of conducting the presidential nomination primary.
D. Met Council Governance:
e 17-member Metropolitan Council has 16 members, who represent geographic districts
within the Twin Cities seven-county metropolitan area, with one member serving at large.
However, they are all appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Governor and typically fall
within the current governor’s party affiliation. To provide a governance structure that is more
representative of our respective communities, local governments (cities and counties) should
be afforded an opportunity to provide input in the selection process for members who
represent local interests in regional planning efforts.
Page 8 of 64
7
E. Revenue Restrictions:
e City of Lakeville strongly opposes levy limits and other financial restrictions imposed upon
local governments. Local taxpayers hold their local elected officials accountable for local
government spending and taxing decisions. When the state imposes levy limits, reverse
referenda, or other fiscal restraints on local elected officials, it negatively impacts the ability of
cities to meet the needs of their residents and removes the autonomy of local officials.
F. Data Practices Act:
e City of Lakeville supports a comprehensive periodic review of the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) which was first enacted in 1979, over 40 years ago.
Times have changed, specifically with technology. In 1979, cities were mainly maintaining
data in paper form. Legislators from that time could not have imagined where technology
would be today. e MGDPA should be updated to address those changes. e City of
Lakeville should support these efforts:
• Provide additional state funding to assist Cities with meeting the increasing
complexity of managing government data and records.
• State funding should be provided for statewide data practices training.
• Allow Cities to charge for the staff time required to comply with wide-ranging
data requests regardless of where copies of the data are requested.
G. Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution:
e City of Lakeville supports the Fiscal Disparities Program and any effort to modernize and
improve the program to fund the needs of the metro area.
H. Targeting Property Tax Relief Directly to Individuals:
e City of Lakeville supports targeting property tax relief directly to individuals as opposed to
direct aid programs like Local Government Aid (LGA) and believes that income, not property
value, is the most appropriate measure of "ability to pay" property taxes. Lakeville supports
additional property tax relief to those in greatest need by directing dollars to the circuit breaker
program from programs such as LGA. e circuit breaker income adjusted property tax relief
program provides direct assistance to those homeowners in greatest need, whether those local
homeowners reside in a city that receives direct aid from the State.
e City of Lakeville also supports modifications to the homestead market value exclusion
program. e general parameters of the program have not changed since 2011 and recent
trends in residential home values have significantly reduced the value of the exclusion for many
homeowners. e legislature should adjust the program to reflect the increases in market
values.
Page 9 of 64
8
I. Cyber Security
A Legislative Commission on Cybersecurity was established in 2021 to provide oversight
of the state’s cybersecurity measures and review and make policy recommendations to
state agencies and the legislature to strengthen the state’s cybersecurity infrastructure.
However, many of the commission recommendations have not yet been implemented,
which creates cybersecurity vulnerabilities, especially at the local level as many
communities lack the necessary tools and capabilities needed to protect their systems. e
problem is serious. Each month Minnesota IT Services defends against roughly 27,000
phishing emails and messages across all state agencies and several cities and counties have
been recent targets of ransomware attacks as local governments continue to remain
particularly vulnerable to cyberattacks. e passage of the federal Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 provided additional federal resources to Minnesota to
better prepare the state’s preparedness and response to future cyberattacks. However,
even with additional federal resources, many cities across the state remain vulnerable to
cyberattacks and are in need of hardware and soware support.
e City of Lakeville supports state action to identify and strengthen state and local
capabilities, including the funding to evaluate state government cyber vulnerabilities,
single points of failure, and fixes, and, based on those findings, create an ability for
municipal governments to apply for grant funding or assistance to help conduct the same
evaluation. Additionally, state and federal policymakers should:
• Seek municipal government input on any direction of state or federal funding that
seeks to address cybersecurity preparedness and response and ensure city
government participation in any task force or planning committee tasked with
directing funding priorities for local government cybersecurity efforts.
• Ensure that any grant program administered by Minnesota IT balances the unique
needs of smaller, less-resourced cities and larger cities and base cybersecurity
funding opportunities on locally identified needs.
• Avoid unfunded mandates related to data notification breaches by ensuring
proactive discussions with lawmakers and state leaders regarding cybersecurity
awareness, prevention, remediation, and breach notification.
J. Regulation of Massage erapists
In the absence of any required statewide standards or regulations, several cities have
entered the traditional state domain of healthcare licensure by enacting ordinances that
require all massage therapists to obtain a local professional license and many cities have
Page 10 of 64
9
also required brick-and-mortar establishments to obtain a business license. ese
ordinances help local law enforcement officers to differentiate between legitimate
providers and businesses engaged in sex trafficking and prostitution, as well as provide
for health and sanitation standards.
City staff and law enforcement have spent a lot of time and resources conducting
statewide criminal background checks; investigating massage therapist accreditation
programs to determine legitimacy and credibility; and inspecting and monitoring
establishments due to resident complaints and concerns. is has resulted in different
procedures, requirements, and fee structures across the state. Despite the thorough work
of city staff and law enforcement, when an illegitimate business suspects investigation, it
will oen close down and re-open in a different city. Without any sort of statewide
database of these businesses, one city’s solution may become another city’s problem.
Additionally, local law enforcement agencies do not have access to national criminal
history data. is has allowed those with criminal convictions in other states related to
sex trafficking and prostitution to obtain massage therapy business and/or professional
licenses in cities in Minnesota. Allowing access to this information could help cities
prevent sex trafficking across state lines.
e City of Lakeville supports the statewide registration or licensure of massage therapists
that would not pre-empt the ability of cities to regulate massage therapy establishments.
e city also supports legislation pertaining to the practice of massage therapy that
accomplishes the following:
• Helps cities establish the legitimacy of providers and businesses applying for a
local license to practice, including allowing local law enforcement agencies access
to national criminal history databases.
• Prevents individuals from conducting criminal activities such as prostitution and
sex trafficking out of establishments operating as massage therapy facilities.
• Improves provider compliance with Minn. Stat. ch. 146A and requires the state to
take action in response to noncompliance.
• Protects the public from injury and from other conditions that may result in
harm.
K. Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases
e local government sales tax exemption enacted in 2013 and expanded in 2014 does not
apply to all city purchases. Some purchases for municipal enterprise operations, such as
Page 11 of 64
10
liquor stores and golf courses are excluded from the exemption. In addition, in order to
receive the sales tax exemption on construction materials under current law, cities must
bid labor and materials separately and also designate a contractor to be a purchasing
agent on behalf of the city. e existing Department of Revenue rules (Minn. Rule
8130.1200, subp. 3) are complex and the implementation can be so complicated that it
can cost cities more money to implement than they will save on the tax exemption.
Finally, although cities currently do not pay the motor vehicle sales tax on marked police
vehicles or firefighting vehicles, other city vehicles are not exempt from the motor vehicle
sales tax.
e 2021 legislature extended the sales tax refund process under Minn. Stat. § 297A.71
and Minn. Stat. § 297A.75 to contractor purchases of construction materials, supplies,
and equipment incorporated into public safety buildings for initial construction,
remodeling, expansion, and improvements for public safety facilities owned by local units
of government. e refund process also applies to materials used in related facilities such
as access roads, lighting, sidewalks, and utility components.
In order to ensure that taxpayers receive the full benefit of the local government sales tax
exemption, the following must be implemented:
• e exemption should apply to all purchases made by local units of government.
• e process to receive the exemption for construction materials used in local
government projects should be simplified or added to the refund process now
available for local government public safety facilities.
• e exemption should be extended to all local government purchases that would
otherwise be subject to the motor vehicle sales tax in Minn. Stat. ch. 297B.
Transportation
A. Transportation System Improvement and Maintenance Funding:
e City of Lakeville supports State efforts to bolster financial resources needed to address road,
highway, and freight rail improvements. e City of Lakeville also supports efforts to provide
cities with adequate tools to fund maintenance and improvements to local roadways. Current
levels of funding for roads and highways are inadequate to maintain existing road and highway
needs and meet the needs of growing areas such as Lakeville. Lakeville recognizes the need for
additional transportation funding statewide and will continue to advocate for additional
resources to maintain the State’s transportation infrastructure. In addition, cities still lack the
authority to use additional tools for city street improvements; such resources continue to be
restricted to property taxes and special assessments. It is imperative that alternative authority
Page 12 of 64
11
be granted to municipalities for this purpose to relieve the burden on the property tax system.
e City of Lakeville will be financing millions of dollars in street maintenance and
reconstruction projects with property taxes over the next several years. Street maintenance and
reconstruction projects will be the most significant contributing factors to future property tax
increases. is is in addition to millions of dollars in project costs financed from other sources
such as special assessments and municipal state-aid street funding. Legislation that penalizes
local projects based on greenhouse gas emission calculations hampers efforts to modernize and
expand needed transportation corridors and should be repealed or amended.
B. Dan Patch Commuter Rail Corridor:
Lakeville is opposed to any State or Federal funding that supports the study, planning, design,
or engineering of the Dan Patch Corridor.
Economic Development
A. Workforce Readiness:
Incumbent worker training and education must be an important component of
Minnesota’s efforts to improve workforce readiness. By making firms and employees
more competitive, incumbent worker training can increase wages, increase employment
opportunities, fill skilled worker gaps, and keep jobs and employers in their communities.
e Minnesota Job Skills Partnership is one proven tool that provides training to
thousands of incumbent workers each year. e City of Lakeville is in favor of legislation
to address the following:
• Fully fund the Minnesota Job Skills Partnership and other workforce training
programs administered by the Department of Employment and Economic
Development, the Department of Human Services, and various education
agencies.
• Provide additional flexible funding to local workforce councils, including
governments and educational facilities, for the purpose of upgrading the skills and
productivity of the workforce, and pursuing additional creative programming and
funding to prepare and place underemployed and unemployed Minnesotans, as
well as address the issue of those phasing out of the workplace and retiring.
• Provide additional funding for programs specifically designed to address youth
employment such as career and workforce readiness programs, and employment
disparities.
• Continue to support cities that provide workforce programs that are coordinated
with and complement state and regional efforts by seeking municipal approval
before making any changes to those service areas.
Page 13 of 64
12
B. On-Sale Liquor or Wine Licenses:
Minn. Stat. § 340A.404 defines the establishments to which a city may issue an on-sale
intoxicating liquor license. Every year cities see local businesses and organizations with
innovative models for event centers, food halls, arenas, boutiques, museums, art spaces,
and cultural or community centers that are not clearly named in this statute but would
like to obtain a liquor license. Several cities have received special legislation allowing their
municipalities to issue on-sale liquor or wine licenses to these types of entities. However,
this process interferes with the ability of municipalities to respond expeditiously to
innovative business models, controls the placement and operating manner of these
entities, and limits municipalities from providing licenses for businesses that would
generate local tourism and revenue.
e City of Lakeville supports legislature to modernize and expand the list of
establishments in Minn. Stat. § 340A.404 to which municipalities are authorized to issue
on-sale liquor or wine licenses, subject to restrictions imposed by the municipality, to
allow for innovative business models and economic development within their
jurisdiction.
C. Expansion of the Job Creation Fund (JCF) and Minnesota Investment Fund (MIF):
e City of Lakeville supports the expansion of state programs to allow cities the ability to
provide competitive incentive packages. e Job Creation Fund provides financial incentives
to new and expanding businesses that meet certain job creation and capital investment targets.
e Minnesota Investment Fund provides financing to help add new workers and retain high-
quality jobs on a statewide basis. Both programs have successfully been used in Lakeville and
are needed economic development tools.
e City of Lakeville supports fully funding the Minnesota Job Skills Partnership and other
workforce training programs administered by the Department of Employment and Economic
Development, the Department of Human Services, and various education agencies.
D. Expansion of Broadband Highspeed Internet:
Access to highspeed internet is essential for businesses and cities to compete in a global
economy. Many commercial and residential areas within Lakeville do not have access to
consistent and reliable broadband service. To promote economic development and to ensure
reliable highspeed broadband internet access the following steps should be implemented:
• Fully fund the Border-to-Border Broadband Grant Program and continue to encourage
public/private sector collaboration.
Page 14 of 64
13
• Support measures to authorize and encourage cities and other local units of
government to play a direct role in providing broadband infrastructure and/or services.
• Offer incentives to private sector service providers to respond to local or regional needs
and to collaborate with cities and other public entities to deploy broadband
infrastructure.
• Remove barriers and restrict anti-competitive practices that prevent or impede cities,
municipal utilities, schools, libraries, and other public sector entities from
collaborating and deploying broadband infrastructure and services at the local and
regional level.
E. Tax Increment Financing (TIF):
Cities need greater flexibility to use TIF for community and economic development that
supports residents and businesses. Further restrictions of TIF would render the tool less
effective and hinder local efforts to support job creation, housing, and redevelopment. e
Legislature should consider expanding the use of TIF to assist in the development of
technological infrastructure and products, biotechnology, research, transportation, and
transit-oriented development, non-retail commercial projects, and modifying the various
provisions of existing TIF law to better facilitate redevelopment and housing activities.
Housing
A. City Role in Housing:
e city values living options for people of all ages and stages of life. Lakeville strives to be a
community where residents can live and age in place. Lakeville will accommodate individuals
and families at all stages of life and strive to meet the housing, transportation, education,
shopping, access to health care, and other needs of all demographic groups within the city.
Funding for life cycle, workforce, and affordable housing is the responsibility of State and
Federal governments and should not be borne solely by local property taxpayers. In addition,
the city opposes any mandated housing requirements. Cities can facilitate the production and
preservation of life cycle, workforce, and affordable housing by:
• Applying for State or Federal funding from applicable grant and loan programs.
• Working with developers and residents to blend life cycle and affordable housing into
new and existing neighborhoods.
• Establishing standards that encourage lifecycle and affordable housing.
Page 15 of 64
Date: 1/27/2025
Proposals for Food Truck Festivals in Downtown Lakeville
Proposed Action
Staff is seeking direction from the Mayor and City Council regarding two food truck festival
proposals, both to be held in Downtown Lakeville.
Overview
Staff has received two food truck festival proposals from different organizations, the first of
which would be held on Saturday, May 17, 2025, the second event would be held on Saturday,
August 2, 2025. Both groups are hoping that these would become new annual community
events. Staff has sought feedback from the Downtown Lakeville Business Association and has
invited both groups to attend the Council Work Session to answer questions about their
respective proposals. Staff is seeking Council direction as both proposed events will require city
resources and impact the downtown area businesses and residents.
Supporting Information
1. May 17 Food Truck Festival Proposal
2. August 2 Food Truck Festival Proposal
Financial Impact: $0 Budgeted: No Source: NA
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Access to a Multitude of Natural Amenities and
Recreational Opportunities
Report Completed by: Joe Masiarchin, Parks and Recreation Director
Page 16 of 64
Page 17 of 64
Page 18 of 64
Page 19 of 64
Page 20 of 64
Page 21 of 64
Page 22 of 64
Page 23 of 64
Page 24 of 64
Page 25 of 64
Page 26 of 64
Page 27 of 64
Date: 1/27/2025
Lakeville Fire Relief Association Pension Amendment
Proposed Action
Lakeville Fire Relief Board and staff seeks directions on how to proceed.
Overview
Attached is a memo from the Lakeville Fire Relief Association requesting changes to their
pension vesting schedule and compensation for non- officer board members.
Supporting Information
1. LFRB Memo 2024_25 (1)
Financial Impact: $0 Budgeted: No Source:
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Good Value for Public Service, Safety Throughout
the Community
Report Completed by: Michael Meyer, Fire Chief
Page 28 of 64
Memorandum
To: Mayor Luke Hellier and Lakeville City Council
From: Lakeville Fire Relief Association (“LFRA”)
Copy: Mike Meyer, Fire Chief
Julie Stahl, Finance Director
Date: January 4, 2025
Subject: Proposed Amendment to Fire Relief Pension Benefit
Mayor Hellier and Lakeville City Council,
Once again we come before you amidst significant change and opportunity at Lakeville Fire
Department (“LFD”). As you are aware, in October 2024, LFD was awarded a SAFER grant to
provide funding for fifteen (15) new full-time firefighters. This will increase the number of full-
time LFD firefighters to twenty-one (21) by March 1, 2025. Moreover, LFD has remained steadfast
in its commitment to, and need for, approximately fifty (50) paid-on-call firefighters.
As the elected voice for all LFD paid-on-call firefighters, the LFRA Board has invested significant
time and effort exploring the impact that SAFER grant awards have had on neighboring fire
departments. Specifically, the LFRA Board has sought counsel to best handle the LFRA pension
fund to address the following dynamics:
• Currently, the LFRA pension fund is overfunded (133%). It is the LFRA Board’s
responsibility to ensure that these funds are properly managed, which includes avoidance
of overfunding. The proposed amendment herein addresses this head-on by right sizing
the funding levels and allocating more funds to paid-on-call firefighters at the conclusion
of their respective LFD tenure.
• Nine (9) current Lakeville paid-on-call firefighters will be transitioning to full-time on
March 1, 2025. Absent the proposed changes herein, these firefighters will be subject to
a less-favorable vesting schedule upon their forced exit from the LFRA pension plan,
resulting in significant financial hardship. Moreover, the departure of these nine (9)
firefighters from the LFRA pension fund further exacerbates the overfunding dilemma.
• The average tenure of a paid-on-call firefighter continues to shorten, whereby rendering
20 year full-vesting nearly impossible.
Proposed Amendments to LFRA Pension Benefit (Effective Upon City Council Approval):
Vesting Schedule Change:
• Current: Full vesting at 20 years; partial vesting initiating at 5 years of service (40%).
• Request: Full vesting at 15 years; partial vesting initiating at 5 years of service (50%).
Page 29 of 64
This request is supported by both new and tenured paid -on-call firefighters. Furthermore, the
proposed changes are consistent with other neighboring departments’ improvements to their
respective pension benefit plans.
LFRA has worked diligently to manage the pension in a way that optimizes the value to its
members while also demonstrating fiscal responsibility to the City’s taxpayers. In fact, the LFRA
pension fund has not required direct investment from the City for over nine (9) years. As
evidenced by the independent financial projections provided by CliftonLarsonAllen, coupled with
historical fund performance, this proposal allows the pension fund to remain financially sound
and sufficiently funded (See Appendix – CliftonLarsonAllen LLP Data).
For more than ten years, LFRA has partnered with the City and this Council to advance a
meaningful pension benefit for all LFD firefighters. Due to these efforts, the pension benefit is
the most impactful and actionable mechanism to attract and retain paid -on-call talent.
Accordingly, the City has this opportunity to deliver an emphatic statement of support for LFD’s
paid-on-call firefighters by expressing its unanimous support for this proposal. With your prompt
approval, we are confident that the necessary stability will be achieved during the LFD’s
continued transition.
Proposed compensation for non-officer board members:
To better serve its members, the LFRA will begin meeting monthly starting in 2025, which is a
change from its current six (6) meetings per year. This change, supported unanimously by its
Board Members, will allow for more opportunities to discuss important topics that require more
thoughtful and diligent communication between members and the Board. The members of the
Board understand the importance of this additional time as it has a positive impact to its
members.
The Board, as a whole and individually as members, dedicates a considerable amount of time to
initiatives to continue to serve its members, both in and outside of our Board meetings. Currently
only LFRA Board Officers are compensated for their time and work on the Board. During our
annual Department meeting in December, members vocally supported the idea of compensation
for all Board Members, which would include our two (2) Trustee positions. The proposal, if
approved by the City Council and the members of LFRA, would be to compensate the Trustee
positions on the Board.
Board Member Compensation Change:
• Current: Only Officers of the Board are compensated.
• Treasurer/Secretary - $3,000 annually
• President/Vice President - $1,000 annually
• Trustee(s) - $0
• Request: Both Officers and Trustees of the Board will be compensated.
• Treasurer/Secretary - $3,000 annually
• President/Vice President - $2,000 annually
• Trustee(s) - $1,000 annually
Page 30 of 64
Long Term LFRA Pension Benefit Vision
As a Board, we feel it is important to also share the long-term vision of the LFRA pension benefit.
While this proposal represents a meaningful step forward, there is a strong desire from the LFD
paid-on-call member base to further modernize the pension plan in next two (2) years.
Accordingly, it is our intention and responsibility to explore converting the LFRD pension fund
from a Defined Benefit Plan to a Defined Contribution Plan. There is ample precedent for this
conversion with other Minnesota fire departments upon transitioning to a hybrid service model.
We share this with you to maintain absolute transparency, and in the spirit of partnership will
keep you informed as our understanding of this process continues to develop.
Thank you for your continued commitment to strongly support the men and women of the
Lakeville Fire Department.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lakeville Fire Relief Association
Page 31 of 64
Appendix
CliftonLarsonAllen LLP Data
5/15 (w/ 50% at 5 years) Vesting Calculations
Forecasted
Year
Annual Benefit
Level
Forecasted Return on Investments and Fund
Vesting percentage
10% 8% 5% 2%
2024 $15,000 110.4% 108.5% 105.8% 103%
2025 $15,000 115.3% 111.6% 106% 100.7%
2026 $15,000 119.6% 113.3% 105.6% 97.8%
Average Return-7.23%
Lakeville Fire Department Members
Years of Service (Current)
Years of
Service
Active Members
0-2 18
3-6 15
7-10 18
11-14 11
15-20 13
20+ 3
78
Page 32 of 64
Lakeville Fire Relief Benefit Level and Funding History
Year Municipal
Contribution
State Fire Aid
Pension Benefit Level
2025 $0 TBD $15,000
2024 $0 $695,405 $15,000
2023 $0 $575,879 $12,000
2022 $0 $508,676 $12,000
2021 $0 $429,690 $10,000
2020 $0 $407,568 $9,195
2019 $0 $377,598 $8,395
2018 $0 $361,701 $7,595
2017 $0 $347,635 $7,225
2016 $0 $342,276 $6,877
2015 $0 $335,889 $6,742
2014 $60,000 $312,542 $6,610
2013 $60,000 $309,365 $6,513
2012 $44,804 $217,958 $6,417
2011 $44,804 $213,067 $6,230
2010 $178,380 $196,224 $6,230
2009 $0 $191,073 $6,230
2008 $92,071 $224,674 $6,000
2007 $85,933 $264,923 $5,820
2006 $83,511 $304,523 $5,725
2005 $81,000 $284,395 $5,500
2004 $125,140 $291,147 $5,400
2003 $48,467 $220,209 $5,300
Page 33 of 64
Date: 1/27/2025
Discussion of Zoning Ordinances Related to Missing Middle Housing
Proposed Action
No action is required; staff is seeking input on potential zoning amendments that could benefit
missing middle housing.
Overview
In August Mayor Luke Hellier convened a discussion with several builders active in Lakeville
regarding Missing Middle housing issues. Zoning topics discussed included garage size, lot size,
exterior materials to name a few. The Planning Commission held a work session on December 5,
2024, to discuss the input from builders and how that might translate into potential zoning
amendments. To assist in preparation for the work session, Planning Consultant, Dan Licht
prepared a memo providing some history of the city’s various zoning updates and background
on various ordinance requirements and areas that could be adjusted to address some of the ideas
from the builders. This memo and minutes from the Planning Commission work session are
attached. Staff will summarize these topics in a presentation at the January 27th work session.
Supporting Information
1. November 22, 2024 TPC memo
2. 12-05 Planning Commission work session minutes
Financial Impact: $0 Budgeted: No Source:
Envision Lakeville Community Values: A Home for All Ages and Stages of Life
Report Completed by: Tina Goodroad, Community Development Director
Page 34 of 64
3601 Thurston Avenue
Anoka, MN 55303
763.231.5840
TPC@PlanningCo.com
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Development Director Tina Goodroad
Planning Manager Kris Jenson
FROM: D. Daniel Licht
DATE: 22 November 2024
RE: Lakeville – Zoning Ordinance; Missing Middle Housing
TPC FILE: 135.01
BACKGROUND
Mayor Luke Hellier convened a discussion on 26 August 2024 with several builders active in Lakeville
regarding Missing Middle housing issues. Missing Middle housing is the gap in the market of new housing
supply attainable by median or lower income households caused by economic and regulatory factors that
include land values, materials, labor, interest rates, regional development policies, and development
regulations. Mayor Hellier’s intent for the discussion session is for the city to proactively engage with
residential builders to collaborate on potential solutions that benefit Lakeville, its existing and future
residents, and the residential builders. Session participants all agreed that changes only to local
development regulations would not significantly address housing cost issues, but the residential builders
believed that such changes may expand the range of new housing values available in the market.
Many of the Lakeville development regulations mentioned by the residential builders at the discussion
session were implemented following the completion of the 1994 Growth Management Strategic Plan,
adoption of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, and amendments of the Zoning Ordinance in 2000. Based on
the history of our office’s service to Lakeville and involvement in these and subsequent planning efforts,
City staff requested we provide background information on these regulations for consideration by the
Planning Commission at a work session scheduled for 5 December 2024.
ANALYSIS
Regional Density Requirements. The Metropolitan Council establishes minimum density thresholds for
residential development within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area within the regional development plan
adopted every 10 years. The current ThriveMSP 2040 plan requires that the overall density of residential
development in Lakeville be a minimum of 3.0 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre, which is effectively an
increase from the prior 2030 regional plan requirement of a minimum of 3.0 dwelling units per acre. The
Imagine 2050 regional development plan further increases the minimum residential density requirement
Page 35 of 64
2
to 4.0 dwelling units per acre. There is no reason to expect that the required minimum residential
development density requirement will not increase with subsequent regional development plans. The
increases in minimum development density required for residential land uses necessitates that the City
review its development regulations to consider opportunities to achieve the required density with housing
consistent with the City’s goals.
1994 Growth Management Strategic Plan. The City initiated a strategic planning effort in 1994 to identify
means of ensuring growth in Lakeville was managed and fiscally sustainable. Following approval of the
1994 Growth Management Plan, the Zoning Ordinance was updated to increase minimum lot area
requirements, establish residential buffer yard and tree preservation requirements, include a provision
that site plans for single family dwellings include space for three car garages, etc. Many of these
development regulations have been modified over time but remain in place today.
2000 Zoning Ordinance Update. A fundamental goal of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan and 2000 Zoning
Ordinance update was to standardize development requirements and allow for certain flexibilities
through administrative permit, conditional use permit, or interim use permit processes. The objective of
this effort was to minimize the use of Planned Unit Development as either a PUD, Planned Unit
Development District that would allow for approval of any density or land use allowed by the Zoning
Ordinance within a single project or as a Planned Unit Development – Conditional Use Permit that allowed
for flexibility from any setback, height, lot area, width and depth, yards, or other dimensional standard.
PUDs are meant to allow for a higher level of development than can be realized through standard zoning
requirements that benefit both the city and the developer. In practice, PUDs can be overutilized resulting
in a myriad of standards applied from development-to-development with no consistency and providing
no expectation on the part of residential builders as to what the City’s minimum requirements are. A
primary example of this would be townhouse developments in the city approved prior to 1998 that were
required to be completed as PUD Districts as there were no performance standards set forth for multiple
principal buildings on one lot, use of private drives, or design and construction standards for this form of
residential land use.
The city prohibited use of PUD Districts for land guided by the Comprehensive Plan for Low Density
Residential uses and eliminated Planned Unit-Development-Conditional Use permit as a planning tool
with the 2000 Zoning Ordinance update. The 2000 Zoning Ordinance update also resulted in establishing
the RST-2, Residential Single- and Two-Family District, RM, Residential Medium Density Districts, and RH,
Residential High-Density Districts that included lot requirements and design construction standards for
townhouses and multiple family dwellings. The development of these standards was based initially on
ensuring sustainability of the City’s housing supply in terms of livability, durability, and finance.
Residential builders participating in the discussion session were divided between wanting to see greater
opportunity to utilize PUD Districts for their projects or a preference for the standardized approach
implemented with the 2000 Zoning Ordinance Update.
Existing Zoning Ordinance: The following paragraphs outline specific provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
noted at the discussion session that could be reviewed in response to Missing Middle housing issues. We
have provided these in the order in which they are included in the Zoning Ordinance for ease of reference.
The Planning Commission may discuss the opportunity to amend any or all of these provisions without
regard to preference or priority.
Page 36 of 64
3
Attached Garages. The City established minimum area requirements for garages attached to
single, two family, detached townhouse, and townhouse dwellings with the 2000 Zoning
Ordinance update. The Zoning Ordinance was later amended to add minimum width
requirements.
Dwelling Type With
Basement
Without
Basement
Minimum
Width
Single and Town Family 480sf. 540sf. 22ft.
Detached Townhouses and Townhouses 440sf. 540sf. 20ft.
The purpose of the minimum area requirements is to ensure that there is sufficient space within
the garage for parking two vehicles, which is the off-street parking requirement established by
the Zoning Ordinance for single family, two family, detached townhouse, and townhouse
dwellings. The minimum area requirements also provide for storage space within the garage for
storage of waste containers, bicycles, outdoor recreation equipment, seasonal decorations, etc.
The minimum area required for dwellings without basements reflects that storage use within the
garage is often needed when there is less space inside the dwelling itself.
Residential builders offered the following points regarding the minimum garage space
requirements, particularly the additional space required for dwellings without basements:
No other cities have a similar requirement for additional storage space for dwellings
without basements.
The minimum area requirement, especially that for dwelling units without basements,
requires residential builders to modify their building plans specifically for Lakeville.
A garage area less than 480 square feet is functional and other areas of the country are
seeing increased use of one-car garages for townhouse dwellings.
The Planning Commission may consider amendment to the minimum area and width
requirements, including eliminating the additional minimum area required for dwellings without
basements.
Reference: 11-18-7.D; 11-57-19.C.; 11-58-21.C; 11-59-21.C
Residential Buffer Yards. The City established standards requiring installation of landscaping
and/or berms in yards abutting major collector and arterial streets for residential lots following
the recommendations of the 1994 Growth Management Strategic Plan to minimize the impacts
of high-volume traffic corridors on adjacent residential neighborhoods. The residential buffer yard
requirements also included increasing the minimum depth of double frontage lots, width of
corner lots, and setbacks abutting major collector or arterial streets to accommodate the
landscaping. The residential buffer yard requirements were later amended to establish minimum
height requirements for the screening in relation to the adjacent major collector or arterial street
to provide for an effective buffer, which also triggered a corresponding increase in the minimum
lot depth and lot width requirements for these lots.
The development standards required for lots abutting major collector and arterial streets reduces
the density of development and results in lot sizes larger than that required by the Zoning
Page 37 of 64
4
Ordinance applicable to interior lots. This is problematic for residential builders as it reduces the
potential economic utilization of the parcel for development. The reduction in density also has
implications for the City in terms of being able to achieve the minimum residential density
required by the regional development plan adopted by the Metropolitan Council. Residential
builders also noted as part of the discussion session that the quantity and height of landscaping
adds cost to the development.
The Planning Commission may consider changes to the residential buffer yard requirements to
reduce the lot and setbacks requirements and/or minimum planting specifications. It should be
noted that reducing the minimum height of the residential buffer yard will have a corresponding
effect on the minimum lot depth and width requirements (and thus lot area) for residential buffer
yard lots.
Reference: 11-21-9.E
Single Family Lot Requirements. Single family zoning districts consisted of the R-1, R-2, and R-3
Districts until 2010. The RS-4 District was established with the 2010 Zoning Ordinance update to
provide an additional “small-lot” single family district reflecting changes to the housing market
after the Great Recession of the 2000s. The single-family lot standards for the RS-4 District are
used for single family lots allowed in the RST-1, RST-2 and RM-1 Districts or where a transitional
land use is required in the RM-1, RM-2, RH-1, or RH-2 Districts.
District Minimum
Lot Area1
Minimum
Lot Width1
RS-1 20,000sf. 100ft.
RS-2 15,000sf. 100ft.
RS-3 11,000sf. 85ft.
RS-4 8,400sf. 70ft.
RST-2 Permitted 8,400sf. 70ft.
By CUP 7,500sf. 55ft.
1. Interior lot
The City recently amended the Zoning Ordinance to include Section 11-57-7.H allowing greater
flexibility from the single-family lot requirements within the RST-2 District by approval of a
conditional use permit, shown above. The intent of these provisions was to codify the flexibilities
allowed by the PUD Districts for Spirit of Brandtjen Farm and Avonlea such that lots of varied area
and width could be incorporated into a neighborhood. Lots with varied lot areas and lot width
expands housing choices within individual developments, utilizes developable land more
efficiently and helps to achieve regional density requirements. Brookshire was the template
development that these standards were first utilized for. These provisions of the lot area/width
flexibility were raised at the discussion session:
Zoning District. The lot area flexibility is limited to only the RST-2 District. To expand the
opportunity to apply such flexibility to more areas of the City, consideration may be given
to incorporating allowing lots less than 8,400 square feet or 70 feet in width within the
RS-4 and RST-1 District.
Page 38 of 64
5
Minimum Lot Area. The minimum lot area required is 7,500 square feet, but the Zoning
Ordinance includes additional limitations. The mean and median area of the lots within
the preliminary plat must be equal to or greater than the base district allowance. The
intent of the mean area requirement is to 1) ensure the overall density is generally
consistent with what would be allowed by the basic lot area and width requirements. The
median lot area requirement ensures that the majority of lots are not significantly less
than the basic lot area (and width) requirement with only the minimum necessary number
of lots greater than the district minimum to achieve the mean lot area standard. The
number of lots with an area or width less than the basic requirement of the district is also
limited to 35 percent. The Planning Commission may consider:
o Modifying or eliminating the mean lot area or median lot area requirements.
o Modifying or eliminating the percentage limit on the number of lots with area or
width less than the district minimum.
o Requiring only that the density of the preliminary plat must be consistent with
the land use guided by the Comprehensive Plan as a limit on the number and area
of lots less than the district minimum.
o Making the minimum 7,500 square foot area and 55-foot lot with the standard
lot requirements within the RST-2 District.
These changes would be responsive to comments from the residential builders that the
existing provisions are cumbersome to navigate as part of the subdivision design process.
City staff believes changes that make these provisions easier to administer would be
beneficial and would help meet minimum regional density requirements. One concerns
of City staff with reducing the minimum lot area and lot width requirement other than
with these additional criteria or through a conditional use permit process is the City’s
ability to influence the subdivision design is minimized.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages subdivision design to utilize a curvilinear street
layout that responds to existing natural conditions of a parcel, results in variations in lot
areas and widths, and minimizes through traffic and vehicle speeds opposed to a grid
layout for streets and blocks. A condition requiring curvilinear subdivision design could
be added to the Zoning Ordinance in combination with the other possible modifications
to address this issue.
Minimum Plat Area. A minimum preliminary plat area of 100 acres is required to qualify
for the lot area flexibility as a conditional use. The intent was to approach such flexibility
conservatively, at least initially, limiting the potential application to large tracts.
Consideration may be given to reducing or eliminating the minimum preliminary plat area
criteria. However, we would note that in order to provide a reasonable variety of lot
areas/widths, a development does need to have a certain scale. We would recommend
that the minimum preliminary plat area not be lowered to less than 20 acres (unless
allowed as the minimum lot area and width within the RST-2 District).
Reference: 11-53-13; 11-56-13; 11-57-7.H
Base Lot Setbacks. Detached townhouses and townhouse dwellings can be platted in two ways:
as a unit and base lot or as a Common Interest Community. When townhouses are platted in a
unit and base lot, the building and its dwellings are sited within an individual unit lot(s) surrounded
Page 39 of 64
6
by a base lot owned in common by the homeowner’s association. The Zoning Ordinance requires
a 30-foot setback from a detached townhouse or townhouse building to the base lot perimeter
lot line.
The 30-foot setback was established with the 2000 Zoning Ordinance update when the City
required a typical 30 foot front yard setback requirement and was meant to separate the
townhouse dwellings from surrounding land uses. The Zoning Ordinance has been amended to
allow a smaller 20-foot setback on the side of a townhouse building to public rights-of-way.
Interior to the base lot, a minimum setback of 14 feet between detached townhouse buildings
and 20 feet between townhouse buildings is required and the garage face of a town house must
be setback 25 feet from public rights-of-way.
The residential builders at the discussion session and City staff agree that overlapping and varied
setback requirements are difficult to apply and reduce the efficiency of development. The
Planning Commission may consider the following changes to the RST-2, RM-1, RM-2, RH-1 and
RH-2 Districts, which mirror the requirements of the R-3 District:
Reduce perimeter setback to 10 feet.
Minimum setbacks between all buildings within the same base lot of 14 feet.
Reference: 11-57-15.B; 11-58-17.B.1; 11-59-17.A; 11-61-15.D and E 11-62-15.D and E
Exterior materials. One of the requirements standardized with the 2000 Zoning Ordinance update
was exterior finishes for detached townhouse and townhouse dwellings. The intent of the
regulations is to require durable materials that will minimize long-term maintenance for
homeowner’s associations. These requirements have been modified over time to include new
materials such as fiber cement siding or engineered wood:
1. A minimum 25% of each elevation must be brick or stone.
2. No one elevation may have more than 75 percent of one finish except for
brick or stone.
3. No material may be used for more than 60 percent of all elevations except
for brick or stone.
4. Except on the front elevation, rock face block, cement fiberboard, or
engineered wood qualifies for meeting the brick or stone requirement
provided that is extends the full width of the foundation and is at least 60
percent of the area of the elevation.
The Planning Commission may consider changes to these exterior material requirements, such as
eliminating the requirement for brick or stone on the front elevation or a reduction in the required
minimum of brick or stone alternative materials.
Reference 11-57-19.B.3; 11-58-21.B.3; 11-59-21.B.3
Planned Unit Development. As noted above, the 2000 Zoning Ordinance update include
prohibiting use of PUD Districts for land guided Low Density Residential uses by the
Page 40 of 64
7
Comprehensive Plan. This provision was amended to provide for a PUD District for a development
of at least 540 acres allowing for the Spirit of Brandtjen Farm development and amended again
to require a minimum of 320 acres allowing for the Avonlea development. Both of these
developments were considered to be extraordinary projects that had been the subject of years of
planning and include amenities well over and above any City requirement, especially as it relates
to parks and open space.
As Lakeville continues to develop at a sustained pace, the number of large tracts to which the
option of using a PUD District for development will continue to decrease. Furthermore,
remaining, smaller undeveloped parcels may have challenges that cannot be easily addressed
through the conventional standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Area’s west of I-35 Lakeville are
examples. Whereas the 1994 Growth Management Strategic Plan recommended addressing
these challenges through larger lot sizes and less dense development, such considerations are not
practical given regional minimum residential development densities that are now required to be
maintained. This approach to development also does not provide for the same level of natural
resource or open space protection that the city achieved through the PUD Districts of Spirit of
Brandtjen Farm and Avonlea.
The Planning Commission may consider reducing the minimum area required for use of a PUD
District to allow for greater flexibility in the use of such tools. Use of PUD District would remain
at the discretion of the City with Planning Commission review and City Council approval. The
purpose statements in Section 11-96-1 of the Zoning Ordinance provide guidance as to the
appropriate use of PUD Districts:
A. Provide for the establishment of PUD districts in appropriate settings and
situations to create or maintain a development pattern that complies
with the comprehensive plan.
B. Allow for the mixing of land uses within a development when such mixing
of land uses could not otherwise be accomplished under this title.
C. Provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations
in this title in order to improve site design and operation, while at the
same time incorporating design elements (e.g., construction materials,
landscaping, lighting, etc.) that exceed the city's standards to offset the
effect of any variations.
D. Promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the
city, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety,
comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the city.
E. Preserve and enhance natural features and open spaces.
F. Maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities.
G. Ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing
land uses.
Reference: 11-96-3
Page 41 of 64
8
CONCLUSION
The information outlined herein is provided as background as to many of the development regulations
discussed by Mayor Hellier, City staff, and residential builders current active in Lakeville related to
Missing Middle housing issues. The Planning Commission will review this information at a work session
on 5 December 2024. City staff is requesting input and direction as to areas of the Zoning Ordinance
that the Planning Commission would recommend exploring possible amendments addressing Missing
Middle housing issues. City staff would then proceed to prepare additional information and ordinance
language for review and discussion by the Planning Commission.
Page 42 of 64
1 | Page
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
December 5, 2024
Vice Chair Christine Zimmer called the work session to order at 6:02 pm.
Members Present: Vice Chair Christine Zimmer, Pat Kaluza, Jason Swenson, Amanda Tinsley,
Patty Zuzek, Alternate Mark Traffas
Members Absent: Chair Jenna Majorowicz, Scott Einck
Staff Present: Community Development Director Tina Goodroad, Planning Manager Kris Jenson,
Senior Planner Heather Botten
Others Present: Daniel Licht, The Planning Company, via Teams
Heather Botten, Senior Planner, was introduced to the Planning Commissioners, who in turn
introduced themselves.
Zoning Ordinance discussion of possible amendments related to housing standards
Director Goodroad began by summarizing a meeting with local homebuilders, hosted by Mayor
Hellier, to discuss ordinance requirements that may impact the construction cost of a home in
Lakeville. Daniel Licht then began the discussion of topics raised in his November 22, 2024 memo.
Garages. The ordinance requires attached garages to have a minimum width, and for townhome
units, a minimum floor area based on whether the unit has a basement or not. The Commission
discussed the potential impacts of reducing/removing the width and/or area requirements,
including the ability to park two vehicles in the garage and to keep trash and recycling containers
inside. The Commissioners supported maintaining minimum garage width but supported
dropping the requirement for a larger garage size for townhome units without a basement.
Residential Buffer Yards. The ordinance requires buffering to a minimum height of 10 feet,
through a combination of berms and plantings, for residential developments adjacent to streets
classified as major collector or higher. Reducing the height requirement could reduce or remove
the need for a berm, which in turn reduces the amount of land needed for the buffer yard.
Commissioners discussed buffer areas and acknowledged that homebuyers are purchasing a home
knowing that the home is near or adjacent to a high traffic volume street and expressed support for
reducing the minimum height for buffer yards.
Single Family Lot Requirements. Mr. Licht summarized the minimum lot size requirements
within the RS-4 and RST-2 districts, as well as how the allowance for a minimum lot size of 7,500
Page 43 of 64
2 | Page
SF by CUP in the RST-2 District came about. Director Goodroad suggested several options for the
Planning Commission, including:
Remove the 100 acre minimum plat area required for the 7,500 SF lot area by CUP
Change the minimum lot area for single family homes in the RST-2 District from 8,400 SF
to 7,500 SF.
Allow the 7,500 SF lot area by CUP within the RS-4 District.
If lot sizes are reduced, consider a requirement for curvilinear streets to avoid a ‘wall of
garage doors’ look to a street.
As with garage size and buffer yards, buyers will be aware of smaller lots when they are purchasing
a home. The reduced lot size also helps the City meet density levels required by the 2040
Comprehensive Plan. Commissioners added that they preferred allowing the smaller lot size by
right rather than by CUP, that increasing the density allowed in the RS-4/RST-2 districts may offset
the need for higher densities for multi-family developments. The general consensus was support
for a reduced single family lot size within the RST-2 District and to simplify the CUP conditions
for the reduced lot size and add it to the RS-4 District.
Base Lot Setbacks. Mr. Licht provided history on the base lot setbacks; that they were intended to
mimic single family home setbacks, particularly for those areas near single family developments.
As changes to setback requirements have been made over the years, there are some conflicts in what
setback applies where. Reducing the base lot setback would provide clarity and consistency. Staff
also raised the issue of changing the setback between townhome buildings to 14 feet in all districts.
Currently some districts require 20 feet, so reducing to 14 feet again provides consistency and
mimics the minimum setback requirements of single-family homes in the RS-4 District, which
requires a minimum side yard setback of seven feet, for a minimum total of 14 feet between homes.
Planning Commissioners expressed support for these changes.
Exterior Materials. The ordinance has minimum exterior material standards for all townhome
units that requires at least 25% stone/brick/stucco on all four sides of the home. The ordinance does
permit the side and rear elevations to use at least 60% engineered siding (LP Smartside, Hardie
Board, etc.) in lieu of the stone/brick/stucco requirement. There is no minimum standard for the
exterior materials of single-family homes, beyond a minimum of vinyl siding. Staff noted that the
intent of the stone/brick/stucco requirement was to provide a more durable material at the base of
the home as protection from yard maintenance equipment, in addition to aesthetics.
Commissioners discussed the benefits of requiring more durable materials on townhomes so as to
reduce maintenance costs in the future compared to the lower initial costs of using vinyl siding.
Commissioners were open to learning more about exterior material options and generally
supportive of removing or reducing the stone/brick/stucco requirement and to look at flexibilities
for the side and rear elevations.
Planned Unit Development. The ordinance requires a minimum of 320 acres for a residential PUD
of land that is guided for low density development. As more parcels west of Interstate 35 are
Page 44 of 64
3 | Page
considered for development, a PUD could be a valuable tool for those parcels which include
wetlands, elevation changes, and heavily forested areas. Reducing the minimum acre threshold
provides an additional development tool. Commissioners discussed the minimum requirements
for a PUD and concurred that reducing the minimum threshold warranted consideration.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). Staff reviewed the ordinance requirements for an ADU, which
are currently only allowed within single family homes under certain conditions. The
Commissioners discussed permitting ADUs in detached permanent structures in a rear yard, but
ultimately did not support this change. The Commissioners indicated were open to considering
allowing detached ADUs on a temporary basis, however.
Commissioner Zuzek excused herself from the meeting at 7:05 pm.
Concluding the discussion on possible Zoning Ordnance amendments, Mr. Licht ended the Teams
call at 7:15.
2025 Planning Commission meeting calendar
Planning Manager Jenson reviewed the proposed 2025 meeting calendar, noting that the June 19
meeting date must be adjusted due to the Juneteenth holiday. Staff explained the reason behind
shifting dates in May, in order to stay aligned with the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources
Commission meeting dates. Due to the aforementioned Juneteenth holiday and that the first July
meeting falls on July 3, meeting dates are proposed to be shifted such that a Planning Commission
meeting is planned to occur every three weeks from June 5 to July 17. The remaining dates in 2025
will be unchanged.
The work session adjourned at 7:41 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris Jenson, Planning Manager
Page 45 of 64
Date: 01/27/2025
2025A Bond Issuance -Street Reconstruction & CIP Project
Proposed Action:
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: No formal action required. Staff is seeking
Council direction regarding the issuance of 2025A bonds.
Overview
Staff is presenting the 2025A bond issuance for your consideration. The bonds will provide
funding for the following projects:
• #25-02 – 2025 Street Reconstruction Project
• #25-03 – Collector Rehabilitation
• #25-12 - Capital Improvement Project (CIP) – FiRST Responders Skills Training Center
The 2025A bond issuance is estimated to be $23,040,000. It reflects the following:
• The term of the bonds is 20 years:
o $5,010,000 - Street reconstruction portion = 10 years
o $18,030,000 – CIP portion = 20 years
• The structure of the 2025A bonds is compliant with the City’s Debt Policy such that the
total maturity length is equal to or less than 20 years and at least 50% of the principal will
be retired within 10 years.
The City’s municipal advisor, Northland Securities, has prepared the attached Finance Plan for
the 2025A bond issuance. The new franchise fees are intended to cover the CIP debt payments.
Financial Impacts
Based on the current bond estimate, the chart below shows the estimated 2026 debt service levy:
2025 Debt Service Levy $12,773,050
Levy adjustment for existing debt (616,635)
Levy for New 2025A Debt Issue-Street 637,833
Levy for New 2025A Debt Issue-CIP 1,415,484
Less Franchise Fee Revenue (1,415,484)
Levy for Est 2026A Debt Issue-Street 79,127
Subtotal 100,325
Estimated 2026 Debt Service Levy $12,873,375
Page 46 of 64
By combining the 2025A capital improvement project above with the 2025 street reconstruction
bonds, the City saves money by limiting costs of bond issuance. The total cost for the FiRST
center is estimated to be roughly $25.8M. City will receive $8 million dollars in Federal grant
and State contributions combined for the FiRST facility construction. The construction bid
opening is set for January 30, 2025.
One-time reductions were made in the 2025 debt service levy due to excess reserves available in
the debt service funds. The $100,325 increase in debt service levy represents a 0.76% increase
based on the total 2026 property tax levy. The levy for the debt service portion is now 24% of the
total levy – with Park bonds being 5.4% of that 24%. The estimate includes levies for the 2025
bond issuance, as well as covering the first estimated interest payment. Staff will be reviewing
cash balances in the debt service funds to see if there are opportunities to reduce the 2026 debt
service levy. Staff will also be reviewing the 2025A debt structure to determine what changes
can be made to moderate the impact on the tax levy.
The 2026 total tax levy will also be impacted by other adjustments to revenues and expenditures,
service levels, project funding, etc. Funding from Dakota County is anticipated for several of the
projects. Other funding sources (i.e. Park Dedication Funds, Utility Funds, etc.) or project
reductions will need to be identified for project costs more than the maximum bonding.
Park Referendum Bonds – the 2026 levy includes the incremental increase of $70K from the
2025 levy. The chart below shows the timelines and bond issuance amounts for the referendum.
Issuance
Year/Series
Amount Projects First Year of
Impact to
2022B $4,845,000 Hasse Arena multi-use outdoor pavilion
2023
2022C $13,735,000 Art Center improvements, Park ID sign
replacements, basketball court
replacements, Antlers Community Park
improvements, trails gaps/connectivity
design and ROW acquisition; Ritter Farm
2023
2023A $4,345,000 Trails gaps/connectivity construction; Ritter
Farm Park cabin and site improvements
construction.
2024
2024A $15,075,000 Grand Prairie Community Park design and
construction; East Community Park design
and construction.
2025
$38,000,000 Maximum Bonding Authorized
Also attached to this memo is a summary of the tax levies for the four park referendum bond
issuances.
Key dates coming up for the 2025A Bonds:
Page 47 of 64
February 18, 2025 Council adopts resolution setting the sale of bonds.
March 17, 2025 Bond Sale – 10:00 a.m.
Council adopts resolution approving the bond sale.
April 16, 2025 Closing on Bonds.
Supporting Information 1. Preliminary Finance Plan – January 21, 2025
2. Park Referendum Debt Levies
Financial Impact: $ 23,040,000 Budgeted: Yes Source: Various
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Good Value for Public Service
Report Completed by: Julie Stahl, Finance Director
Page 48 of 64
Finance Plan
City of Lakeville, Minnesota
$23,040,000
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2025A
January 27, 2025
150 South 5th Street, Suite 3300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612-851-5900 800-851-2920
www.northlandsecurities.com
Member FINRA and SIPC | Registered with SEC and MSRB
Page 49 of 64
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 2
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 2
Issue Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Authority ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Structure ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
Security and Source of Repayment ................................................................................................... 4
Plan Rationale ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Issuing Process .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Attachment 1 – Preliminary Debt Service Schedules ........................................................................ 6
Attachment 2 – Estimated Levy Schedules ......................................................................................... 9
Attachment 3 – Related Considerations ............................................................................................ 10
Not Bank Qualified ........................................................................................................................ 10
Arbitrage Compliance .................................................................................................................. 10
Continuing Disclosure .................................................................................................................. 10
Premiums ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Rating .................................................................................................................................................. 11
Attachment 4 – Calendar of Events .................................................................................................... 12
Attachment 5 - Risk Factors ................................................................................................................. 14
Page 50 of 64
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 2
Executive Summary
The following is a summary of the recommended terms for the issuance of $23,040,000 General
Obligation Bonds, Series 2025A (the “Bonds”). Additional information on the proposed finance
plan and issuing process can be found after the Executive Summary, in the Issue Overview and
Attachment 3 – Related Considerations.
Purpose Proceeds from the Bonds will be used to finance the City’s 2025
street reconstruction and capital improvement projects, and to
finance the costs associated with the issuance of the Bonds.
Security The Bonds will be a general obligation of the City. The City will
pledge ad valorem taxes for payment of the Bonds.
Repayment Term The Bonds will mature annually each February 1 in the years
2027 through 2046. Interest on the Bonds will be payable on
February 1, 2026, and semiannually thereafter on each February
1 and August 1.
Estimated Interest Rate True interest cost (TIC): 4.18%
Interest rates are estimated based on Non-BQ “Aaa” rates as of
January 17, 2025, plus 0.25% for planning purposes.
Prepayment Option Bonds maturing on and after February 1, 2034, will be subject
to redemption on February 1, 2033, and any day thereafter at a
price of par plus accrued interest.
Rating A rating will be requested from Moody’s Investor Services
(Moody’s). The City’s general obligation debt is currently rated
"Aaa” by Moody’s.
Tax Status The Bonds will be tax-exempt, non-bank qualified obligations.
Risk Factors There are certain risks associated with all debt. Risk factors
related to the Bonds are discussed in Attachment 5.
Type of Bond Sale Public Sale – Competitive Bids
Proposals Received Monday, March 17, 2025 @ 10:00 A.M.
Council Consideration Monday, March 17, 2025 @ 6:00 P.M.
Page 51 of 64
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 3
Issue Overview
Purpose
Proceeds from the Bonds will be used to finance the following projects (together, the “Projects”):
• the 2025 street reconstruction projects (the “Street Reconstruction Portion”); and
• various capital improvement projects as described in the Capital Improvement Plan
approved on September 19, 2024 (the “CIP Portion”).
The proceeds will also be used to pay costs associated with issuing the Bonds. The Bonds have
been sized based on cost estimates provided by City Staff as of January 17, 2025. The table below
contains the estimated sources and uses of funds for the bond issue.
Authority
The Bonds will be issued pursuant to the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 and
Sections 475.58, Subdivision 3b and 475.521.
Street Reconstruction Portion
Under Section 475.58, Subdivision 3b., street reconstruction bonds can be used to finance the
reconstruction and bituminous overlay of existing city streets. Eligible improvements may
include turn lanes and other improvements having a substantial public safety function,
realignments, other modifications to intersect with state and county roads and the local share of
state and county road projects. Eligible improvements do not include the portion of project cost
allocable to widening a street or adding curbs and gutters where none previously existed.
Before issuing street reconstruction bonds, the City must hold a public hearing on the street
reconstruction project and the proposed bonds, and then must pass a resolution approving the
Street Reconstruction Plan and issuance of street reconstruction bonds. The City held the required
public hearing and approved the Street Reconstruction Plan on October 7, 2024.
CIP Portion
Under Section 475.521, a capital improvement is a major expenditure of City funds for the
acquisition or betterment of public lands, buildings, or other improvements used, such as a city
hall, library, public safety, or public works facility, which has a useful life of five years or more.
The maximum amount of principal and interest for capital improvement bonds cannot exceed
0.16% of the estimated market value of taxable property in the City. The City’s 2025 preliminary
CIP
Street
Reconstruction
Issue
Summary
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $18,030,000.00 $5,010,000.00 $23,040,000.00
Additional required Equity contribution 572,438.33 -572,438.33
Total Sources $18,602,438.33 $5,010,000.00 $23,612,438.33
Uses Of Funds
Deposit to Project Construction Fund 17,792,608.00 4,802,354.00 22,594,962.00
Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 572,438.33 140,489.17 712,927.50
Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%)144,240.00 40,080.00 184,320.00
Costs of Issuance 90,945.85 25,271.15 116,217.00
Rounding Amount 2,206.15 1,805.68 4,011.83
Total Uses $18,602,438.33 $5,010,000.00 $23,612,438.33
Page 52 of 64
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 4
estimated market value is $13,230,293,700 ($13,230,293,700 x 0.0016 = $21,168,470). The maximum
amount of principal and interest due in a calendar year on the Bonds plus the City’s outstanding
CIP Bonds is estimated to be approximately $3,495,176, which is less than $21,168,470.
Before issuing bonds under a Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”), the City must hold a public
hearing on the CIP and the proposed bonds and must then approve the CIP and authorize the
issuance of the bonds by at least a 3/5 majority. The City held the required public hearing and
approved the CIP on September 19, 2024.
If a petition signed by voters equal to at least 5 percent of the votes cast in the last general election
requesting a vote on the issuance of bonds is received by the clerk within 30 days after the public
hearing, then the bonds may not be issued unless approved by the voters at an election. The 30-
day period expired on October 19, 2024.
Structure
The Street Reconstruction Portion of the Bonds has been structured to result in relatively level
annual debt service payments over 10 years. The CIP Portion has been structured to result in
relatively level annual debt service payments over 20 years.
The proposed structure for the bond issue and preliminary debt service projections for each
portion of the bond issue are illustrated in Attachment 1 and the estimated levies are illustrated
in Attachment 2.
Security and Source of Repayment
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City. The finance plan relies on the following
assumptions for the revenues used to pay debt service, as provided by City staff:
• Property Taxes. The revenues needed to pay debt service on the Bonds are expected to
come from property tax levies. The initial projections show that for the Street
Reconstruction Portion of the Bonds, an annual net levy of approximately $636,393, is
needed to meet the 105% statutory requirement. The initial projections show that for the
CIP Portion of the bonds, an annual levy of approximately $1,415,844, is needed to meet
the 105% statutory requirement. The City anticipates using revenues from franchise fees to
eliminate the CIP levy. The levies may be adjusted annually based on actual monies in the
debt service funds. The initial levies will be made in 2025 for taxes payable in 2026.
Given the timing of the initial revenue from the tax levy, capitalized interest will be
included in the bond issue to cover the first interest payment due on February 1, 2026,
before the first tax collections are received for the Street Reconstruction Portion. A cash
contribution of approximately $572,438 will be used to cover the first interest payment due
on February 1, 2026 for the CIP portion.
Plan Rationale
The Finance Plan recommended in this report is based on a variety of factors and information
provided by the City related to the financed project and City objectives, Northland’s knowledge
of the City and our experience in working with similar cities and projects. The issuance of General
Obligation Bonds provides the best means of achieving the City’s objectives and cost-effective
financing. The City has successfully issued and managed this type of debt for previous projects.
Issuing Process
Northland will receive bids from underwriters to purchase the Bonds on Monday, March 17, 2025,
at 10:00 A.M. Market conditions and the marketability of the Bonds support issuance through a
competitive sale. This process has been chosen as it is intended to produce the lowest combination
Page 53 of 64
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 5
of interest expense and underwriting expense on the structure, date and time set to receive bids.
The calendar of events for the issuing process can be found in Attachment 4.
Municipal Advisor: Northland Securities, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota
Bond Counsel: Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Paying Agent: US Bank Trust Company, National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota
Page 54 of 64
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 6
Attachment 1 – Preliminary Debt Service Schedules
Total Combined
*Based on preliminary, Non-Bank Qualified “Aaa” rates as of January 17, 2025, plus 0.25%.
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
04/16/2025 -----
02/01/2026 --712,927.50 712,927.50 712,927.50
08/01/2026 --450,270.00 450,270.00 -
02/01/2027 1,055,000.00 3.300%450,270.00 1,505,270.00 1,955,540.00
08/01/2027 --432,862.50 432,862.50 -
02/01/2028 1,090,000.00 3.350%432,862.50 1,522,862.50 1,955,725.00
08/01/2028 --414,605.00 414,605.00 -
02/01/2029 1,125,000.00 3.400%414,605.00 1,539,605.00 1,954,210.00
08/01/2029 --395,480.00 395,480.00 -
02/01/2030 1,165,000.00 3.400%395,480.00 1,560,480.00 1,955,960.00
08/01/2030 --375,675.00 375,675.00 -
02/01/2031 1,205,000.00 3.450%375,675.00 1,580,675.00 1,956,350.00
08/01/2031 --354,888.75 354,888.75 -
02/01/2032 1,245,000.00 3.500%354,888.75 1,599,888.75 1,954,777.50
08/01/2032 --333,101.25 333,101.25 -
02/01/2033 1,290,000.00 3.550%333,101.25 1,623,101.25 1,956,202.50
08/01/2033 --310,203.75 310,203.75 -
02/01/2034 1,330,000.00 3.650%310,203.75 1,640,203.75 1,950,407.50
08/01/2034 --285,931.25 285,931.25 -
02/01/2035 1,380,000.00 3.750%285,931.25 1,665,931.25 1,951,862.50
08/01/2035 --260,056.25 260,056.25 -
02/01/2036 1,435,000.00 3.900%260,056.25 1,695,056.25 1,955,112.50
08/01/2036 --232,073.75 232,073.75 -
02/01/2037 885,000.00 4.000%232,073.75 1,117,073.75 1,349,147.50
08/01/2037 --214,373.75 214,373.75 -
02/01/2038 920,000.00 4.100%214,373.75 1,134,373.75 1,348,747.50
08/01/2038 --195,513.75 195,513.75 -
02/01/2039 955,000.00 4.200%195,513.75 1,150,513.75 1,346,027.50
08/01/2039 --175,458.75 175,458.75 -
02/01/2040 1,000,000.00 4.250%175,458.75 1,175,458.75 1,350,917.50
08/01/2040 --154,208.75 154,208.75 -
02/01/2041 1,040,000.00 4.300%154,208.75 1,194,208.75 1,348,417.50
08/01/2041 --131,848.75 131,848.75 -
02/01/2042 1,085,000.00 4.350%131,848.75 1,216,848.75 1,348,697.50
08/01/2042 --108,250.00 108,250.00 -
02/01/2043 1,130,000.00 4.400%108,250.00 1,238,250.00 1,346,500.00
08/01/2043 --83,390.00 83,390.00 -
02/01/2044 1,180,000.00 4.450%83,390.00 1,263,390.00 1,346,780.00
08/01/2044 --57,135.00 57,135.00 -
02/01/2045 1,235,000.00 4.500%57,135.00 1,292,135.00 1,349,270.00
08/01/2045 --29,347.50 29,347.50 -
02/01/2046 1,290,000.00 4.550%29,347.50 1,319,347.50 1,348,695.00
Total $23,040,000.00 -$10,702,275.00 $33,742,275.00 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $259,310.00
Average Life 11.255 Years
Average Coupon 4.1272126%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)4.1982935%
True Interest Cost (TIC)4.1824382%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 4.0888486%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)4.2420176%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 4.1272126%
Weighted Average Maturity 11.255 Years
Optional Redemption
02/01/2033 @100.000%
Page 55 of 64
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 7
Street Reconstruction Portion
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
04/16/2025 -----
02/01/2026 --140,489.17 140,489.17 140,489.17
08/01/2026 --88,730.00 88,730.00 -
02/01/2027 430,000.00 3.300%88,730.00 518,730.00 607,460.00
08/01/2027 --81,635.00 81,635.00 -
02/01/2028 445,000.00 3.350%81,635.00 526,635.00 608,270.00
08/01/2028 --74,181.25 74,181.25 -
02/01/2029 455,000.00 3.400%74,181.25 529,181.25 603,362.50
08/01/2029 --66,446.25 66,446.25 -
02/01/2030 475,000.00 3.400%66,446.25 541,446.25 607,892.50
08/01/2030 --58,371.25 58,371.25 -
02/01/2031 490,000.00 3.450%58,371.25 548,371.25 606,742.50
08/01/2031 --49,918.75 49,918.75 -
02/01/2032 505,000.00 3.500%49,918.75 554,918.75 604,837.50
08/01/2032 --41,081.25 41,081.25 -
02/01/2033 525,000.00 3.550%41,081.25 566,081.25 607,162.50
08/01/2033 --31,762.50 31,762.50 -
02/01/2034 540,000.00 3.650%31,762.50 571,762.50 603,525.00
08/01/2034 --21,907.50 21,907.50 -
02/01/2035 560,000.00 3.750%21,907.50 581,907.50 603,815.00
08/01/2035 --11,407.50 11,407.50 -
02/01/2036 585,000.00 3.900%11,407.50 596,407.50 607,815.00
Total $5,010,000.00 -$1,191,371.67 $6,201,371.67 -
Page 56 of 64
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 8
CIP Portion
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
04/16/2025 -----
02/01/2026 --572,438.33 572,438.33 572,438.33
08/01/2026 --361,540.00 361,540.00 -
02/01/2027 625,000.00 3.300%361,540.00 986,540.00 1,348,080.00
08/01/2027 --351,227.50 351,227.50 -
02/01/2028 645,000.00 3.350%351,227.50 996,227.50 1,347,455.00
08/01/2028 --340,423.75 340,423.75 -
02/01/2029 670,000.00 3.400%340,423.75 1,010,423.75 1,350,847.50
08/01/2029 --329,033.75 329,033.75 -
02/01/2030 690,000.00 3.400%329,033.75 1,019,033.75 1,348,067.50
08/01/2030 --317,303.75 317,303.75 -
02/01/2031 715,000.00 3.450%317,303.75 1,032,303.75 1,349,607.50
08/01/2031 --304,970.00 304,970.00 -
02/01/2032 740,000.00 3.500%304,970.00 1,044,970.00 1,349,940.00
08/01/2032 --292,020.00 292,020.00 -
02/01/2033 765,000.00 3.550%292,020.00 1,057,020.00 1,349,040.00
08/01/2033 --278,441.25 278,441.25 -
02/01/2034 790,000.00 3.650%278,441.25 1,068,441.25 1,346,882.50
08/01/2034 --264,023.75 264,023.75 -
02/01/2035 820,000.00 3.750%264,023.75 1,084,023.75 1,348,047.50
08/01/2035 --248,648.75 248,648.75 -
02/01/2036 850,000.00 3.900%248,648.75 1,098,648.75 1,347,297.50
08/01/2036 --232,073.75 232,073.75 -
02/01/2037 885,000.00 4.000%232,073.75 1,117,073.75 1,349,147.50
08/01/2037 --214,373.75 214,373.75 -
02/01/2038 920,000.00 4.100%214,373.75 1,134,373.75 1,348,747.50
08/01/2038 --195,513.75 195,513.75 -
02/01/2039 955,000.00 4.200%195,513.75 1,150,513.75 1,346,027.50
08/01/2039 --175,458.75 175,458.75 -
02/01/2040 1,000,000.00 4.250%175,458.75 1,175,458.75 1,350,917.50
08/01/2040 --154,208.75 154,208.75 -
02/01/2041 1,040,000.00 4.300%154,208.75 1,194,208.75 1,348,417.50
08/01/2041 --131,848.75 131,848.75 -
02/01/2042 1,085,000.00 4.350%131,848.75 1,216,848.75 1,348,697.50
08/01/2042 --108,250.00 108,250.00 -
02/01/2043 1,130,000.00 4.400%108,250.00 1,238,250.00 1,346,500.00
08/01/2043 --83,390.00 83,390.00 -
02/01/2044 1,180,000.00 4.450%83,390.00 1,263,390.00 1,346,780.00
08/01/2044 --57,135.00 57,135.00 -
02/01/2045 1,235,000.00 4.500%57,135.00 1,292,135.00 1,349,270.00
08/01/2045 --29,347.50 29,347.50 -
02/01/2046 1,290,000.00 4.550%29,347.50 1,319,347.50 1,348,695.00
Total $18,030,000.00 -$9,510,903.33 $27,540,903.33 -
Page 57 of 64
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 9
Attachment 2 – Estimated Levy Schedules
Street Reconstruction Portion
CIP Portion
Date Total P+I CIF 105% Levy
Levy
Year
Collection
Year
02/01/2026 140,489.17 (140,489.17)-
02/01/2027 607,460.00 -637,833.00 2025 2026
02/01/2028 608,270.00 -638,683.50 2026 2027
02/01/2029 603,362.50 -633,530.63 2027 2028
02/01/2030 607,892.50 -638,287.13 2028 2029
02/01/2031 606,742.50 -637,079.63 2029 2030
02/01/2032 604,837.50 -635,079.38 2030 2031
02/01/2033 607,162.50 -637,520.63 2031 2032
02/01/2034 603,525.00 -633,701.25 2032 2033
02/01/2035 603,815.00 -634,005.75 2033 2034
02/01/2036 607,815.00 -638,205.75 2034 2035
Total $6,201,371.67 (140,489.17)$6,363,926.63
Date Total P+I CIF 105% Levy
Less:
Franchise Fee
Revenue*Net Levy
Levy
Year
Collection
Year
02/01/2026 572,438.33 (572,438.33)---
02/01/2027 1,348,080.00 -1,415,484.00 1,415,484.00 -2025 2026
02/01/2028 1,347,455.00 -1,414,827.75 1,414,827.75 -2026 2027
02/01/2029 1,350,847.50 -1,418,389.88 1,418,389.88 -2027 2028
02/01/2030 1,348,067.50 -1,415,470.88 1,415,470.88 -2028 2029
02/01/2031 1,349,607.50 -1,417,087.88 1,417,087.88 -2029 2030
02/01/2032 1,349,940.00 -1,417,437.00 1,417,437.00 -2030 2031
02/01/2033 1,349,040.00 -1,416,492.00 1,416,492.00 -2031 2032
02/01/2034 1,346,882.50 -1,414,226.63 1,414,226.63 -2032 2033
02/01/2035 1,348,047.50 -1,415,449.88 1,415,449.88 -2033 2034
02/01/2036 1,347,297.50 -1,414,662.38 1,414,662.38 -2034 2035
02/01/2037 1,349,147.50 -1,416,604.88 1,416,604.88 -2035 2036
02/01/2038 1,348,747.50 -1,416,184.88 1,416,184.88 -2036 2037
02/01/2039 1,346,027.50 -1,413,328.88 1,413,328.88 -2037 2038
02/01/2040 1,350,917.50 -1,418,463.38 1,418,463.38 -2038 2039
02/01/2041 1,348,417.50 -1,415,838.38 1,415,838.38 -2039 2040
02/01/2042 1,348,697.50 -1,416,132.38 1,416,132.38 -2040 2041
02/01/2043 1,346,500.00 -1,413,825.00 1,413,825.00 -2041 2042
02/01/2044 1,346,780.00 -1,414,119.00 1,414,119.00 -2042 2043
02/01/2045 1,349,270.00 -1,416,733.50 1,416,733.50 -2043 2044
02/01/2046 1,348,695.00 -1,416,129.75 1,416,129.75 -2044 2045
Total $27,540,903.33 (572,438.33)$28,316,888.25 $28,316,888.25 -
*The City anticipates using revenues from franchise fees to eliminate the levy.
Page 58 of 64
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 10
Attachment 3 – Related Considerations
Not Bank Qualified
The par amount of the Bonds is greater than $10,000,000; therefore, the Bonds will not be
designated as “bank qualified” obligations pursuant to Federal Tax Law.
Arbitrage Compliance
Project/Construction Fund. All tax-exempt bond issues are subject to federal rebate requirements
which require all arbitrage earned to be rebated to the U.S. Treasury. The rebate exemption the
City expects to qualify for is the “24-month exception.”
Debt Service Fund. The City must maintain a bona fide debt service fund for the Bonds or be
subject to yield restriction in the debt service fund. A bona fide debt service fund involves an
equal matching of revenues to debt service expense with a balance forward permitted equal to
the greater of the investment earnings in the fund during that year or 1/12 of the debt service of
that year.
The City should become familiar with the various Arbitrage Compliance requirements for this
bond issue. The Resolution for the Bonds prepared by Bond Counsel explains the requirements
in greater detail.
Continuing Disclosure
Type: Full
Dissemination Agent: Northland Securities, Inc.
The requirements for continuing disclosure are governed by SEC Rule 15c2-12. The primary
requirements of Rule 15c2-12 actually fall on underwriters. The Rule sets forth due diligence
needed prior to the underwriter’s purchase of municipal securities. Part of this requirement is
obtaining commitment from the issuer to provide continuing disclosure. The document
describing the continuing disclosure commitments (the “Undertaking”) is contained in the
Official Statement that will be prepared to offer the Bonds to investors.
The City has more than $10,000,000 of outstanding debt and is required to undertake “full”
continuing disclosure. Full disclosure requires annual posting of the audit and a separate
continuing disclosure report, as well as the reporting of certain “material events.” Material events
set forth in the Rule, including, but not limited to, bond rating changes, call notices, and issuance
of “financial obligations” (such as USDA loans, Public Finance Authority loans and lease
agreements) must be reported within ten days of occurrence. The report contains annual financial
information and operating data that “mirrors” material information presented in the Official
Statement. The specific contents of the annual report will be described in the Undertaking that
appears in the appendix of the Official Statement. Northland currently serves as dissemination
agent for the City, assisting with the annual reporting. The information for the Bonds will be
incorporated into our reporting.
Premiums
In the current market environment, it is likely that bids received from underwriters will include
premiums. A premium bid occurs when the purchaser pays the City an amount in excess of the
par amount of a maturity in exchange for a higher coupon (interest rate). The use of premiums
reflects the bidder’s view on future market conditions, tax considerations for investors and other
Page 59 of 64
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 11
factors. Ultimately, the true interest cost (“TIC”) calculation will determine the lowest bid,
regardless of premium.
A premium bid produces additional funds that can be used in several ways:
• The premium means that the City needs less bond proceeds and can reduce the size of the
issue by the amount of the premium.
• The premium can be deposited in the Construction Fund and used to pay additional
project costs, rather than used to reduce the size of the issue.
• The premium can be deposited in the Debt Service Fund and used to pay principal and
interest.
Northland will work with City staff prior to the sale day to determine use of premium (if any).
Rating
A rating will be requested from Moody’s Investor Services (Moody’s). The City’s general
obligation debt is currently rated “Aaa” by Moody’s. The rating process will include a conference
call with the rating analyst. Northland will assist City staff in preparing for and conducting the
rating call.
Page 60 of 64
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 12
Attachment 4 – Calendar of Events
The following checklist of items denotes each milestone activity as well as the members of the
finance team who will have the responsibility to complete it. Please note this proposed timetable
assumes regularly scheduled City Council meetings.
Date Action Responsible Party
January 6, 2025 General Information Certificate sent to City for updates
Northland
January 16, 2025 City provides project costs to be included in Finance
Plan no later than noon
City Staff
January 21, 2025 Finance Plan sent to City for meeting packet for
January 27 Workshop Meeting
Northland
January 22, 2025 General Information Certificate returned to Northland City Staff
January 27, 2025 City Council Workshop to review proposed issuance of
2024A Bonds – 6:00 pm
City Council Review
February 3, 2025 Preliminary Official Statement sent to City for sign off,
sent to Rating Agency to initiate rating processes, and
sent to Dorsey & Whitney for review
Northland
Week of February 10 Meeting to prepare for rating call City Staff, Northland
Week of February 17
or February 24, 2025
Rating call with Moody’s City Staff, Northland,
Rating Agency
February 18, 2025 City adopts Set Sale Resolution – 6:00 p.m.
City Council Action,
Northland, Dorsey &
Whitney
January 2025 February 2025
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 1
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28
March 2025 April 2025
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 1 2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30
30 31
Holiday
Page 61 of 64
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 13
Date Action Responsible Party
February 19, 2025 City comments and sign off on Preliminary Official
Statement due to Northland
City confirms final project costs to be financed
City Staff
March 3, 2025 Rating Received no later than this date City Staff, Northland,
Rating Agency
March 5, 2025 Distribution of Preliminary Official Statement Northland
March 10, 2025 Authorizing Resolution sent to City Dorsey & Whitney,
Northland
March 17, 2025 Bond Sale – 10:00 a.m.
Bond Purchase Agreement Signed - 6:00 p.m.
Authorizing Resolution Adopted
City Council Action,
Northland, Dorsey &
Whitney
March 26, 2025 Closing Documents Distributed Dorsey & Whitney
April 16, 2025 Closing on the Bonds (Proceeds Available) Northland, City Staff,
Dorsey & Whitney
Page 62 of 64
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 14
Attachment 5 - Risk Factors
Property Taxes: Property tax levies shown in this Finance Plan are based on projected debt service
and other revenues. Final levies will be set based on the results of sale. Levies should be reviewed
annually and adjusted as needed. The debt service levy must be included in the preliminary levy
for annual Truth in Taxation hearings. Future Legislative changes in the property tax system,
including the imposition of levy limits and changes in calculation of property values, would affect
plans for payment of debt service. Delinquent payment of property taxes would reduce revenues
available to pay debt service.
General: In addition to the risks described above, there are certain general risks associated with
the issuance of bonds. These risks include, but are not limited to:
• Failure to comply with covenants in bond resolution.
• Failure to comply with Undertaking for continuing disclosure.
• Failure to comply with IRS regulations, including regulations related to use of the proceeds
and arbitrage/rebate. The IRS regulations govern the ability of the City to issue its bonds as
tax-exempt securities and failure to comply with the IRS regulations may lead to loss of tax-
exemption.
Page 63 of 64
Council Workshop 2025.01.27
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
PARK REFERENDUM - DEBT SERVICE TAX LEVIES
2022B 2022C 2023A 2024A Park
Tax Hasse Park Ref Park Ref Park Ref Refer
Collection Outdoor Rink Projects Projects Projects TOTALS
Year $4,845,000 $13,735,000 $4,345,000 $15,075,000 $38,000,000
2023 340,927 600,000 - - 940,927
2024 337,344 1,104,042 339,990 - 1,781,376
2025 338,601 1,105,880 343,403 1,188,856 2,976,740
2026 339,651 1,106,405 341,040 1,185,181 2,972,277
2027 340,489 1,105,617 343,665 1,185,706 2,975,477
2028 340,998 1,103,517 340,515 1,190,168 2,975,198
2029 341,282 1,105,355 342,353 1,187,806 2,976,795
2030 336,084 1,105,617 338,415 1,189,381 2,969,497
2031 341,271 1,104,305 339,465 1,189,381 2,974,422
2032 340,725 1,101,417 339,990 1,187,806 2,969,938
2033 339,806 1,102,205 339,990 1,189,906 2,971,907
2034 338,378 1,103,465 341,670 1,190,168 2,973,681
2035 336,554 1,103,465 342,930 1,188,593 2,971,542
2036 339,573 1,102,205 343,770 1,187,963 2,973,510
2037 336,769 1,102,874 338,940 1,186,073 2,964,656
2038 338,783 1,102,402 339,150 1,188,173 2,968,507
2039 340,331 1,104,895 338,940 1,188,803 2,972,970
2040 336,005 1,106,011 343,560 1,187,963 2,973,539
2041 336,457 1,104,515 342,300 1,186,874 2,970,145
2042 336,404 1,101,594 340,620 1,188,344 2,966,963
2043 - - 338,520 1,188,134 1,526,654
2044 - - - 1,186,244 1,186,244
TOTALS 6,776,432 21,575,785 6,819,225 23,761,523 58,932,965
Page 64 of 64