The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-30-07 City of Lakeville Economic Development Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 30, 2007, 5:00 p.m. City Hall, 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN 1. Call meeting to order. 2. Approve November 28 , 2006 meeting minutes 3. Election of Officers 4. Presentation of Dakota County Strategic Plan for Economic Development 5. Presentation of Proposed Changes to Park Dedication Ordinance Requirements 6. Summary of 2006 Development Project Feedback Surveys 7. Review of 2005-2007 Strategic Plan for Economic Development Work Program for 2007 8. Review of Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendments 9. Director's Report 10. Adjourn Attachments: Dakota-Scott Counties Workforce Investment Board News and Notes December Building Report StarTribune Article, A turbulent market, December 19,2006 Pioneer Press Article, Location, location and lifestyle, January 7, 2007 Pioneer Press Article, Is being another Woodbury'so awful?, January 14, 2007 t~~~ hoc a City of Lakeville ®~~'"1;~~ Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes November 28, 2006 Marion Conference Room, City Hall Members Present: Comms. Matasosky, Brantly, Emond, Gehrke, Smith, Schubert, Erickson, Ex-officio member City Administrator Steve Mielke. Members Absent: Comms. Tushie, Pogatchnik, Miller, Ex-officio member Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Todd Bornhauser. Others Present: David Olson, Community & Economic Development Director; Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist. 1. Call Meeting to Order. Chair Matasosky called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Marion Conference Room of City Hall, 20195 Holyoke Avenue, Lakeville, Minnesota. 2. Approve October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Motion 06.14 Comms. Erickson/Gehrke moved to approve the minutes of the October 24, 2006 meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Update on Changes to Airlake Newsletter Mr. Kienberger gave an update on the new Lakeville Business Newsletter and discussed the proposed format changes. The revised newsletter would include business news for the entire Lakeville business community and reflect the expanding business climate in Lakeville. It would be available electronically to new subscribers and the paper format is proposed to be phased out over a one year period for the businesses currently being mailed Airlake Park News. This would allow for a higher penetration rate and production cost savings. The EDC agreed that the new format was appropriate and the newsletter should be for the entire Lakeville business community. Comm. Smith asked if there would be any financial impact from the proposed changes to the newsletter. Mr. Kienberger responded that since the size of the mailing won't increase, there won't be any increase in production costs. As the newsletter changes to be entirely electronic, the costs will actually go down in the long run.. Economic fJevelopment Commission Meeting Minutes November 28, 2006 Chair Matasosky asked if the editorial board would stay intact as the newsletter shifts formats. Mr. Olson responded that the editorial board will likely play an increased role in suggesting content for the newsletter as it relates to eliciting additional business relevant news items. Chair Matasosky added that there is value in featuring businesses as it's a good way for businesses to get to know what their neighbors do. Mr. Mielke noted that any spotlights done won't likely focus on retail businesses but may still include some businesses in the industrial park. Mr. Olson further added that there are currently other communications in place that traditionally focus on new retail establishments and other areas of development. Motion 06.15 Comms. Emond/Brantly moved to recommend the new format of the Lakeville Business News as presented to the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. 4. 2007 Community Development Block Grant Application Mr. Olson gave an overview of the proposed 2007 CDBG application and discussed the programs that will be a part of the application. It is anticipated that the City will receive $103,500 in 2007, which is the same amount that was received in 2006. Staff is recommending that $20,000 be allocated for the Downtown Code Improvement Program and $83,500 be allocated for the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program. Mr. Olson stated that the CDA is continuing its requirement that 50% of a City's activities to be funded with CDBG funds involve activities that benefit Low-Moderate Income (LMI) households. The City elected to fund increased DARTS service with 2005 funds to meet his requirement in 2006 and was proposing to continue funding this activity with 2006 funds in 2007. However the additional funding for DARTS has not resulted in significant increased ridership this past year. Mr. Olson continued by stating that the City Council discussed discontinuing the DARTS funding at their November 27 work session and concluded that these funds should be programmed to a different activity. Staff is recommending that these funds be reprogrammed to provide additional funding for the Home Rehabilitation Loan Program administered by the CDA for Lakeville. Mr. Olson added that these funds can be targeted at different areas of Lakeville for improvements through mailings to make residents aware of the funds. 2 Economic Development Commission ~ Meeting Minutes r?L®1?3 November 28, 2006 Mr. Mielke noted that there have been complaints to the City Council that some homes in Lakeville are falling into disrepair. He added that currently the City can only enforce a maintenance issue if it's perceived as a threat to the safety of the residents or general public. Mr. Mielke suggested that it might be worth exploring a housing maintenance code that could address certain aesthetic issues. Comm. Brantly asked if these types of maintenance codes are common in other cities. Mr. Mielke responded that they aren't all that uncommon and could serve as a way to facilitate the use of the Home Rehabilitation Loan program to residents who may not be able to afford to make standard home repairs. Comm. Emond added that a maintenance code could be tricky to implement because people are generally sensitive about being told what they can or can't do with their property. Comm. Smith noted that the City currently has ordinances regarding some property maintenance issues such as lawn height and junk vehicle restrictions. This would seem like a logical extension of the current regulations. Comm. Schubert asked what would happen if a loan was granted and the home went into foreclosure. Would the City be able to get the money back? Mr. Olson responded that there is a slight risk as the City would either be the second or third position on the property to collect any money in the event of a foreclosure. Motion 06.16 Comms. Erickson/Smith moved to recommend the 2007 CDBG application items as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Director's Report Mr. Olson reviewed his Director's Report and gave updates on the City Board and Commission Recognition Dinner, the Downtown Planning Project, the 2006 Manufacturers Recognition Event, the August Building Permit Report, and EDC member reappointments. Mr. Olson added that the Manufacturers Recognition Event drew approximately 80 attendees in 2006 and noted that the attendance level has remained rather stagnant over the past several years. Staff will be working on ways to further promote the event and encourage new manufacturing businesses to attend. Mr. Olson stated that EDC Member Dick Miller is resigning from the EDC at the end of 2006 and advertisements for the opening would be published in late December or early January. 3 Ewnomic Development Commission ~ ~ i Meeting Minufes NovemGer 28, 2006 Mr. Kienberger stated that the December 4th Spotlight on Business would be CARQUEST Distribution Facility and was looking for a volunteer from the EDC to do the presentation. Comm. Smith responded that he would be willing to do the presentation at the December 4th City Council meeting. 6. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Attested to: Adam Kienberger R. T. Brantly, Secretary Economic Develop ent Specialist 4 x;° City of Lakeville Community and Economic Development Memorandum To: Economic Development Commission From: Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist Copy: Steven Mielke, City Administrator David L. Olson, Community & Economic Development Director Date: January 26, 2007 Subject: Election of Officers The February 22, 1994 Resolution Confirming and Defining the Purpose, Responsibilities and Terms of Office for the Economic Development Commission state that "at the first meeting of the year, the Commission shall elect a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Secretary from amongst its appointed members to serve for a term of one year." EDC members re-elected Jack Matasosky as Chair, Barry Pogatchnik as Vice Chair and Bob Brantly as Secretary for 2006. Commissioners are asked to elect officers to serve the 2007 year. ,e ~ City of Lakeville ~ ~ Community and Economic Development Memorandum To: Economic Development Commission From: David L. Olson, Community and Economic Development Director Copy: Steve Mielke, City Administrator Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist Date: January 24, 2007 Subject: Review of Dakota County Economic Development Strategy In January of 2006 the Dakota County CDA retained the consulting firm of Economic Development Strategies to assist the CDA and Dakota County in the development of a Dakota County Economic Development Strategy. The first part of this process cumulated December of 2006 when the Dakota County Board of Commissioners adopted an Economic Development Vision and Guiding Principles and provided direction regarding Strategic Initiatives for 2007 & 2008. Attached is a copy of the County Board resolution and the report prepared by Economic Development Services. Dan Rogness of the Dakota County CDA and Janna King of Economic Development Services will provide an overview of the process and recommendations that were included in the approved Economic Development Strategy and the provide status report on the development of strategic initiatives for 2007 and 2008. DEC-19-2~6 16=21 DRKDTR C~JNTY CDR 651 675 4405 P.02 nakota County Economic Development Strategy Resolution approved by the County Board on 1Z/19/06: 7,34 -Adoption Of Economic Development Vision And Principles And Direction Regarding 2007-2008 Initiatives WHEREAS, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners envisions a future in which Dakota is recopnaad as a premier place in which to live and work; and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners recognizes that the concepts of economic devetopmerlk workforce developcrx:nt, and community development are interdependent, mutually supportive, and essential for sustainable economic vrtalily; and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners recognzes titat a Dakota County economic development strategy is necessary to ensure efficient atocation of resources and effective collaboration wkh economic deveopmant partrlers; and WHEREAS, in Aprfi 2005, Dakota County and Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) staff in'ltiated distxrssions on how to assess overall economic deveopment activities and overall coordination; and WHEREAS, as a result of these discussions, a Request for Proposals was issued by the CDA for a consultant to evaluate existing economic development efforts within the county and identify gaps that could be better addressed by a shared v~ion and Dakota County strategy; and WHEREAS, in January 2006, the CDA selected a eonsuNant to facilitate the development of a Dakota County F~onamic Dev~opment 3trategY. and ' WHEREAS, the results of this research, analysis, and recommentlations were presented to the Physk:al Development Commslee of the While on December 12, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That tha Dakota County Bcard of Commissioners hereby adopts ti~ following Economic Development Vision and Guiding Prinapies: Vision We envision Dakota County as a giobalty competfive economy that is vigorous, diversfied and innovatFre, providing opportunr~y and prosperity for businesses and residents alike. while sustaining a healthy environment and a superior quality of Nfe- 6uiding Prfns:ipks • Dakota County government will take a collaborative approach to economic development iniemally and externally, working among county departments and agenaes, as well as with cities and other partners. Care wllk bE taken to avoid duplication. • County government will plan for and invest in critical infrastructure (e.g. transportation, telecommunications) and other competitive advantages that support economic growth and vitality. ¦ Dakota County government may choose to be involved in economic development projects that meet the following criteria: lartarsooe s;ae AM Papa S1 - 0~,~ g:lrmal boardVns 12-t9-06 bMcgnm.doc Agenda Page No- DEC-19-2006 16:22 DRKDTR COUNTY CDR 651 675 4405 P.03 o are highly visible and regionally sign~eant in me Twin Cities metro areas o are physicalry located In more than one community; o involve county and statefoads; o create a significant employmsn4, infrastructure or tax base knpach o demonstrate a positive return on investment, or o preserve, enhance or remediate environmental quality, ¦ County govemmerrt may develop economic deveopment inltlatives at me county level to resporrd tv the need for specialized expertise and economies of scale (i.e. workforce housing, brownfiefd remed"~ation, telecommunications, workforce development). • pakota County govemmem will use researoh and policy development as a framework to guide and evaluate economic development strategies and actions. • County government will consider workforce, employment, and tax base development to enhance long- . term plans and investment decisions. and 8E IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Thal staff is hereby directed to work with the Dakota County CDA staff to evaluate the fiscal impact of implementing the following Strategic Initiatives and to present the results to the County Beard by Aprl! 2007: Stretaglc inlllative #1: irrveat in transportation and transit rwcworks EfNcient transportation and relatively lovr levels of congestion support the productivity of the workforoe and Vre canpetitiveness of Dakota County businesses Transit and tr~sil-0riented development help alleviate congestion and fhe demand for additional highway capacity. Elflcisnt transportation and transft make Dakota County a competitive business IvCetion. Sbateglc Inltiative tit: Coord"mate strategic irrftastrueture~nd land devskrpmarK Dakota County government works olosely with cities and tAWnships to plan infrastructure investrrlents and land development patterns to strengthen the tax base and accommodate quay employers. Irrveshnents are made strategically, faking ~ acwunt measurable economic impacts. Excellent infrastructure (transportation, telecommunications, utility services) makes Dakota County a competitive buseress location. Strategic Intitiafive tll3: Link workforce development and economic development A proactive and responsive workforce training and deveopment system is attractive tv existing and prospective businesses and helps ensure that an appropriately skilled workforce will meet the needs of current and future businesses in Dakota County. Strategic Initiativ®s4a: Create prospect response capacity The County Board desires to have the CDA develop alternatives for Slrattgb Initiative 4a ttrat could enharres maAcetabiHty and responsiveness for County Board consideration. t;M` atagic Inltative tt4b: Enhance image, matketing and branding. Business dedsion~nakers identify Dakota County as a good locatiar for high[luafilyr companies. Strategic 1niMative ifs: Provide quality vvorkforoe housing The Dakota County CDA provides opportunities for wcrkers with modest incomes to live in decentlaffvrdable housing located inclose proximity to places of employment. Strategic Initiative fib: Strengthen development-related research and polky capacity Research provides a sound basis for informing and shaping County government development pollees and investments. The Dakota County CDA, in cooperation wdh County staff, will provide analytical information to otherjurisdictions in the County that helps shape local economic development dedsions. 12rta20oe 9:39 AM Page 32 ©ys g:lfinal boaMlms 12-19A9 erdeomm.doe Agenda Page No. TOTRL P. 03 Economic Development 5ervice5 Dakota County Economic Development Strategy Vision Guiding Principles Strategic Initiatives - 2007 & 2008 December 11, 2006 Prepared for the Dakota County Community Development Agency Prepared by Janna King, CEcD, EDFP 3109 W. 50~h St. #204 Minneapolis, MN 55410 612 925-2013 Fax 612 925-2942 Table of Contents Page Background & Policy Context 1 Approach 2 Vision & Guiding Principles 4 Economic Characteristics of Dakota County 5 Strategic Initiatives 7 i 12-11-06 Background The Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) retained Janna King, CEcD, EDFP, with Economic Development Services of Minneapolis, in January 2006 to prepare an economic development strategy for Dakota County. The overall project goals included: • Define the County, CDA and WIB roles in economic development in the context of an array of economic development services provided by cities, colleges, chambers, businesses, utilities, non-profits and other organizations active in Dakota County. • Engage stakeholders in developing an economic development vision and strategy for Dakota County. • Develop options for County participation in economic development in a manner that aligns and coordinates County, CDA and WIB resources in support of the strategy to achieve the greatest efficiency, effectiveness and impact. The planning process included a review of economic and demographic data and interviews with more than 30 economic development stakeholders, including city administrators, community development directors, college presidents, workforce development staff, utility officials, chambers and economic development groups. Additional small group sessions involved community and economic development staff, city and county administrators, and the Dakota Future Board of Directors. On-line (or fax) surveys were used to collect more information from elected city officials and county commissioners. (Participants are identified in Appendix A) The role of the county in economic development and high quality economic development programs in other counties around the nation were reviewed to gather insights and examples. This information is included in the Appendix in two locations: Appendix B (summary of three county approaches in economic development) and Appendix C (PowerPoint presentations from economic development strategy sessions, May 2006). Two facilitated sessions were held, May 11 and May 24, 2006, with 15-20 participants at each session. Participants reviewed a summary of the research prepared by Economic Development Services and participated in developing the vision, guiding principles and strategic initiatives described in this document. The planning process and preparation of the final document was guided by asix-member Steering Committee: Mark Ulfers and Dan Rogness, Dakota County Community Development Agency Greg Konat and Taud Hoopingarner, Dakota County Mark Jacobs, Dakota County Workforce Investment Board Bill Coleman, Dakota Future Policy Context The Vision and Mission Statements of Dakota County informed the study process and this final report. Vision: We envision a future in which Dakota County is recognized as a premier place in which to live and work. County residents will enjoy a vigorous, sustainable economy; safe, healthy, vital communities; and a quality physical environment in which to live and play, served by an efficient, effective, responsive government. Mission: The mission of Dakota County is to provide efficient, effective and responsive government. Economic 1 VCVP,10'~. "YEI^~ Ser~icee 12-11-06 Approach The underlying premise of this document is the concept that economic development, community development and workforce development are inter-dependent, mutually supportive and essential for sustainable economic vitality. Economic development focuses on those business sectors that provide high quality employment opportunities in the community, bring wealth to the region, and strengthen the tax base of the county. Businesses depend upon a skilled, productive workforce in order to compete successfully. Workforce development enables workers to engage successfully in the changing economy and enables companies to be productive and competitive in a dynamic economic environment. Community development focuses on the infrastructure -transportation, telecommunications, workforce housing, utility services - necessary to support competitive businesses and the recreational, cultural and quality of life amenities essential to attracting a broad spectrum of skilled, creative, and productive people. ,~a.'"' . This approach can serve as a model for Dakota Community County, bringing together county resources - Economic Development i;?: Development community development, economic development and workforce development - to support a healthy, dynamic, sustainable economy. ~`-u~t~XX¢ Workforce Development F: `:1~* Team Approach to Implementation The interviews and facilitated sessions revealed a clear consensus in favor of a collaborative, yet organized and accountable, approach to economic development in Dakota County. The strategic initiatives identified in the planning process can be implemented by existing county agencies and departments or interagency/ interdepartmental teams together with other partners (e.g. cities, chambers, Dakota Future). To ensure accountability, alead organization is identified for each of the strategic initiatives. It is the responsibility of the lead organization to convene the appropriate team members, initiate and focus work activity, and document results. For example, Brownfield redevelopment has potentia{ to strengthen tax base; provide quality employment opportunities; make use of existing, underutilized infrastructure; and leverage state/federal resources. Cities in Dakota County indicated that it could be more Economic 2 evele menu 6er~iice~ 12-11-06 efficient to develop brownfield revitalization capacity in County government, rather than build such capacity in nearly every municipality. An interdepartmental County team could be identified to address brownfield redevelopment and a lead (convening) organization identified. The interdepartmental team, working with city representatives, could identify policy priorities to guide investment in brownfield redevelopment. The technical capacities of the Environmental Services Division could be coupled with the redevelopment, grant-writing and financing capacities of the Community Development Agency to clean up and redevelop priority sites. Team members would be responsible for documenting costs and benefits, including tax base, employment, environment and other performance measures. The Economic Development Strategic Initiatives identify the potential roles for the county in economic development and form the basis on which the county collaborates with various external partners. The Counfy Board provides policy guidance to staff regarding County government's role and priorities in economic development. An Internal Economic Development Steering Committee, comprised of representatives from appropriate departments of the different divisions of the County, will oversee County activities necessary to secure the outcomes described in the Economic Development Strategic Initiatives. The County will work with appropriate Partners (e.g. cities, colleges, townships, chambers, etc.) focusing on the six Economic Development Sfrategic lnitiafives identified through the planning process. Focused, Collaborative Approach to Dakota County Government Involvement in Economic Development Cities Townships Policy Internal Implementation irection County Economic Strategic Initiatives Development 1. Transportation & Transit Chambers Steering 2. Land Use & Infrastructure County Committee 3. Workforce Board (county staff convened by 4. Prospect response/marketing Dakota County 5. Workforce housing CDA-includes 6.Research & Policy Colleges WIB, Physical Development, OMB, others) Utilities Dakota Future Econcmic 3 Develo~rrent 5er/ices 12-11-06 Vision We envision Dakota County as a globally competitive economy that is vigorous, diversified and innovative, providing opportunity and prosperity for businesses and residents alike, while sustaining a healthy environment and a superior quality of life. Guiding Principles • Dakota County government will take a collaborative approach to economic development internally and externally, working among County departments and agencies, as well as with cities and other partners. Care will be taken to avoid duplication. • County government will plan for and invest in critical infrastructure (e.g. transportation, telecommunications) and other competitive advantages that support economic growth and vitality. • Dakota County government may choose to be involved in economic development projects that o are highly visible and regionally significant in the Twin Cities metro area; o are physically located in more than one community; o involve county and state roads; o create a significant employment, infrastructure or tax base impact; o demonstrate a positive return on investment, or o preserve, enhance or remediate environmental quality. ¦ County government may develop economic development initiatives to respond to the need for specialized expertise and economies of scale (i.e. workforce housing, Brownfield remediation, telecommunications, workforce development). • Dakota County government will use research and policy development as a framework to guide and evaluate economic development strategies and actions. ¦ County government will consider workforce, employment, and tax base development to enhance long-term plans and investment decisions. economic 4 Deve~~o~ir^ent `;e ices 12-11-06 Economic Characteristics of Dakota County The following key characteristics help define the economy of Dakota County, now and in the future. To further as the County's vision of being a "premier place in which to live and work," county government can use this information to help evaluate its role in addressing current conditions and expected changes. Demos~raphic Chancres. The key demographic changes that impact the future economy of Dakota County relate to population aging and race/ethnicity. Over the next three decades, the nonwhite population is forecasted to grow nearly 176%, from 23,934 in 2000 to 66,000 in 2030. Using the 2000 census as a starting point, the county can expect a 171 % increase of residents aged 55 and older by 2030. In comparison, the population aged 18-34 will only increase 18%. Wanes and Household Income. Average weekly wages for jobs in Dakota County rose 16% from 2000 ($656) to 2004 ($763), although this remains below the average in Ramsey ($868) and Hennepin ($987) counties. The 2005 median household income is estimated at $69,900 for Dakota County. However, the median varies between communities in the county, with the lowest in South St. Paul and West St. Paul and the highest in Lakeville and Mendota Heights. Job Growth/Loss. Between 2000-2005, Dakota County added 16,493 jobs, or nearly 11 This compares to a 1 % loss of jobs for the 13-county metro area. Virtually all of those jobs were added in the cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville and Rosemount (+16,470). Job losses occurred primarily in the rural areas. By industry, the largest employment growth occurred in health care and social assistance (+3,584), finance and insurance (+2,259), and construction (+2,195). Health care showed average weekly wages that are below the county's average in 2005, while the other two were above. However, none of them were within the top five industries by wage for Dakota County. Employment Distribution. In 2000, 70% of all jobs in Dakota County were located within the developed communities of Burnsville, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota Heights, South St. Paul and West. St. Paul. However, employment projections show that the percentage of jobs within those same cities drops to 55% by 2030, while more jobs (43%} shift to the developing communities of Apple Valley, Farmington, Lakeville and Rosemount. In 2003, only five of the county's 11 major cities had more than one job per household, including Burnsville, Eagan, Hastings, Mendota Heights and Rosemount. The average in the Twin Cities was 1.7 for developed suburbs and 1.2 for developing suburbs. Economic 5 Development 5erv~ces 12-11-06 Labor Force Participation, Travel and Transportation. In 2002, approximately 62% of the county's total population was in the labor force. The number of jobs in Dakota County(161,177) was less than labor force (227,437), reflecting a pattern of commuting out of the county for employment. The 2000 Census showed that 61 % of the county's workforce was employed within Dakota County, followed by 12% in Hennepin County and 10 % in Ramsey County. At the same time, 440 miles of county highways in Dakota County are expected to fall short of funds for transportation improvements ($30 million shortfall per year through 2025). However, transit improvements are currently being planned or evaluated on Cedar Avenue, 35W and Robert Street. Industrial Mix. In Dakota County, there is no single dominant industry. The top five industries by wages in 2005 were Mining, Utilities, Management of Companies, Information, and Professional and Technical Services. The largest industries in terms of number of establishments include construction, professional and technical services, retail trade, health care, and finance and insurance. Average weekly wages for these five industries show that only "professional and technical services" was within the top five industries based on average weekly wage in the county. Between 2000-2004, the largest increases in business establishments occurred in the construction industry. Construction has weekly wages above the average ($978 vs. $773), while retail trade has weekly wages well below the average ($467 vs. $773). Land Development. Growth and development continues at a pace of approximately 2,300 acres per year in Dakota County. From a land value standpoint, the metro's average for all cities for commercial/industrial is 16.3% of total market value in 2005. Although not available for Dakota County as a whole, only two of the 11 largest cities in Dakota County meet or exceed this C/l average: Burnsville (19.1 and Eagan (19.8%). Other C/I market value percentages are: Apple Valley (9.1%), Farmington (4.2%), Hastings (10.5%), Inver Grove Heights (9.4%), Lakeville (9.3%), Mendota Heights (14.5%), Rosemount (11.5%), South St. Paul (10.8%), and West St. Paul (13.7%). Another indicator is that three cities are in the top 20 as net contributors to the metro fiscal disparities pool (Burnsville, Eagan, Mendota Heights). Five cities are net recipients from that same. top 20 pool (Apple Valley, Farmington, Hastings, Lakeville, South St. Paul). Workforce Housins~. A demand of 82,000 new housing units is projected in Dakota County between 2D00-2030. Two-thirds of that increase will be located within the developing communities of Apple Valley, Farmington, Hastings, Lakeville and Rosemount. Of the total housing demand during 2000-2030, a minimum of 15% (or 400 units/year) should be affordable to renters and owners with household incomes at/below 80% of median. In addition, the county has existing needs related to an unmet demand for affordable housing, both for new construction and preservation of existing units. Affordable owner-occupied units are based primarily on market prices, but these units are either new townhomes or small older homes, all priced below $200,000. corarr~~ 6 '.J2V°I i'rJ~'.vY~L ~PYiIG~S 12-11-06 Strategic Initiatives: 2007- 2008 The following strategies, particular to the county role in economic development, are designed to support the economic vitality of Dakota County businesses, communities and residents. Strategic Initiative #1: Invest in transportation and transit networks Efficient transportation and relatively low levels of congestion support the productivity of the workforce and the competitiveness of Dakota County businesses. Transit and transit-oriented development help alleviate congestion and the demand for additional highway capacity. Efficient transportation and transit make Dakota County a competitive business location. Strategic Initiative #2: Coordinate strategic infrastructure and land development Dakota County government works closely with cities and townships to plan infrastructure investments and land development patterns to strengthen the tax base and accommodate quality employers. Investments are made strategically, taking into account measurable economic impacts. Excellent infrastructure (transportation, telecommunications, utility services) makes Dakota County a competitive business location. Strategic Initiative #3: Link workforce development and economic development A proactive and responsive workforce training and development system is attractive to existing and prospective businesses and helps ensure that an appropriately skilled workforce will meet the needs of current and future businesses in Dakota County. Strategic Initiative #4 (a1: Create prospect response capacity Dakota County government responds promptly and professionally to business and site location inquiries. Strategic Initiative #4 (b): Enhance image, marketing and branding Business decision-makers identify Dakota County as a good location for high- quality companies. Strategic Initiative #5: Provide quality workforce housing Dakota County CDA provides opportunities for workers with modest incomes to live in decent/affordable housing located in close proximity to places of employment. Strategic Initiative #6: Strengthen development-related research and policy capacity Research provides a sound basis for informing and shaping county government development policies and investments. The Dakota County CDA, in cooperation with County staff provides analytical information to otherjurisdictions in the county that helps shape local economic development decisions. economic 7 Develoo~m:ent 5ervice~ 12-11-06 Strategic Initiative #1: Invest in transportation and transit networks Efficient transportation and relatively low levels of congestion support the productivity of the workforce and the competitiveness of Dakota County businesses. Transit and transit-oriented development help alleviate congestion and the demand for additional highway capacity. Efficient transportation and transit networks make Dakota County a competitive business location. Key findings: • Giow Minnesota survey (2004-2005) revealed that businesses in Northern Dakota County exhibited a significantly higher level of concern with highway infrastructure (53% "unfavorable" ranking) than businesses in Minnesota generally (37% "unfavorable). • Transportation infrastructure consistently ranked in the top 2-3 priority issues identified as an appropriate county role in supporting economic development, during interviews, focus groups and surveys of business, local government, and development professionals conducted as part of the economic development strategic planning process in 2006. • The most serious issue facing the county, as perceived by respondents to the May 2006 Resident Survey, was growth and development (26%). The fourth most important issue was traffic congestion (8%). • Transportation and transit ranked #1 and #2 in importance in a survey of Dakota County Commissioners, city administrators, mayors, council members and Dakota Future. (Survey results shown below, a ranking of 5 =Highly Important, 0 =Not Important. Planning and securing funding for critical Planning & supporting transit corridors, especialty infrastructure (bridges, major roads) those linked to employment concentrations in Dakota County Administrators Administrators Mayrors-Counoilmembers Mayors-COUncilmembers Dakota Future Dakota Future County Commissioners County Commissioners 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Transit-Oriented Development • A number of counties throughout the nation are involved in transit-oriented development along county roads that pass through multiple communities (e.g., King County, WA, Denver County, CO, Montgomery County, MD, and Hennepin County, MN). • County participation includes planning, land acquisition, redevelopment, and loan funds to stimulate development that will complement transit stops. Ecor~omlc 8 Development 5er~~c°~ 12-11-06 Possible goalslaction steps: • In addition to engineering considerations, incorporate tax base return on investment and economic development impact analysis into transportation and transit planning and decision-making. • Strengthen linkages between transit planning, transit-oriented development, economic development, workforce housing and workforce development to identify ways that transit and transit-oriented development can better support Dakota County employers and workers. • Implement a pilot program that promotes transit options while supporting employment growth in Dakota County (e.g., transit service to major Dakota County employment locations). • Dakota County CDA and Transit Office work with communities to hold and/or redevelop sites for Transit Oriented Development. • Set priorities for transportation and transit investments and coordinate lobbying efforts to secure more state and federal funding. Financial implications: • Relatively modest one-time investment to build internal capacity to evaluate tax and economic benefit of infrastructure investments. • Dakota County CDA capacity and resources to buy and hold land, and finance development costs can be used to leverage federal, state, city, and private funds. • No significant additional on-going resources needed from Dakota County. Policy questions: • Should Dakota County consider the tax base and employment implications of its investments in transportation and transit infrastructure? • Should the Dakota County CDA work with cities, county transit planners, and transit agencies to identify and hold key sites for transit-oriented development? ~ccnom'.c 9 De~ielo~ment ~ervicee 12-11-06 Strategic Initiative #2: Coordinate strategic infrastructure and land developmentlredevelopment Dakota County government works closely with cities and townships to plan infrastructure investments and land development and redevelopment patterns to strengthen the tax base and opportunities for quality employment opportunities. Investments are made strategically, taking into account measurable economic impacts. Excellent infrastructure (transportation, telecommunications, utility services) makes Dakota County a competitive business location. Key findings: Land Use • Cities and townships control land use and zoning in Dakota County; the county government is responsible for critical transportation infrastructure. • Cooperative, strategic land development and infrastructure planning has potential to enhance tax base. o Scott and Sherbume county governments have conducted county-wide market studies on commercial and industrial development to provide cities and the county with a better understanding of market potential as they update their comprehensive plans. o Chisago County assists cities with industrial park development to achieve a more balanced tax base in the county. Sherburne County expects to begin land banking in 2007 for future industrial parks in areas with appropriate transportation access and future city utilities. Land development patterns have a significant impact on the property tax base, with fiscal implications for all taxing jurisdictions. Fiscal Impact of Land Use Average Tax Tax on Tax -100 Acres Type per Acre 100 Acres over 20 Years Brick/glass $35,000 $3.5M $70M Strip mall $24,000 $2.4M $48M Showroom $18,800 $1.9M $38M Single Family $10,400 $1.OM $20M Truck Terminal $4,800 $480,000 $9.6M ~ Based on 3 parcels of each type in Eagan, MN -Dakota Co. GIS Department, 2006. Economic 10 ^eveo^w~ent service 12-11-06 Emolovment • Land use and transportation access decisions create "places" with size, location, access and other characteristics attractive to office, research, industrial, medical, retail, and other users. • The nature of these "places" impacts employment opportunities available in Dakota County. • The type of employment available in an area impacts wage levels, commute times and the pressure to commute to concentrations of higher wage employment. o "Traded Cluster" businesses export a product or service and import wealth to the region; these businesses paid an average wage of $54,555 and comprised 32.2% of all jobs in the Twin Cities MSA. o "Local Cluster" businesses depend upon local consumers; these businesses paid an average wage of $32,100 and comprised 67.7% of all jobs in the Twin Cities MSAz. • Cooperative, strategic land development and infrastructure planning can create "places"that are competitive locations for high wage employment. Transportation • Land development patterns create significant transportation and trafFc impacts. • Access and access restrictions have a significant impact on land development patterns and tax base. NOTE: This was the most consistent concern expressed by cities about their relationship with the county on economic development. • The current challenge to county transportation planning is to move toward a system that is more strategic and cooperative in relationship to the cities. • Cooperative, strategic land development and infrastructure planning that balances traffic, tax base, employment and other considerations has potential to reduce tension between Dakota County and other units of local government in Dakota County. Brownfield Revitalization • Hennepin County offers an example of successful county initiatives in this area: o Created the Environmental Response Fund in 1997. The legislature authorized a mortgage registry and deed tax with a 10-year sunset. It generates $2-3 million per year (or $10 - 12 million to date). Since 2001, they have provided 1 large grant to St. Louis Park ($4.75 million) and 113 grants from $5,200 - $683,000. They have a common grant application with the Met Council and State of Minnesota and provide matching funds to increase the competitiveness of Hennepin County applications. Hennepin County funds less than 50% of applications submitted; Met Council and the state fund less than 33%. 2 Michael Porter, Harvard Business School, Institute for Strategy & Competitiveness. http://www. isc.hbs.ed u/ Econornic 11 veveionment 5ervice,~. 12-11-06 o Secured funding from the US Environmental Protection Agency for a Brownfield clean up revolving loan fund. Loans are made to the private sector. Six loans have been made to date, totaling $3 million. o Assists cities with environmental assessment. The county provides technical assistance (e.g., scoping assessments) to its cities and HRAs and oversees report preparation. Redeveloping brownfields was considered a high. priority (#7) in a survey of county commissioners, city administrators, mayors, council members, and Dakota Future. (Survey results shown below, a ranking of 5 =Highly Important, 0 =Not Important) Redeveloping brownfields (contaminated sites) that have potential as a location for commercial or industrial development or workforce housing Atlmirus6ators Mayors-COUntilmembers Dakota Fuhue 1 i County Commrssioners 0 1 2 3 4 5 Telecommunications Telecommunications was ranked highly (#4) in importance in a survey of Dakota County Commissioners, city administrators, mayors-council members and Dakota Future. (Survey results shown below, a ranking of 5 =Highly Important, 0 =Not Important) Analysis of telecommunications capacity and advocacy to maintain state of the art systems Atlministrators MayoB-CDUncllmembers I Dakota Future Caunly Commissioners 0 1 2 3 4 5 Possible goals/action steps: Analyze property tax implications of various land development patterns. Share with cities and townships as part of the comprehensive plan update. Develop policies that encourage efficient use of infrastructure and enhance tax base density. Conduct a countywide market study to provide the cities and county with realistic guidance on commercial and industrial development and redevelopment potential and to better inform the comprehensive plan process. ~conarric 12 Devel o~!r~en 9ervice5 12-11-06 • Explore expanded role for the county government (CDA, environmental services and other divisions) to support cities and. townships with brownfield revitalization. Explore use of "deed tax" used in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties to support brownfield remediation. Make recommendations regarding an expanded county role, the benefits of clean-up, and the potential to leverage additional state and federal dollars for assessment and remediation. Present findings to the county board. Maintain telecommunications inventory developed through E-Commerce Ready process. • Expand telecommunications inventory to map available hotspots and public Internet access sites. • Explore options for supporting the development of advanced telecommunications on a county-wide basis rather than acity-by-city basis (more efficient, cost-effective). Financial implications: • Many of the possible activities envisioned in this section are based on a premise that a strategic approach to land development and transportation infrastructure will enhance county government revenues. The relatively minor cost of analysis has potential to significantly enhance tax base revenue. • Given the additional potential costs associated with brownfield remediation, it may be more cost effective to enhance brownfield remediation capacity at the county level than in a number of cities/townships. A more aggressive approach to assessment and remediation may bring in additional state and federal dollars and speed the establishment of a stronger tax base on contaminated parcels. Policy questions: • To what extent does the county government want to shape development or respond to development pressures? • What are the benefits of minimal involvement in planning (responding to city actions)? What are the disadvantages? What are the benefits of uniform regulatory policies on access management? What are the disadvantages? • Does the county government want to work with the cities and townships to be more proactive and strategic in shaping the potential for enhanced tax base and higher wage employment opportunities? L=conomlc 13 Develr r me n G 5ei°vicea 12-11-06 Strategic Initiative #3: Link workforce development and economic development A proactive and responsive workforce training and development system is attractive to existing and prospective businesses and helps ensure that an appropriately skilled workforce will meet the needs of current and future businesses in Dakota County. Key findings: • Most employers present at the 2006 Dakota Future conference expressed concerns about the availability and skills of workers, especially long term due to the retirement of the baby boom generation. • Human capital is a key source of competitive advantage. It is also typically the largest cost, the foundation of product quality, and a source of vision, strategy, and product development. • EI Paso County, Colorado (Denver area) used its private activity bond allocation to establish a loan fund to increase the earning power of its workers and the competitiveness of area companies. • Short course certificate programs are not eligible for federal financial aid. Dakota County Technical College offers some short courses that could boost worker wages substantially and is interested in cooperating to create a revolving loan fund targeted at "shortage occupations" affecting Dakota County employers. • Kate McEnroe, a national site location consultant presenting at the Dakota Future conference, indicated she might steer employers away from Dakota County due to labor market constraints. • Highly educated, creative workers are critical to a competitive, higher wage economic environment. Therefore, communities that are attractive to key segments of the workforce will be attractive to higher wage employers. Michael Porter- Harvard Business School Richard Florida, Author of Competitive Advantage 8 Industry Clusters "Rise of the Creative Class" Competitiveness is trot simply Cost related Scientists, engineers, architects, writers, factors or natura/resources...other factors entertainers, educators, artists • Specialized labor pool or infrastructure Economic function is to create new Ideas, new • Disadvantages that drive innovation technology, new creative content • Related and supporting industries that create Dave innovation; critical to competitiveness demand, spur innovation or spin-offs Characterized by creativity, individuality, diversity, • Rivalry among local industries merit, self direction, high achievement • A "culture that supports innovation 30% of the workforce. • Choose high amenity, stimulating environment • Demographic change is expected to constrain the availability of employees for Minnesota companies, as detailed below: ~conorr,ic 14 Deveio~men 5e.r:ice5 12-11-06 Minnesota's Boom Generation Begins .Minnesota Labor Force Expected to Turning 55 in 2011 Grow by 421,000 by 2010 But Only ,,,~p,,g~ 175,00 between 2010 and 2020 ,.}pp9p0 Ibt Leber Fero 6rerrtn - s9g9oo teoedoo I •-1B-2d , 60DAW +95~ I 300000 100A00 _ }99A99 150FID0 I 0 1959 1960 1910 }990 1990 8900 }910 3080 p90 0 19x0.80 1980.90 1980.00 2000.10 2(110.20 2020.30 MN DamagapherB SWe EC0nwnist for tha Citizens League,2005 MN ~em0grapherBState ECOnanist for N6 Citlzens League,2005 Competition For The Future Uncertainty! Workforce Will Increase Labor Force Projections Depend On 13~ Migration And Retirement Decisions 1zx e.gz 1~ 3.oF p~ 6M: ~ 6% 20'k a5x ¦Mn U_ a% oU8 1.Oh ~ a:. -1.0 a ~~o .zr: ~~.9M. a9x "u'' +a°Pb° ,eaC1o 1eaOS~ ,e~'0~ 1~,` ,~p''o N'rti~ ~'L°.~ zo90.95 }99s1o m1a15 zelsz9 istD an L Pre on Census @zmu US Praj. Mn StalD Oema9raD9ar Mn Plaj MN Oemuyapher 8 Stale Ecpnomaf for 0le Citizens League, 2005 Possible goalslaction steps: • Explore the establishment of a targeted scholarship/loan program to enhance workforce skills in job shortage occupations, with the goal of improving worker earning potential and meeting the needs of county employers. Focus on short-term training programs not eligible for federal financial aid. (Dakota County CDA and Workforce Investment Board) • Pilot test the establishment of an employment-related "resource room" at an affordable housing site so employment-related resources are available after normal business hours at the Service Centers. (Dakota County CDA and Workforce Investment Board) Financial implications: • Exploring the establishment of a revolving loan fund for shortage occupations could be done at minimal expense by existing staff at the Dakota County CDA and WIB in collaboration with the college, lenders and businesses experiencing a shortage of skilled workers. Economic 15 Deve''~ot7ment services 12-11-06 • The source of funds to capitalize the revolving loan fund (e.g., private activity bonding authority, reserve accounts leveraging private lender funds, CDA, private businesses, foundations) will need to be determined in the exploration phase described above. • The cost of a pilot "resource room" including computer(s) and furniture is expected to be $2,000 - $4,000. An evaluation of the pilot can determine whether additional investment in resource rooms is warranted. Policy questions: • Should the CDA and WIB explore the establishment of a revolving loan fund to pay for short courses at area colleges with the goal of improving worker earning potential and meeting the needs of county employers? Eccnom;c 16 ~evelocment ~CYVIG~S 12-11-06 Strategic Initiative #4 (a): Create prospect response capacity Create the capacity to respond to prospective businesses promptly and professionally. Strategic Initiative #4 (b): Enhance image, marketing and branding. Strengthen the image and awareness of Dakota County as a location for high-quality companies. Key findings: • Kate McEnroe, a national site location consultant, made the following points in a presentation to a Dakota Future conference in early 2006: o The Internet is where the first cut on site location decisions is made. o Timelines are incredibly compressed. o The site locator is in the process of narrowing options. Don't give them any reasons to eliminate your area (e.g. unable to provide information promptly and professionally, lack of clear policies). o Work out your issues before the prospect shows up: be prepared. • Participants in the survey, interviews and small group sessions identified a need for county involvement and leadership in projects of "county wide significance' (examples cited include a stadium, air cargo facility, light rail, 4-year university, major corporate relocation, or a project that impacted more than one community). • Marketing is an expensive proposition for individual communities; joint marketing as a county is perceived as providing an opportunity for building awareness and a positive image in a more cost effective manner. • Dakota Future is playing a role in responding to inquiries and is interested in a more pro-active marketing role, if funding can be raised. Dakota Future provides prospect-oriented site location information on the Internet. • There is regional interest in creating a presence for the Twin Cities metro area on the Internet, where most initial site location assessments are now made. This would enable site locators to consider real estate options and workforce characteristics on a GIS platform. The system could provide basic information; prospects would be linked to brokers and could also be referred to the county, city, chamber or utility associated with a particular site. • Marketing Dakota County's development assets ranked highly (#5) in a survey of Dakota County Commissioners, city administrators, mayors, council members, and Dakota Future. • Interestingly, the less glamorous "providing customer friendly, coordinated response to prospect inquiries' ranked lower. However, it can be counterproductive to market an area before there is a strong response capacity in place. When marketing yields results and inquiries are made, it is important to have a strong response capacity. Lacking this, the area may develop a reputation for great promotion and poor service. ~oonomic 17 D,°.VP.;oCWOYI L 5ervice~ 12-11-06 Marketing Dakota County's development assets Providing customer friendly, wordinated response to prospect inquiries Atlministretors i ' AtlmiNS7ators Mayers-CounciMem6ers Mdyors-COUncilmembers J I Dekate Futile Dakota FUWre CauMy Commissioners County Commissioners i 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 2 3 4 5 Possible goals/action steps: Strafegic Initiative #4 (a): Create prospect response capacity • Strengthen county government's internal capacity to respond to inquiries promptly and professionally (e.g., review and update policies regarding financing and incentives; identify existing materials that can be used in responding to prospect inquiries or prepare new materials; make sure appropriate information is available online. o Establish a clear first point of contact for handling prospect inquiries in Dakota County government. o Identify processes for handling typical inquiries, as well as large regionally significant projects. o Coordinate response process with cities, Dakota Future and other partners. Strengthen regional, county and local response capacity by coordinating with other metro counties to establish a regional economic development Internet presence that provides site location decision-makers with high-quality, customer-focused GIS- capable real estate and workforce information on the Twin Cities metro area. The system could provide prospects with links to cities, counties, chambers, utilities, workforce development and private sector partners. Explore options for provision of these services internally or externally. Strafegic Initiative #4 (b): Enhance image, marketing and branding Increase awareness and strengthen image of Dakota County as an excellent business location with a broad range of opportunities. Clarify messages; send out press releases. Invest in apro-active marketing strategy and develop an appropriate Internet presence and print support materials. Implement a media relations campaign. Explore options for provision of these services internally or externally. Economic 18 t~EV810 ~J'T~Bn~ ~,,°I"V1G°5 12-11-06 Financial implications: Strategic Initiafive #4 (a): Create prospect response capacity • Clarifying internal processes for handling inquiries and coordinating with external partners can be accomplished with existing staff resources. • Improving prospect response materials and upgrading online information could be accomplished for approximately $10,000. • The cost of establishing a regional Internet presence will depend on the scope of the collaborative effort, but is estimated to be less than $20,000 per year. Strategic Initiative #4 (b): Enhance image, marketing and branding • Although costs to develop a marketing strategy and sustained campaign can vary dramatically, a reasonable expectation is $50,000 - $90,000 in the first year and somewhat less in subsequent years as initial strategy and print costs are reduced. Based on the experience of other cities and counties, it is likely that private sector funds can be secured to offset some of these costs. • With increased marketing, coordinating responses to routine inquiries can be time consuming for staff. Policy questions: Strategic Initiative #4 (a): Create prospect response capacity • Should clear processes to handle inquiries that come to Dakota County or its agencies be established? • In what division/organization(s) should response capacity reside? • Should the county or CDA invest approximately $10,000 to improve the presentation of printed material or web-based information? • Should Dakota County participate in a Twin Cities regional website designed to provide site location decision-makers with information on available buildings/sites and workforce, with direct web referrals to brokers, cities, chambers, utilities and counties? Sfrategic Initiative #4 (b): Enhance image, marketing and branding • What is the appropriate level of financial commitment of the county or CDA to a marketing effort? • What is the intent of a marketing program? Enhance image & awareness? Motivate prospect inquiries? • How will an increased level of inquiries be managed? Will leads come to the CDA or be directed to cities? • How will success be measured? Economic 19 Ceaeiormert 5ervicea 12-11-06 Strategic Initiative #5: Provide quality workforce housing Dakota County CDA provides opportunities for workers with modest incomes to live in decent/affordable housing located in close proximity to places of employment. Key findings: • Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) is very highly regarded. Interviewees would regularly, spontaneously interrupt the interview to say how good they felt about the working relationship with the CDA, the quality of housing they build, and their management of properties. • Developing workforce housing was considered a high priority (#6) in a survey of county commissioners, city administrators, mayors, council members, and Dakota Future. (Survey results shown below, a ranking of 5 =Highly Important 0 =Not Important) Developing workforce housing Atlminishators Mayers-Councilmembers Dakota Fuhue County Commissioners 0 7 2 3 4 5 Possible goals/action steps: • Enhance marketing of workforce housing programs through employers. • Continue HOPE program. • Work with cities on townhouse and condo conversions with deferred maintenance problems via Housing Improvement Associations and Housing Improvement Districts. • Provide information to cities that demonstrates the impact of land use regulation on the cost and availability of affordable housing (integrate with 2008 comp plan update process). • Work with transit officials and cities to target sites with good transit access for workforce housing. (Dakota County CDA) • Purchase sites with good transit access for future development. (Dakota Co. CDA) • Provide policy or financial incentives to include affordable housing in Transit Oriented Development projects. Financial implications: • Funds could be allocated within the existing CDA levy for the items identified above. Econoir~~ic 20 Dz,~elcprrent ~ rvi ;=5 12-11-06 Policy questions: • Should the CDA work more closely with transit officials and cities to target sites with good transit access for future development, including the possibility of affordable housing? Econorriic 21 Deve;o~ment Ser~ice5 12-11-06 Strategic Initiative #6: Strengthen development-related research and policy capacity Research provides a sound basis for informing and shaping county government development policies and investments. The Dakota County CDA, in cooperation with County staff provides analytical information to other jurisdictions in the county that helps shape local economic development decisions. Key findings: • Several interview/small group participants were strong advocates of a "return on investment" approach to evaluating economic development projects and infrastructure investments needed to build a strong commercial/industrial tax base. • Steering Committee members demonstrated a consistent commitment to weighing the costs and benefits of any new initiatives. Possible goals/action steps: • Work with the cities to establish a protocol for evaluating the impact of economic development projects and infrastructure investments (cost:benefit, return on investment). • Establish economic indicators for consistent reporting of workforce and economic trends. • Track commercial industrial real estate market trends; package and share this information with local units of government as well as private sector insights on the regional market. Financial implications: • Additional evaluation tools, processes and staff time will be needed to better consider the economic implications of projects or investments, including tax base and employment. • Some data, tools and processes can be assembled relatively quickly using existing staff and data resources. Consulting resources may be required to develop more sophisticated tools and processes. Policy questions: • Does the County government and/or CDA want to invest in analytical tools and data resources to create the capacity to evaluate the costs and benefits, or return on investment for infrastructure investments and/or economic development projects? • Should County government incorporate economic development measures into its infrastructure investment decisions? ~conornic 22 Deve~oprcent 5e~rvices Page 1 of 1 Lueders, Jeffrey From: Laurie Krueger pkrueger@assocmgmt.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:38 PM To: C. John Harrison (E-mail); Cor Wilson (E-mail); Lueders, Jeffrey; Joe Nathan (E-mail); Mark Moore (E-mail); Mike Hestick (E-mail); Pam Colby (E-mail); Sally Koenecke (E-mail) Subject: MACTA Annual Conference Committee Meeting Notice Importance: High Hello all: It's that time again. Time to begin planning the MACTA Annual Conference. The conference is early this year - September 13-14 - so it is important to start planning now. Meeting Date: Thursday, March 29 Time: 11:00-12:00 Call-in number: 1-712-432-2000 Access code: 50306 I'm hoping you all will be able to participate again this year, please feel free to recruit any new committee members. Please RSVP if you are unable to attend this meeting, or confirm that you will, or will not be participating on the committee this year. Laurie Krueger MACTA 1711 W County Road B, Suite 300N Roseville, MN 55113 651.635.0306 Fax: 651.635.03D7 Ikrueder assocmgmt org www mactamn.om This email, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity fo which it is addressed. ttthe reader of this email is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email is prohibited. Pf you have received this email in error, please notify the sentler by replying to this message and delete this email immediately. 3/28/2007 ~~~1 Q. J City of Lakeville ~ ~ Community and Economic Development Memorandum To: Economic Development Commission From: David L. Olson, Community and Economic Development Director Copy: Steve Mielke, City Administrator Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist Date: January 24, 2007 Subject: Review of Proposed Park Dedication Ordinance Changes The City Council has requested that the Economic Development Commission review the attached proposed Park Capital Improvement Financing Plan and the various options for funding the proposed capital improvements in the park system that are identified in the plan. Park and Recreation Director Steve Michaud and Finance Director Dennis Feller will present the information contained in the plan and the various options for financing the proposed improvements. ~ t ~1~~~ 4l~~~ (I ' II `I~ Park Capital Improvement Financing Plan January 2007 Table of Contents Pate Purpose 1 Objectives 1 Background 1 Pazk Improvements -cost 2 - 4 Financing options 5 - 6 Option I: Park Dedication Fund $101,658,000 -Park Bond Issue $ 0 7 - 9 • Increase Park Dedication Fees 41% in 2007 • No increase in taxes Option II: Park Dedication Fund $ 82,258,640 -Park Bond Issue $19,400,000 10 - 13 • Increase Park Dedication Fees 14% in 2007 • Increase taxes $30 on average value home in 2008 and 2015 Option III: Pazk Dedication Fund $ 82,258,640- Park Bond Issue $19,400,000 14 -18 • Increase Park Dedication Fees 9% in 2007 and 9% in 2008 • Increase taxes $30 on average value home in 2008 and 2015 Option N; Park Dedication Fund $ 71,986,293- Park Bond Issue $29,672,348 19 - 22 • No change in Park Dedication Fees • Increase taxes $125 on average value home in 2008 Option V: Park Dedication Fund $ 71,986,293 -Park Bond Issue $ 0 23 - 25 • No change in Park Dedication Fees • No increase in taxes Financing Summary 26 Major Maintenance 27 Recommendations 28 r City of Lakeville ' Finance Department Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Steve Michaud, Director of Parks and Recreation Dennis Fe]ler, Finance Director Date: January 19, 2007 Subject: Park Capital Improvement Financing Plan The purpose of the Park Capital Improvement Financing Plan is to provide along-range strategy based on and consistent with the 2006 Comprehensive Park and Trail System Plan. Obiectives Within this purpose are a number of objectives relative to the financing of the improvements. • Develop a capital improvement financing plan based on the approved 2006 Comprehensive Park and Trail System Plan. • Develop a basis for establishing pazk dedication fees. • Delineate various financing options BaclcEround The Pazk Department staff has provided a comprehensive schedule of proposed capital improvements costs for the Lakeville's park systems based on the 2006 Comprehensive Park and Trail System Plan. The schedule (as shown on the following pages) includes approximately $54,100,000 for land acquisitions, $37,875,144 of improvements as well as $9,683,496 for other costs such as tree plantings, Sentence to Serve projects, planning services, and unanticipated costs. It should be noted that costs as shown are based on 2007 dollars. t Proposed Park Improvements Park Description Total Ag Land Land acquisition $ 2,000,000 Ag Land Standard neighborhood park facilities $ 500,000 Antlers Park Play structure upgrades $ 73,915 Antlers Park -Phase II Land acquisition $ 2,000,000 Antlers Park -Phase II Parking lot expansion $ 20D,000 Antlers Park -Phase II Additional shelter $ 50,OD0 Antlers Park -Phase II Misc Park Facilities $ 30,000 Aronson Park Play structure upgrade $ 101,344 Aronson Park Parking lot expansion $ 300,000 Aronson Park Construction of new building $ 350,000 Arts Center Outside performance area $ 350,000 Arts Center Building expansion $ 1,D00,000 Bassett Park Play structure upgrades $ 64,000 Bass Pond Land acquisition $ 1,000,000 Bass Pond Standard MP facilities $ 200,000 Bracketts Crossing Park Play structure upgrade $ 38,245 Bridge I Bridge I $ 650,000 Bridge 11 Bridge II $ 650,000 Bridge III Bridge III $ 656,D00 Bridge IV Bridge IV $ 650,000 Bunker Hill Park Play structure upgrade $ 71,763 Bury property Land acquisition $ 8,000,000 Bury property Bluff trail $ 75,000 Bury property Shelters $ 50,000 Bury property Lights $ 25,000 Bury property Misc. $ 25,000 Bury property Parking lot @ fishing bridge $ 60,000 Casperson Park & Boat Launch Play structure upgrade $ 74,263 Phase II Development Standard Community Park Facilities $ 1,250,000 Cedar Athletic Complex Land acquisition $ 6,000,000 Cedar Athletic Complex Standard multi-use athletic facilities $ 2,500,000 Cedar South Land acquisition $ 800,000 Cedar South Soccer facilities $ 500,000 Central Woods Land acquisition $ 8,000,000 Central Woods Standard Community Park Facilities $ 1,000,000 Chadwick Park Play structure upgrade $ 57,645 Cherryview Park Pave hockey rink $ 53,500 Cherryview Park Play structure upgrade $ 63,760 Dakota Heights Park Play structure upgrade $ 86,218 Dakota Heights Water Tower Standard mini park facilities $ 350,000 Dell West Land acquisition $ 2,000,000 Dell West Standard neighborhood park facilities $ 500,000 Dodd Pointe Park Play structure upgrade $ 55,344 Dodd Trail Park Pave parking lot $ 40,000 East Community Park Phase I {Approved Funding) $ 1,380,000 East Community Park Phase II (as development occurs) $ 2,500,000 2 Proposed Park Improvements (continued) Park Description Total Fairfield Park Play structure upgrade $ 63,529 Fieldcrest Park Standard neighborhood park facilities $ 385,000 Foxborough Park Pave parking lot $ 60,000 Foxborough Park Basketball court overlay $ 10,000 Gerdine South Land acquisition $ 2,000,000 Gerdine South Standard neighborhood park facilities $ 500,000 Gravel Pit Land acquisition $ 2,000,000 Gravel Pit Standard neighborhood park facilities $ 500,000 Greenridge Park Play structure upgrade $ 71,763 Harris Farm Park Standard neighborhood park facilities $ 370,000 Harris Farm Park Land acquisition $ 1,600,000 Highview Heights Park Play structure upgrade $ 63,760 Hypointe Crossing Park Play structure upgrade $ 45,088 Independence Park Play structure upgrade $ 56,275 James Jensen Park Play structure upgrade $ 43,775 Jaycee Park Play structure upgrade $ 55,966 Kachina Conservation Area Parking, trails, picnic shelter $ 219,000 Kenmore Park Play structure upgrade $ 48,448 Kenreel Park Play structure upgrade $ 57,6D0 Kensington Park Play structure upgrade $ 71,763 King Park Building expansion $ 313,500 King Park Park improvements $ 140,408 King Park Parking lot curb, gutter paving $ 500,000 King Park Irrigation (Fields 1&2) $ 60,000 King Park Playground $ 65,000 King Park Irrigation (Fields 3&8) $ 150,000 Lakeridge Park Play structure upgrade $ 63,529 Lone Oak Play structure upgrade $ 48,448 Lynwood Heights Park Play structure upgrade $ 80,769 Marion Fields Park/Greenway Play structure upgrade $ 76,133 Soccer field complex Land acquisition $ 1,600,000 Soccer field complex Standard athletic field facilities $ 400,000 Meadows Park Play structure upgrade $ 65,000 Meadows Park Pave parking lot $ 35,000 Murphy Hanrehan Trail head project $ 35,000 North Creek Land acquisition $ 2,D00,000 North Creek Standard neighborhood park facilities $ 500,000 North Park Play structure upgrade $ 131,127 Oak Shores Park Play structure upgrade $ 58,350 North Park Installation of irrigation system $ 115,000 Oaks of Lake Villa Park Standard MP facilities $ 85,000 Orchard Lake Beach Play structure upgrade $ 67,643 Orchard Lake Park Play structure upgrade $ 70,000 Prairie Lake Park Play structure upgrade $ 80,769 Quigley-Sime Park Pave parking lot $ 125,000 Rechzigel property Land acquisition $ 3,600,000 Rechzigel property Standard community park faciltties $ 300,000 3 Proposed Park Improvements (continued) Park Description Total Ritter Farm Park Construct new ELC $ 1,250,000 Ritter Farm Park Pave roadway $ 300,000 Ritter Farm Park Pave trails $ 100,000 Ritter Farm Park New parking lot (paved) $ 100,000 Ritter Farm Park South Land acquisition $ 3,000,000 Rolling Oaks Park Play structure upgrade $ 86,218 Senior Center Land acquistion $ 600,000 Senior Center Remodel existing facility $ 300,000 Senior Center New Addition $ 750,000 Senior Center Parking lot expansion $ 120,000 Skate Park Parking, ramp system, fencing, lighting $ 250,000 Sleepy Hollow Park Play structure upgrade $ 55,966 Solberg Park Land acquisition $ 2,000,000 Solberg Park Standard neighborhood park facilities $ 500,000 South High School Land acquisition $ 3,000,000 South High School Athletic facilities and parking $ 500,000 Spyglass Park Play structure upgrade $ 57,645 Spyglass Park -Phase II Land acquisition $ 900,000 Spyglass Park -Phase II Standard neighborhood park facilities $ 250,000 Stoneborough Park Standard neighborhood park facilities $ 350,000 The Greenway Park Picnic shelter $ 45,000 The Greenway Park Playground $ 60,000 The Greenway Park Trails $ 39,000 The Greenway Park Parking lot $ 25,000 The Greenway Park Misc. facilities $ 20,000 The Greenway Park Signage $ 10,000 The Greenway Park Landscaping $ 10,000 Trails -miscellaneous connectors $ 150,000 Trails Trails $ 3,282,750 Trail Lights Trail lights (1100) (net of Developer - 50%) $ 1,641,375 Trails (Greenway) Trails (82000 If) + lights $ 3,690,000 Underpass I Underpass I $ 75,000 Underpass II Underpass II $ 75,000 Underpass III Underpass III $ 75,000 Underpass IV Underpass IV $ 75,000 Valley Lake Park Play structure upgrade $ 76,133 Village Creek Park Play structure upgrade $ 78,417 Village Creek East Land acquisition $ 2,000,000 Village Creek East Standard neighborhood park facilities $ 500,000 West Lake Marion Park Lighting $ 200,000 Wild Meadows Park Park grading $ 15,000 Total $ 91,975,144 Other $ 9,683,496 Totallmprovements $ 101,658,640 4 Financing Options The primarily revenue sources for the $101 million of pazk acquisitions and improvements is either Park Dedication fees collected from developers when plats are approved, bond proceeds approved by voter referendums or some combination thereof. There are numerous financing options available to finance the proposed capital improvement plan. The potential financing options considered as part of this analysis are as follows: I : Park Dedication Fund $101,658,000 -Park Bond Issue $ 0 • Increase Park Dedication Fees 41 % in 2007 • No increase in takes II: Park Dedication Fund $ 82,258,640 -Park Bond Issue $19,400,000 • Increase Park Dedication Fees 14% in 2007 • Increase taxes $30 on average value home in 2008 and 2015 III: Park Dedication Fund $ 82,258,640 -Park Bond Issue $19,400,000 • Increase Park Dedication Fees 9% in 2007 and 9% in 2008 • Increase taxes $30 on average value home in 2008 and 2015 IV: Park Dedication Fund $ 71,986,293 -Park Bond Issue $29,672,348 • No change in Park Dedication Fees • Increase taxes $125 on average value home in 2008 V: Park Dedication Fund $ 71,986,293 -Park Bond Issue $ 0 • No change in Park Dedication Fees • No increase in taxes The financing of the proposed Park Dedication Fund improvements is dependent on revenues derived from park dedication fees. In all financing scenarios the assumption was made that the relationship between single-family, multi-family, commercial and industrial Park Dedication fees is consistent with the existing fee structure. The growth assumptions are consistent with those reflected in the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer and Water Plans as shown below: Number of Persons Year Population Households Per House. 2030 86,000 33,500 2.6 2005 50,564 16,905 3.0 Growth 35,436 16,596 2.1 Single Family 22,070 9,596 2.3 Multi Family 13,366 7,000 1.9 Growth 35,436 16,596 2.1 s It should be noted that costs as shown are based on 2007 dollars. The fees associated with fnancing the park improvements therefore need to be adjusted annually based on inflation factors. Issuance of Park Bonds requires voter approval. Park bond issues approved by referendum are based on market value -not tax capacity value. The City of Lakeville has one outstanding bond issue for pazk improvements that were approved by voter referendum in 1994. The bonds are callable in 2012. The debt service for the 1994 bond issue is as follows: Property Year Taxes 200'7 $ 414,231 2008 419,806 2009 414,256 2010 417,519 2011 424,744 2012 416,531 2013 417,722 2014 422,781 It should be noted that area school districts maybe contemplating voter approval of operating or building referendums. The schedule for and the financial implications of the referendums is unknown. School referendums for operations are based on market value -school referendums for buildings are based on tax capacity value. The following is a discussion of the financing options relating to the proposed park improvements. 6 Oution I• Park Dedication $101,658,000 Bond Issue $0 Option I: Park Dedication $101,658,000 -Bond Issue $0 Option I assumes that all of the proposed Park capital improvements are financed with Park Dedication Fees. As such park dedication fees would need to increase by 41% as shown below. Fees anaiysis Park Dedication Rates Current Proposed Increase Single Family $ 3,995 $ 5,650 $ 1,655 Multifamily 3,495 4,943 1,448 Commercial (per acre) 6,475 9,157 2,682 Industrial (per acre) 3,837 5,427 1,590 Revenue veneration Current Proposed Increase Single Family $ 38,334,023 54,214,575 15,880,553 Multifamily 24,465,000 34,600,063 10,135,063 Commercial 5,503,750 7,783,777 2,280,027 Industrial 3,683,520 5,209,484 1,525,964 Total revenues $ 71,986,293 $ 101,807,898 $ 29,821,606 Capital improvement plan 101,658,640 101,658,640 - Overage/(shortfall) $ (29,672,348) $ 149,258 $ 29,821,606 It should be noted that costs as shown are based on 2007 dollars. The fees associated with Tinancing the park improvements therefore need to be adjusted annually based on inflation factors. 8 The following is a comparison of the Lakeville's Park Development Fees with those of other met<•o area communities. Single Multi- Family Family Commercial Industrial Eden Prairie $ 6,000 $ 5,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 Maple Grove $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 9,900 $ 6,900 Plymouth $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 Chanhassen $ 5,800 $ 3,800 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 a~C+e~~i~.~>stisc~j ~ . ~$a ~ 4~~I~~ ~ 9~~1 ~ a s 2,~=-' Bloomington * $ 5,400 $ 3,600 $ 654 $ 436 Shakopee $ 5,340 $ 4,450 $ 6,930 $ 6,930 Cottage Grove $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Lakeville (current) $ 3,995 $ 3,490 $ 6,831 $ 3,942 Prior Lake $ 3,750 $ 3,750 $ 6,400 $ 6,400 Burnsville $ 3,432 $ 4,278 $ 11,500 $ 10,000 Rosemount $ 3,400 $ 3,400 $ 9,000 $ 5,000 Eagan * $ 3,308 $ 3,213 $ 1,737 $ 437 Savage $ 3,230 $ 3,230 $ 7,800 $ 7,800 Woodbury $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Blaine $ 2,376 $ 6,988 $ 4,751 Hastings $ 2,200 $ 1,100 $ 1,500 $ 1,200 * Eagan & Bloomington uses per 1000 sq ft bldg calculation for commercial and industrial property Rosemount uses 1/25 (.04) of an acre per dwelling unit Park Bond Issue Option I contemplates that no referendums are approved or debt is issued to finance future park improvements. 9 Option II. Park Fund $82,258,000 Bond Issue $19,400,000 10 Option II. Park Fund $82,258,000 -Bond Issue $19,400,000 The objective of Option II is to determine the debt financing options assuming that the two referendums were approved which would increase the taxes payable on the average home by approximately $30 per year for each referendum. The first referendum is contemplated to be in November 2007 with the second in November 2014 to coincide with the final maturity on the existing debt. All other park improvements would therefore we financed with Park Dedication Fees. Park Dedicatiou Fund As such, the park dedication fees would need to be increased approximately 14% in order to provide the remaining $82,258,000 of capital improvement program not financed with a park bond referendum. Park Dedication Rates Current Proposed Increase Single Family $ 3,995 $ 4,570 $ 575 Multifamily 3,495 3,998 503 Commercial (per acre) 6,475 7,407 932 Industrial (per acre) 3,837 4,389 552 Revenue generation Current Proposed Increase Single Family $ 38,334,023 43,851,435 5,517,413 Multifamily 24,465,000 27,986,245 3,521,245 Commercial 5,503,750 6,295,904 792,154 Industrial 3,683,520 4,213,689 530,169 Total revenues $ 71,986,293 $ 82,347,273 $ 10,360,981 Capital improvement plan 82,258,640 82,258,640 - Overage/(shortfall) $ (10,272,348) $ 88,633 $ 10,360,981 It should be noted that costs as shown are based on 2007 dollars. The fees associated with financing the park improvements therefore need to be adjusted annually based on inflation factors. 11 The following is a comparison of the Lakeville's Park Development Fees with those of other metro area communities. Single Multi- Family Famil Commercial Industrial Eden Prairie $ 6,000 $ 5,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 Maple Grove $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 9,900 $ 6,900 Plymouth $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 Chanhassen $ 5,800 $ 3,800 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 Bloomington * $ 5,400 $ 3,600 $ 654 $ 436 Shakopee $ 5,340 $ 4,450 $ 6,930 $ 6,930 ~~tc~~'~~r-d~osec , 3 ~-li~ ,~~9 $ 3,91~,~ ''~~T ~~~t, 4;~~1 Cottage Grove $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Lakeville (current) $ 3,995 $ 3,490 $ 6,831 $ 3,942 Prior Lake $ 3,750 $ 3,750 $ 6,400 $ 6,400 Burnsville $ 3,432 $ 4,278 $ 11,500 $ 10,000 Rosemount $ 3,400 $ 3,400 $ 9,000 $ 5,000 Eagan * $ 3,308 $ 3,213 $ 1,737 $ 437 Savage $ 3,230 $ 3,230 $ 7,800 $ 7,800 Woodbury $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Blaine $ 2,376 $ 6,988 $ 4,751 Hastings $ 2,200 $ 1,100 $ 1,500 $ 1,200 * Eagan & Bloomington uses per 1000 sq ft bldg calculation for commercial and industrial property Rosemount uses 1125 (.04) of an acre per dwelling unit for calculating residential 12 Park Bond Issue Option II assumes that approximately $19.4 million of capital improvements would be financed with two bond issues approved by referendums. The option contemplates a $7.3 million bond issue approved by voter referendum in November of 2007 whereby the bonds aze issued in February of 2008 with the first tax levy being payable in 2008. The second bond issue in the amount of $12.67 million would be approved by voter referendum in November 2014 with the bonds being issued in February 2015 and the first tax levy payable in 2015. The proposed bond issue would resultin a $30 increase per year on a $300,000 home for each bond issue as shown below. Schedule Referendum date Nov-07 Nov-14 Issuance date Feb-08 Feb-15 Taxes Payable 2008 2015 Bond issue Park Bond Improvements $ 7,100,000 $ 12,300,000 Issuance cost $ 210,000 $ 370,000 Total Bond Issue $ 7,310,000 $ 12,670,000 Annual debt service Interest Rate 4.50% 4.50% Term (years) 20 20 Annual debt service $ 562,000 $ 974,000 2007 Tax levy $ 19,942,716 $ 19,942,716 increase in tax levy 2.8% 4.9% Estimated Market Value 5,639,000,000 5,639,000,000 Market Value Rate 0.0000997 0.0001727 Impact on $300,000 home Proposed bond issue $ 30 $ 52 Less: decrease in levy for 1994 bonds $ - $ (22) Net impact $ 30 $ 30 The improvements to be financed by Park Bonds have yet to be determined. If the park referendum(s) are not approved by the voters, the City Council would need to decide whether to reduce the park improvements accordingly, increase Park Dedication fees or some combination thereof. 13 Option III. Park Fund $ 82,258,000 (Phased implementation of fees) Bond Issue $ 19,400,000 14 Option III. Park Fund $82,258,000 -Bond Issue $19,400,000 (Phased Park fees) The objective of Option III is to determine the debt financing options assuming that the two referendums were approved which would increase the taxes payable on the average home by approximately $30 per year. The first referendum is contemplated to be in November 2007 with the second in November 2014 to coincide with the final maturity on the existing debt. All other park improvements would therefore we financed with Park Dedication Fees. Option III is therefore similar to option II except the Park Dedication fee increases are phased over a two year period. ParkDedicatiou Fund As such, the park dedication fees would need to be increased approximately 9% in 2007 and 9% in 2008 in order to provide the remaining $82,258,000 of capital improvement program not financed with a park bond referendum. Park Dedication Rates Current Proposed Increase Single Family $ 3,995 $ 4,747 $ 752 Multifamily 3,495 4,153 658 Commercial (per acre) 6,475 7,694 1,219 Industrial (per acre) 3,837 4,559 722 Revenue veneration Current Proposed Increase Single Family $ 38,334,023 45,549,839 7,215,816 Multifamily 24,465,000 29,070,176 4,605,176 Commercial 5,503,750 6,539,750 1,036,000 Industrial 3,683,520 4,376,888 693,368 Total revenues $ 71,986,293 $ 85,536,653 $ 13,550,361 Capital improvement plan 82,258,640 82,258,640 - Overage/(shortfall) $ (10,272,348) $ 3,278,013 $ 13,550,361 It should be noted that costs as shown are based on 2007 dollars. The fees associated with financing the park improvements therefore need to be adjusted annually based on inflation factors. 15 The following is a comparison of the Lakeville's Park Development Fees with those of other metro area communities. Single Muiti- Fami Famil Commercial Industrial Eden Prairie $ 6,000 $ 5,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 Maple Grove $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 9,900 $ 6,900 Plymouth $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 Chanhassen $ 5,800 $ 3,800 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 Bloomington * $ 5,400 $ 3,600 $ 654 $ 436 Shakopee $ 5,340 $ 4,450 $ 6,930 $ 6,930 `~ai~v~l[~'~s~e~fctS~gcl`i~2i117 , ~,~4'~: '~~fr'94 ~ Cottage Grove $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Lakeville (current) $ 3,995 $ 3,490 $ 6,831 $ 3,942 Prior Lake $ 3,750 $ 3,750 $ 6,400 $ 6,400 Burnsville $ 3,432 $ 4,278 $ 11,500 $ 10,000 Rosemount $ 3,400 $ 3,400 $ 9,000 $ 5,000 Eagan * $ 3,308 $ 3,213 $ 1,737 $ 437 Savage $ 3,230 $ 3,230 $ 7,800 $ 7,800 Woodbury $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Blaine $ 2,376 $ 6,988 $ 4,751 Hastings $ 2,200 $ 1,100 $ 1,500 $ 1,200 * Eagan & Bloomington uses per 1000 sq ft bldg calculation for commercial and industrial property Rosemount uses 1/25 (.04) of an acre per dwelling unit for calculating residential 16 Park Bond Issue Option III assumes that approximately $19.4 million of capital improvements would be financed with two bond issues approved by referendums. The option contemplates a $7.3 million bond issue approved by voter referendum in November of 2007 whereby the bonds are issued in February of 2008 with the first tax levy being payable in 2008. The second bond issue in the amount of $12.67 million would be approved by voter referendum in November 2014 with the bonds being issued in February 2015 and the first tax levy payable in 2015. The proposed bond issue would result in a $30 increase per year on a $300,000 home for each bond issue as shown below. Schedule Referendum date Nov-07 Nov-14 Issuance date Feb-08 Feb-15 Taxes Payable 2008 2015 Bond issue Park Bond Improvements $ 7,100,000 $ 12,300,000 Issuance cost $ 210,000 $ 370,000 Total Bond Issue $ 7,310,000 $ 12,670,000 Annual debt service Interest Rate 4.50% 4.50% Term (years) 20 20 Annual debt service $ 562,000 $ 974,000 2007 Tax levy $ 19,942,716 $ 19,942,716 increase in tax levy 2.8% 4.9% Estimated Market Value 5,639,000,000 5,639,000,000 Market Value Rate 0.0000997 0.0001727 Impact on $300,000 home Proposed bond issue $ 30 $ 52 Less: decrease in levy for 1994 bonds $ - $ (22) Net impact $ 30 $ 30 The improvements to be financed by Park Bonds have yet to be determined. If the park referendum(s) are not approved by the voters, the City Council would need to decide whether to reduce the park improvements accordingly, increase Park Dedication fees or some combination thereof. 17 An alternative to the referendum described above would be to establish a tax levy dedicated exclusively to park acquisitions and improvements. The 2008 tax levy would be approximately $562,000; the 2015 tax levy would be approximately $974,000. The levy would be adjusted annually for inflationary factors. Advantages of "Park Development" tax levy • Doesn't require voter approval • No debt Disadvantages of "Park Development" tax levy • Levy Limits. If levy limits are re-imposed in either 2008 or 2015 it will be challenging to finance the program. • Opportunity costs. Waiting for adequate funds to accumulate as a result of dedicated tax levies for land acquisitions may take time. As such the City assumes the risks associated with escalating land acquisition costs or that the land is lost to development. 18 Option IV Park Dedication Fund $ 71,986,000 Bond Issue $ 29,672,000 ~9 Oution IV Park Dedication Fund $71,986,000 -Bond Issue $29,672,000 The primary objective of option N is to ascertain the amount of park improvement that can be financed without increasing park dedication fees -other than for inflationary factors. All other pazk improvements would therefore be financed with a park bond referendum. As such option IV is premised on the assumption that $71.986 million of improvements would be financed from the Park Dedication Fund with $29.672 million financed with a Park Bond Referendum. Park Dedication Fund The current fee structure is sufficient to finance approximately $71,986,000 of park improvements as shown below. Fees analysis Park Dedication Rates Current Proposed Increase Single Family $ 3,995 $ 3,995 $ - Multifamily 3,495 3,495 - Commercial (per acre) 6,475 6,475 - Industrial (per acre) 3,837 3,837 - Revenue ¢eneration Current Proposed Increase Single Family $ 38,334,023 38,334,023 - Multifamily 24,465,000 24,465,000 - Commercial 5,503,750 5,503,750 - Industrial 3,683,520 3,683,520 - Total revenues $ 71,986,293 $ 71,986,293 $ - Capital improvement plan 71,986,293 71,986,243 - Overage/(shortfall) $ - $ - $ - It should be noted that costs as shown are based on 2007 dollars. The fees associated with financing the park improvements therefore need to be adjusted annually based on inflation factors. zo The following is a comparison of the Lakeville's Park Development Fees with those of other metro area communities. Single Multi- F 'lv Family Commercial Industrial Eden Prairie $ 6,000 $ 5,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 Maple Grove $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 9,900 $ 6,900 Plymouth $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 Chanhassen $ 5,800 $ 3,800 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 Bloomington * $ 5,400 $ 3,600 $ 654 $ 436 Shakopee $ 5,340 $ 4,450 $ 6,930 $ 6,930 Cottage Grove $ 4,000 $ 4,000 La#tevllle 2.'' . ~ - ~ ~ ~ q_:- ~ F~ ~ . ~2 Lakeville (current) $ 3,995 $ 3,490 $ 6,831 $ 3,942 Prior Lake $ 3,750 $ 3,750 $ 6,400 $ 6,400 Burnsville $ 3,432 $ 4,278 $ 11,500 $ 10,000 Rosemount $ 3,400 $ 3,400 $ 9,000 $ 5,000 Eagan * $ 3,308 $ 3,213 $ 1,737 $ 437 Savage $ 3,230 $ 3,230 $ 7,800 $ 7,800 Woodbury $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Blaine $ 2,376 $ 6,988 $ 4,751 Hastings $ 2,200 $ 1,100 $ 1,500 $ 1,200 * Eagan & Bloomington uses per 1000 sq $ bldg calculation for commercial and industrial property Rosemount uses 1/25 (.04) of an acre per dwelling unit for calculating residential 21 Park Bond Issue As such, the City would have to issue approximately $3Q,56Q000 of bonds to finance the balance of the proposed capital improvement plan. The proposed bond issue assumes that the referendum would be approved by the voters in November 2007. The taxes would be levied for first collection with taxes payable in 2008. The bonds would be issued in Febmary 2008. The $30.56 million bond issue would require an annual levy of approximately $2.349 million dollazs which would result in a $125 increase on the average $300,000 home. Referendum date Nov-07 Issuance date Feb-08 Park Bond Improvements $ 29,672,348 Issuance cost $ 887,653 Total Bond Issue $ 30,560,000 Interest Rate 4.50% Term (yeazs) 20 Annual debt service $ 2,349,000 2007 Tax levy $ 19,942,716 increase in tax levy 11.8% Estimated Market Value 5,639,000,000 Market Value Rate 0.0004166 Impact on $ 300,000 home $ 125 The improvements to be financed by Park Bonds have yet to be determined. If the pazk referendum(s) aze not approved by the voters, the City Council would need to decide whether to reduce the park improvements accordingly, increase Park Dedication fees or some combination thereof. 22 Option V Park Dedication Fund $71,986,000 Bond Issue $ 0 23 Option V Park Dedicatiou Fund $71,986,000 -Bond Issue $ 0 The primary objective of option V is to delineate the pazk improvements to be financed without increasing park dedication fees -other than for inflationary factors. Option V is therefore premised on the assumption that $71,986 million of improvements will be financed solely with park dedication fees. Option V is similar to Option IV except that it assumes that there will be no bond referendums or tax levy for park acquisitions or improvements. As such approximately $29 million of park improvements will be deleted from the 2006 Comprehensive Park and Trail System Plan. Park Dedication Fund The current fee structure is sufficient to finance approximately $71,986,000 of park improvements as shown below. Fees analysis Park Dedication Rates Current Proposed Increase Single Family $ 3,995 $ 3,995 $ - Multifamily 3,495 3,495 - Commercial (per acre) 6,475 6,475 - Industrial (per acre) 3,837 3,837 - Revenue generation Current Proposed Increase Single Family $ 38,334,023 38,334,023 - Multifamily 24,465,000 24,465,000 - Commercial 5,503,750 5,503,750 - Industrial 3,683,520 3,683,520 - Total revenues $ 71,986,293 $ 71,986,293 $ - Capital improvement plan 71,986,293 71,986,293 - Overage/(shortfall) $ - $ - $ - It should be noted that costs as shown are based on 2007 dollars. The fees associated with financing the park improvements therefore need to be adjusted annually based on inflation factors. 24 The following is a comparison of the Lakeville's Park Development Fees with those of other metro area communities. Single Multi- Family Famil Commercial Industrial Eden Prairie $ 6,000 $ 5,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 Maple Grove $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 9,900 $ 6,900 Plymouth $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 Chanhassen $ 5,800 $ 3,800 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 Bloomington ~ $ 5,400 $ 3,600 $ 654 $ 436 Shakopee $ 5,340 $ 4,450 $ 6,930 $ 6,930 Cottage Grove $ 4,000 $ 4,000 ~m~el#e?>Rt~posecll~ ; ~t~ . ~;9~5 ; $ ~~Q~ ~~«u '~,-~~E~ $ ~4~~#;i LaKeville (current) $ 3,995 $ 3,490 $ 6,831 $ 3,942 Prior Lake $ 3,750 $ 3,750 $ 6,400 $ 6,400 Burnsville $ 3,432 $ 4,278 $ 11,500 $ 10,000 Rosemount $ 3,400 $ 3,400 $ 4,000 $ 5,000 Eagan * $ 3,308 $ 3,213 $ 1,737 $ 437 Savage $ 3,230 $ 3,230 $ 7,800 $ 7,800 Woodbury $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Blaine $ 2,376 $ 6,988 $ 4,751 Hastings $ 2,200 $ 1,100 $ 1,500 $ 1,200 * Eagan & Bloomington uses per 1000 sq ft bldg calculation for commercial and industrial property Rosemount uses 1/25 (.04) of an acre per dwelling unit for calculating residential Park Bond Issue Option V contemplates that no referendums are approved or debt is issued to finance future park improvements. As such approximately $29 million of improvements will be deleted from the 2006 Comprehensive Park and Trail System Plan. 25 PARK ACOUSITIONS AND IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY A summary of the four options in this analysis are as follows: lion CauitalImprovementPlan I II II III IV Park Dedication Fund $ 101,658,640 $ 82,258,640 $ 82,258,640 $ 71,986,293 $ 71,986,293 Bond Issue - 19,400,000 19,400,000 29,672,348 - Total $ 101,658,640 $ 101,658,640 $ 101,658,640 $ 101,658,640 $ 71,986,293 Park Dedication Fees -rates 2007 2008 Single Family $ 5,650 $ 4,570 $ 4,714 $ 3,995 $ 3,995 Multifamily 4,943 3,998 4,124 3,495 3,495 Commercial (per acre) 9,157 7,407 7,641 6,475 6,475 Industrial (per acre) 5,427 4,389 4,528 3,837 3,837 Park Dedication Fees -rates increase/(decreasel Single Family 1,655 575 719 - - Multifamily 1,448 503 629 - - Commercial (per acre) 2,682 932 1,166 - - Industlial (per acre) 1,590 552 691 - - Bond Issue Amount $ 19,980,000 $ 19,980,000 $ 30,560,000 $ - Annuallevy $ 1,536,000 $ 1,536,000 $ 2,349,000 $ - Tax Impact on 5300,000 home 2008 $ 30 $ 30 $ 125 $ - 2015 $ 30 $ 30 - - 26 MAJOR MAINTENANCE The City of Lakeville has a significant investment in its park system infrastructwe. It is incumbent therefore that adequate funds be provide for the routine maintenance of its facilities. In addition to the major maintenance projects, the City has approximately 90 miles of trails which require seal coating every 5 years and trail overlays every 25 years to maximize their useful life. The following is a summary of major maintenance and seal coating projects which aze anticipated in the coming years. Trails Seal Year Projects Coating Overlay Total 2007 $ 47,975 $ 46,705 $ 975 $ 95,655 2008 $ 4,600 $ 46,334 $ 50,934 2009 $ 57,075 $ 57,221 $ - $ 114,296 2010 $ 212,111 $ 49,813 $ 3,600 $ 265,524 2011 $ 349,000 $ 86,308 $ 435,308 2012 $ 161,300 $ 74,723 $ - $ 236,023 2013 $ 144,670 $ 72,024 $ 141,766 $ 358,460 2014 $ 38,000 $ 86,563 $ 220,948 $ 345,511 2015 $ 276,300 $ 77,785 $ 85,920 $ 440,005 2016 $ 156,000 $ 125,074 $ 8,680 $ 289,754 Major Maintenance costs are financed through the General Fund appropriations. 27 RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending city council consideration of the following: 1. Approve an ordinance establishing Park Dedication Fees as follows Park Dedication Fees -rates 2007 2008 Single Family $ 4,355 $ 4,747 Multifamily $ 3,810 $ 4,153 Commercial (per acre) $ 7,058 $ 7,693 Industrial (per acre) $ 4,182 $ 4,558 Park Dedication Fees -rates increase/(decrease) 9%) Single Family $ 360 $ 392 Multifamily $ 315 $ 343 Commercial (per acre) $ 583 $ 635 Industrial (per acre) $ 345 $ 376 2. Seek community input as to the level of taxation they are willing to support for Park improvements. A question will be included in the upcoming City wide survey to ascertain the tax level residents would be willing to support for park acquisitions and improvements. a. Based on the outcome of the community survey council, the Park Improvement Plan would be resubmitted to the City Council in mid-2007 for their consideration of a recommended financing option. Subject to City Council direction, the proposed Park Improvement Financing Plan would be forward to the Economic and Development Committee for their comments at their January 30 meeting. The Plan would also be forward to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource Committee for their consideration at the February 7 meeting. The Plan and the recommendations stated above would be submitted to the City Council for their consideration at the February 20 meeting. 28 City of Lakeville ~ ~ Community and Economic Development Memorandum To: Economic Development Commission From: Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist Copy: Steven Mielke, City Administrator David L. Olson, Community & Economic Development Director Keith Nelson, City Engineer Gene Abbott, Building OfFcial Date: January 26, 2007 Subject: Summary of 2006 Development Project Feedback Surveys As a result of the 1995 Strategic Plan for Economic Development, the City each year conducts a "survey of businesses after the development process for feedback." The surveys are sent to developers and owners of commercial and industrial projects after they have received a certificate of occupancy for their project. The plan also called for an annual report on survey results during the first quarter of the following year. Four measures of satisfaction are addressed in the survey. These include: 1. Were questions answered to the respondent's satisfaction? 2. Whether the respondent felt informed and up-to-date on City procedures. 3. Whether staff responded in a reasonable amount of time. 4. Rating the overall service received during the development process. In addition, respondents were asked to provide comments to the City to continually address the needs of businesses during the development process. In 2006, the City sent out 75 survey letters for which 26 responses were received. In 92% of the surveys that were returned respondents indicated that their questions were answered to their satisfaction and in most instances rated the services they received as good or excellent. In comparison to the results from the 2005 survey, the level of favorable responses for questions No. 1 and No. 3 decreased by 4%, while No. 2 and No. 4 decreased by 5%. It should be noted that the number of surveys returned was only 26 compared to 29 in 2005. Because of this, a smaller number of responses can have a greater impact on the overall outcome of the survey. While the responses to the surveys returned were favorable overall in 2005, staff will continue these efforts including the mailing of surveys for projects completed in 2006. A copy of the survey and a detailed breakdown of responses dating back to 2000 are included. pO m my cn ~~aa ~ aw (no na iv o z J NV ~ < ~ O < ~ t'/1 ~ C 0 0 3 n fOii N N O S B O O N ~O .0.. c0 N N ~ '~Q <'0'nn n 3a 3c o`~~3mo am o J O ] n c_'G O (D 3~ N 7 p ~ j~ O p C N c N 7 no ~ ~O~ O O.O~ ~C7~-O O `C ~ G N F N n N O "0 N O 4 N ~O p -p C O ~ Z o O 3 a O~ 0 0 O' N N O N O S 3 O C N - 7 N~ ~ 0~ 6 N ~ y N N -O S m.o a~D J~ F ~ 3 nN ~-a m~ ~co m ~ ~ mo w mn0 Z~?.Q~w vv ~ o~o- ~ ~ o ~o ~n ~ y~o-~ fDF.-;mom 'm~~'_. o~ ~ W (D S N O fSD J~ n m m~~ S J S 7 N N - ~ ~ fD c N n~F 2 m n m n~ m~ acp n p O N~ `C N y n Q 0 N < Q p N~ N O f0 ZN(O '`)O d~ O A ~ c0 N vi N~ O~ oa X N fD N ~ c ~m mmn 9 ~~o~p, m N o m o x~~ yco m- m T ~ ~ ~.v m ~fO v ~ ~ v ~ o o ~ ~ m ~ m D o o c 0 0 ~ w ~ ~n$ ~ ~ ~ cn m . ~ O. O ~ y O N L7 0 D. ~ N C > m c0 > 47 O > U X O O O V O 1~ y m' o a' 0 ~ ~ X ~ T Q N ~ N O fD p O > D_ C] m au w o aD > ~ p X A O O O G N m 3 O o O N +n c Oo 3 3 G> N °o m e n 3 O N n nN f~li y n O O N '~C 7 O Z N ~ OD > W O W > G O O V O O O 1~ N N Q o ~ m ~ o N N ~ X ~ ~ d X ~ m N VOi O ~ fpl~ O' O ~ O fD .Z ~ ,C N 7 O O ~ N O p p p p ~ N ~ ~ p- ° o p- 0 0 m a j n N X N Ul N N n N N fD 7 (D J O N (7 N W ~ CO A CO V aD > ~ aD > - ~ O Z (/1~ ~ o Z Z ~ Z(A~ p0 ~ p ~ m 3 m o n o v o n 0 0 y ~ D .o x D m D x ~ ~ !N (ll ~ O N W O (D N ° ~ _ _ 2 ~ ~ ~ ? 'c n O O c ~ 'v o. > n N ~(O >O > N A-+ ~ W N(O N 3 m O~ Z O O Z m O O o ~ N n D o D r. n m ~ _D m 3 c N rpn c D N Z y o~ N y ° m m D n z v o ? o c 2006 Development Survey Comments 1. Were questions regarding the development process answered to your satisfaction (understanding)? a. "No. The response time for eng. inquiries is delayed, and is cumbersome. This particular project had additional items that needed to be addressed after several conversations between eng. staff & our eng. consultant " b. "No. Not all requirements were known up front." 2. Were you or the person in charge of the development project kept up-to-date with City procedures (i.e. staff development review, public hearing before Planning Commission, City Council review, etc.)7 a. "Good. We feel that Pylon & Monument signs should be addressed for office buildings; especially buildings located directly off the hwy. where a pylon sign would be located in the back of the building and monument sign (small) would be located at the front " b. "Satisfactorily. Project was delayed by 3 weeks. We were not notified of the change of date for the C.C. mtg., therefore we missed our opening deadline." c. "Poorly. The communication between." d. "Satisfactorily. Again, issues that came up in the process could have been explained up front at the beginning of the process." 3. If you had questions or concerns regarding your development project, did you feel City staff responded within a reasonable time frame? a. "Yes. They usually responded in a timely fashion." 4. Perhaps your contact with the City regarding your development project was with one or more staff. Did you feel that the overall degree of service was: Excellent, Good, Satisfactorily or Poor? a. "Good. Bldg. Dept. is Awesome! Fire Inspection was also great. Plumbing inspector is awesome! Electrical inspection was too long of a process as the communication for what he needed was vague." b. "Good. I worked with Gene and he was very pleasurable to work with." c. "Satisfactorily. Again, could have been better." 5. The City would like to know how the development process could be handled better. Your suggestions are appreciated and will be considered in order to increase responsiveness to business needs. a. "The process went well." b. "I have no complaints or suggestions for improvements. My experience was a pleasant one" c. "We were very happy with the level of service received. Thanks." d. "This feedback survey is a great idea, but why aren't we doing this for single family and townhome developments?" e. "Overall, the City has been very accommodating over the past 8 years! We only felt treated unfairly with the restructuring of the pond in our development having to incur all the costs." f. "Dept. of Agriculture, which the City of Lakeville defers to, was a difficult dept. to work with -Process was not good." g. "Thanks to all involved. We are glad that we chose Lakeville to start and grow our business." h. "The permit review time needs to be better defined. We're not sure if the review time is 2 weeks or longer." i. "Everything went very well!" j. "Have all staff/requirements on the table earlier in the process. Save the developer and the city time and money." k. "We worked more with the Building Department (inspections) and were extremely impressed. Very Professional." L "It would have been helpful to me, as the contractor, and I assume your staff - if they would have provided a comprehensive list of items that would be required of us in order to satisfy Lakeville requirements. I was notified of several items well after the building permit was issued and a few of them came after the building was complete, but before I could receive an occupancy permit. Some of these items involved costs that were not anticipated. I know that every project is different, but I think that engineering and planning could come up with a requirement check list that could be reviewed in a pre- constructionmeeting with the contractor/owner. As these items came up, I asked why I had not been made aware of them earlier. I was told that "they were in your ordinances." I think that it's incumbent of the respective departments to make me aware of what is required. I think that a meeting with deparhnent heads and the owner/developer prior to permit submission would go along way to making the process better. Despite the comments above, I found that your staff was helpful and responsive. The process just didn't seem to be very organized." City of Lakeville ' ~ Community and Economic Development Memorandum To: Economic Development Commission From: David L. Olson, Community & Economic Development Director Copy: Steven Mielke, City Administrator Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist Date: January 25, 2007 Subject: Review of Strategic Plan 2006 Work Program and Recommended 2007 Work Program The EDC and City Council approved the following goals from the 2005-2007 Strategic Plan for the 2006 Work Program. 1. Completion of a study to determine the minimum market value of a residential housing unit that generates sufficient City taxes to pay for the City services required by that unit. 2. Facilitate a process to establish affordable housing goals for the City. 3. Improve communication and coordination with other units of government on important community and economic development issues facing Lakeville. 4. Create partnerships with Lakeville Chamber of Commerce, DLBA and other businesses and other development associations on mutual development objectives. 5. Advocate for and on behalf of business interests with airport and rail planners The following is a summary of the progress that was made on these goals in 2006. 1. Completion of a study to determine the minimum market value of a residential housing unit that generated sufficient City taxes to pay for the City services required by that unit. The consensus of the EDC at the June meeting was to complete an economic benefit study that could be used for a generic analysis of costs associated with City services for different development types and that this information be used as a tool for planning purposes. With the completion of the Downtown Planning Project in December, City staff will be obtaining proposals from municipal fiscal and planning consultants to complete this study in the first half of 2007 in order to use this information in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. 2. Facilitate a process to establish affordable housing goals. The EDC reviewed a proposed Scope of Services from Maxfield Research to provide additional detailed housing needs analysis for the City of Lakeville at the June meeting. This analysis was in addition to the County-wide analysis that was completed in November, 2005 for the CDA. Staff will be seeking City Council approval to submit a CDBG Program Amendment to the Dakota County CDA to obtain approval to utilize CDBG funds for the completion of this study. It is anticipated that this study would also be completed in the first half of 2007 so as to also be utilized in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. 3. Improve communication and coordination with other units of government on important community and economic development issues facing Lakeville. 4. Create partnerships with Lakeville Chamber of Commerce, DLBA and other businesses and other development associations on mutual development objectives One of the primary activities related to the pursuit of these goals was the re- convening of the High Tech Subcommittee. The efforts of the Subcommittee to date included completing a survey of local business telecommunications needs. Upon the completion of this survey, it was the recommendation of the High Tech Subcommittee and the EDC to recommend the creation of a Task Force to further evaluate the telecommunications and technology needs of the Lakeville business community. The City Council approved the creation of and appointments to the Business Telecommunications and Technology Task Force (BTTTF) at their January 16, 2007 meeting. The first meeting of the BTTTF is February 6m The City also collaborated with the Lakeville Area Chamber of Commerce, the City of Burnsville, and Burnsville Chamber of Commerce to host several manufacturer's breakfasts to discuss work force issues facing local industrial park businesses. Dakota Future, the Workforce Investment Board and the MN Department of Employment of Economic Development were also co-sponsors of these events. Other initiatives that have been undertaken in 2006 in relation to these goals include the updated and expanded Economic Development page of the City's Web site, and the redesign of the Airlake Park News into acity-wide business newsletter to distribute in early 2007. 5. Advocate for and on behalf of business interests with airport and rail planners. Staff worked with Aircraft Resource Center to obtain City Council approval to construct a new 18,000 square foot commercial hanger at Airlake Airport. North Memorial Air Ambulance will be housed in this new hanger. MAC staff and their consultants are working on the update of the Comprehensive Plan for Airlake Airport. Included in the proposed update is a recommendation for a future extension of the current runway to 5000 feet. Discussions did take place with Progressive Rail and CP Rail regarding possible extension of rail service in the Industrial Park to the west, south of Co. Rd. 70. However until the first property west of Airlake Industrial Park is under the control of an industrial developer, planning for the extension of rail service cannot take place. 2005 Work Program Goals The completion of the Downtown Plan while started in the Fall of 2005 was not completed until December of 2006. While this project took longer to complete than originally anticipated, the completed document will serve as guide for planning and redevelopment efforts in the Downtown a number of years. The other goal that carried over from 2005 into 2006 was the goal to implement a process to facilitate the development of East-West Corridors. The County's consultant has completed Phase II of the East-West Corridor study that was intended to refine the alignments of the 179th Street and 185th Street corridors in Lakeville. City staff participated in this Phase II study and are working with several developers that are proposing developments that result in segments of these corridors being developed. City staff are also coordinating with County staff to pursue federal funds for the extension of 185"' Street (CSAH 60) from Cedar Avenue to Flagstaff Avenue in the City of Farmington. Recommended 2007 Work Program The following are goals recommended for discussion with the EDC. Several of these goals are being carried over from 2006 or in the case of the Downtown and the BTTTF, involve pursuing the implementation of an initiative that was approved in 2006. 1. Completion of an Economic Benefit Study. 2. Completion of the Affordable Housing Needs Study. 3. Completion of the Business Telecommunications Technology Task Force Study. 4. Preparation and implementation of the 2007 Action Plan for the Downtown Development Guide. 5. Completion of corporate campus/office park market analysis. 6. Completion of the 2008-2010 Strategic Plan for Economic Development. ~~a~ ®a City of Lakeville ' ~ Community and Economic Development Memorandum To: Economic Development Commission From: David L. Olson, Community and Economic Development Director Copy: Steve Mielke, City Administrator Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist Date: January 25, 2007 Subject: Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendments The Planning Commission considered proposed changes to the Lakeville Sign Ordinance at their regular meeting on January 18, 2007. The majority of the changes being proposed are in response to recent court decisions on sign ordinances in other cities that were related to First Amendment content issues. The City provided a copy of the proposed ordinance changes along with a summary of the changes to the Chamber of Commerce on December 15, 2006 and met with the Chamber Government Affairs Committee on ]anuary 12th. Attached is a copy of the letter that was provided to the Planning Commission by the Chamber of Commerce prior to their meeting on January 18tH Upon closing the public hearing on January 18th, the Planning Commission recommended the proposed sign ordinance amendments to the City Council with the exception of the changes proposed for "For Lease" signs, and the prohibition of temporary balloon signs, and portable reader board signs in the commercial and industrial zoning districts. The proposed amendments affecting these types of signs were specifically identified by the Chamber of Commerce as amendments that warranted further discussion. The Planning Commission recommended that these provisions be reviewed by the EDC prior to being considered by the Planning Commission. A copy of the recommended sign ordinance amendments along with a summary of the proposed changes is attached. The proposed provisions that are not included in the Planning Commission's recommended changes will be placed on the agenda at the February meeting of the EDC for further discussion. LAKEVILLE AREA v r s rr t ~ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE rr CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU S~mistLera~au °x. MINNESOTA www.lakevillechambercvb.org www.visitlakeville.org January 16, 2007 Chair Kerrin Swecker Planning Commission Members City Of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, Minnesota 55044 Dear Chair Swecker and Planning Commission Members, On behalf of the Government Affairs Committee of the Lakeville Area Chamber of Commerce, serving as an advocate for the business community and its 450+ members, we are requesting that Planning Commission defer action on the ordinance amending Title 9 (the Sign Ordinance) and Title 1 ] (the Zoning Ordinance) of the Lakeville City code concerning signs, and it be referred to the Economic Development Commission for their review, input and recommendation before any action be taken by the planning commission. The Chamber Of Commerce would like to thank City staff for meeting with the Chamber, and highlighting a summary ofthe significant changes to the regulations. However, the Government Affairs committee still has serious concerns with the proposed ordinance, including: • Time constraints needed to thoroughly review the ordinance. Due to the nature of the ordinance, and the fact it has not been compared to the current ordinance would require hours of research and the input of numerous Chamber members. • We feel the document needs to be reviewed by the Economic Development Commission for any potential conflicts and its impact on further commercial and industrial development in the city. It is critical that any ordinance does not result in negative effects on enhancing the business community. • We are concerned that any ordinance to this level of detail and amount of activities restricted is problematic to the business community. It these difficult economic times and competitive environment, we need to insure that as a city we are doing everything possible to welcome new businesses to the community. • We believe that the City ofLakeville will have a difficult time enforcing the proposed ordinance in a fair and equitable manner to the business community, non- P.O. BOX 12 •20730 HOGYOKE AVENUE • PH.• 952-469-2020 • FAX: 952-469-2028 • LAKEVILLE, MN 55044 profits, and residents at large due to the level and specificity of prohibited and regulated activities. • We are concerned that public uses such and the city and schools are specifically exempted from regulation in this ordinance while the remainder of property owners are subject to it. We believe the public uses should lead by example. • The chamber is disturbed in the lack of input and involvement in the process of developing this revised ordinance, and the apparent lack of public comments driving some ofthe more restrictive changes. In closing, the Government Affairs committee is recommending that the Planning Commission defer action on the proposed ordinance and recommend that it be referred to the Economic Development Commission for further review, input and recommendation. Tlris review must include analyzing the entire ordinance as a whole, and include input for all interested/affected parties. The additional time needed for this review would be in the best interest of the Lakeville business community and the citizens of Lakeville. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, G' Todd J. Bomhauser Executive Director Lakeville Area Chamber of Commerce CC: Lakeville City Mayor and City Council Members Steve, Mielke, Lakeville City Administrator December 15, 2D06 , Mr. Todd Bornhauser, Executive Director Lakeville Area Chamber of Commerce 20720 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN 55044 Re: Proposed Changes to the Lakeville Sign Ordinance Dear Mr. Bomhauser. The City is proposing an amendment to the current sign ordinance regulations which I thought might be of interest to Chamber members and the business community. I am forwarding this information to you in an effort to inform Lakeville businesses of the proposed changes to the sign ordinance and to invite comments prior to or at the public hearing to consider the Sign Ordinance amendment, scheduled for the January 18, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, which starts at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The changes are being proposed in response to recent court decisions on sign ordinances in other cities that were related to First Amendment content issues. The focus of the proposed changes to the Lakeville sign ordinance is to move away from regulating signs by content, such as advertising or business. In order to avoid conflict with First Amendment free speech guarantees, the proposed sign ordinance amendment would regulate signs on the basis of zoning district, location, area, height, lighting, and construction. The proposed changes are based on the requirement of content neutral regulations as well as a review of the existing sign ordinance regulations. A copy of the draft sign ordinance amendment and a summary of the significant changes to the sign ordinance are available oh the City's web site at www.ci.lakevifle.mn.us under What's New. To submit written comments or to contact me with questions in advance of the public hearing, I can be reached by a-mail at dmorey@ci.lakeville.mn.us or by phone at 952-985-4422. In addition, I am available to meet with you or Chamber members to answer questions or discuss the proposed sign ordinance amendment in more detail prior to the public hearing. ince ly, Daryl orey Plann g Direc c: S,~even Mielke, City Administrator t/David Olson, Community and Economic Development Director City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue • Lakeville, MN 55044 Phone (952) 985-4400 • FAX (952) 985-4499 • www.ci.lakevillemn.us e Proposed regulations. A summary of the significant changes to the regulations is as follows: 1. Moving the Sign Ordinance from the general City Code to a chapter within the Zoning Ordinance subject to the processing requirements of zoning applications. 2. Revision of the definition of signs per the City Attorney's recommended language and removal of all definitions related to the content of a given type of sign. 3. Inclusion of the purpose, findings and effects statement as written by the City Attorney within the Sign chapter. (11-23-1) 4. Specific severability (11-23-3) and substitution (11-23-13) clauses. 5. Processing requirements for signs requiring a permit consistent with Minnesota Statutes 15.99. (11-23-5) 6. Exemption for signs less than two square feet in area (Section 11-23-7. B). These allowances would be intended to accommodate signs typically required for a building such as address signs, directional signs within parking lots, etc. This provision provides for signs to display non-commercial speech as well. 7. An exception for one nine square foot sign in residential districts is also provided in Section 11-23-7.C to allow for real estate signs. 8. The non-conforming sign section of the code has been revised to reference the standard non-conforming structure and use provisions outlined in Chapter 15 of the Zoning Ordinance (11-23-9). 9. Allowance of projecting signs within commercial districts (11-23-15.U). This type of sign is specifically recommended as part of the existing CBD District design guidelines and is gaining favor again from an aesthetic point of view. 10. The Planning Commission has discussed how the changes in Statue regarding non- conforming uses/structures apply to existing billboards within the City. All of the existing billboards are non-conforming uses. Under the new Statute, the City cannot require their removal as part of a zoning application. To this end, it is proposed to make all of the existing billboards within the City a legal conforming principal use in Section 11-23-15.W of the Zoning Ordinance. This would allow the City to require removal of the billboard in considering a development application for the property on which the sign is located because there would be two principal uses. 11. There are a number of additional provisions within the proposed Sign Ordinance intended to prohibit installation of new billboards within the City: 1 a. Section 11-23-15.A of the proposed Sign Ordinance defines all signs as accessory uses except those existing billboards constructed prior to 1 January 1980. b. A prohibition in Section 11-23-17.B of the proposed Sign Ordinance for any sign larger than 600 square feet, except in the P-OS District. The exception for the PO-S District allows for City logos on water towers. c. A prohibition of off-premises signs larger than six square feet is set forth by Section 11-23-17.C. d. Allowance of off-premises signs only within the freeway corridor area provided that the sign not exceed six square feet to accommodate directional signs similar to the existing sign approved for Comfort Inn at I-35 and CSAH 50 (11-23- 19.G.6). 12. The proposed Sign Ordinance would prohibit temporary balloon signs and allow temporary portable signs only in the P-OS District by Section 11-23-17.G. The Sign Ordinance currently allows temporary balloon signs and temporary portable signs within all zoning districts. Temporary banner signs would continue to be allowed as provided for currently by the Sign Ordinance. 13. The proposed Sign Ordinance would limit use of electronic changeable copy signs (message boards) to display of fuel prices for motor fuel facilities and for uses in the P- OS District. The Sign Ordinance currently allows electronic changeable copy signs for motor fuel facilities and institutional uses, which would include churches in addition to City or school facilities. 14. The district regulation section (11-23-19) has been revised to maintain the same number and area sign allowances for the respective zoning districts while eliminating reference to the type of sign other than its construction as a freestanding or wall sign. The wording of the text has been drafted to suggest the most likely use of a sign without specifically defining its content. 15. The current Sign Ordinance groups C-2 District uses with the less intense C-1 District. The sign allowances for the C-2 District have been made consistent with those of the C- 3District based on the similar intensity and potential markets of each District. 16. Commercial and industrial building "For Lease" signs are addressed under sections 11- 23-19.C.5, 11-23-19.D.5, 11-23-19.E.5, and 11-23-19.F.5. and are limited to 12 months or when at least 85% of the building space has been leased. 17. Section 11-23-19.E.3 of the proposed Sign Ordinance regulates wall signs for uses within the C-2, C-3, C-CBD and C-W Zoning Districts. As part of the proposed Sign Ordinance, City staff has codified the sign allowances granted the primary anchor tenant of the TimberCrest at Lakeville, Crossroads, Lakeville Crossing and Argonne Village commercial developments under a PUD District. These provisions allow for the primary sign of a single occupancy building with a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet or mare to be 440 square feet. Where a second sign is allowed for a comer or through lot, the second sign cannot exceed 200 square feet. There is also an allowance for secondary wall signs not to exceed 72 square feet individually or a total area of 144 square feet that 2 would be anticipated to identify other uses within the single tenant building such as a pharmacy or coffee shop. 18. Sign provisions for the proposed P-OS District are also included in the draft Sign Ordinance revision as Section 11-23-19.H: a. The P-OS District allows for free standing signs consistent with general commercial uses up to 100 square feet in area and a height of 20 feet. b. Wall signs are limited to one sign per street frontage. No area limitation is proposed for P-OS District wall signs to accommodate "signs" such as the City's logo upon the water towers. c. The P-OS District allows for electronic changeable copy signs such as are in place at the Lakeville Area Art Center and school facilities within the City. d. The P-OS District allows for use of temporary portable signs. 3 ~:n'~~ CITY OF LAKEVILLE . , Planning Commission Meeting Minutes JANUARY 18, 2007 The January 18, 2007 Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Swecker in the City Hall Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. Flag pledge and roll call of members: Present: Blee, Manikowski, Stolte, Swecker, Pattee, Grenz, Drotning, Ex-officio Gerl. Absent: None. Staff Present: Daryl Morey, Plaru~ing Director; Jay Rubash, Assistant City Engineer; Daniel Licht, Northwest Associated Consultants; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; and Penny Brevig, Recording Secretary. ITEM 3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: The December 21, 2006 Planning Commission meeting minutes were approved as presented. ITEM 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Morey stated that a copy of a letter staff received prior to tonight's meeting from Todd Bornhauser, Executive Director of the Lakeville Area Chamber of Commerce, concerning the proposed Sign Ordinance amendment, was forwarded to the Planning Commission prior to tonight's meeting. A copy of the letter was also provided to the Planning Commission at tonight's meeting. ITEM 5. CITY OF LAKEVILLE (CONTINUED) Chair Swecker continued the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Title 9 (the Sign Ordinance) and Title 11 (the Zoning Ordinance) of the Lakeville City Code concerning signs. Mr. Morey indicated that because the letter from Mr. Bornhauser was received only yesterday, the Planning Commission could act on the content neutral portion of the amendment tonight and the remaining portion of the amendment proposing changes that the Chamber has expressed concerns about could be separated out for further review. Commissioner Drotning felt that the LED billboards recently placed along freeways in the metropolitan area are very distracting and he thinks that the City should address this issue now. Commissioner Grenz questioned changeable copy fuel signs. Mr. Licht explained that electronic fuel price signs are allowed under the current ordinance and no changes are proposed. Planning Commission Meeting January 18, 2007 Page 2 City Attorney Roger Knutson presented an overview of the LED signs and billboards that are becoming increasingly popular in the Twin Cities. He indicated that these signs are basically a high definition television on a pole that change copy every eight seconds. Mr. Knutson stated that these LED signs create traffic safety concerns. Mr. Knutson indicated that it is critical to move ahead on the content neutral and the LED sign portions of the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission agreed to close the public hearing at tonight's meeting, make a motion and a vote regarding the content neutral and LED sign portions of the amendment, and make a separate motion referring the remainder of the amendment to the Economic Development Commission for their review and recommendation. A second amendment would address any additional changes and a new public hearing and Planning Commission review would be required. Mr. Licht presented the planning report. He stated that to prevent First Amendment legal challenges, the Sign Ordinance amendment will address content neutral language, policy issues, moving the Sign Ordinance from the general City Code to a chapter within the Zoning Ordinance, and removal of all definitions related to the content of a given type of sign. Mr. Licht explained that the proposed amendment could be easily revised to eliminate the proposed changes of concern to the Chamber of Commerce so the amendment could be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Mr. Licht explained that the public hearing was continued at the December 7, 2006 Planning Commission meeting to allow staff the opportunity to expand the notification to Lakeville residents and businesses beyond the required public hearing notice. He indicated the steps that were taken to expand notification, which were listed in Mr. Morey's January 12, 2007 memo. Chair Swecker opened the hearing to the public for comment. Dane Oswald, 15919 Garden View Driz>e, Apple Valley Mr. Oswald stated that he is a realtor and ovens Dave Oswald Homes. He indicated that real estate signs are important for advertising open houses and the real estate agents want to be able to continue using them. 07.01 Motion was made and Seconded to close the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Plaruzing Commission Meeting January 18, ?007 Page3 Mr. Licht clarified that no changes were planned to the real estate sign regulations. Chair S~~ecker indicated drat the open house signs placed within the public right- of-way are not allowed by ordinance. No changes are proposed to this requirement. Commissioner 5tolte commented that he felt the City should be held to die same sign requirements as businesses. He also wanted to be sure that balloon signs were addressed. He felt that there was some merit to this t3'pe of advertisilg and it does actually help people find where these businesses are located. Chair Swecker expressed her appreciation for the business community's comments. She requested that a work session prior to the public hearing for die next phase of die Sign Ordinance amendment process. 07.02 Motion was made and Seconded to recommend to City Council approval of an amendment of the Sign Ordinance as presented with direction to City staff to modify Section 11-23-15.X, 11-23-17.D and 11-23-17.J prior to City Council consideration to restore die applicable regulatory provisions of the existing Sign Ordinance utilizing content neutral language. Ayes: Blee, Manikowski, Stolte, Swecker, Pattee, Grenz, Drotning. I`Tays: 0 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Penny e g, Recording Secr tart' ATTEST: Kerrin Swecker, Chair ORDINANCE NO. GITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA, COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLES 9 AND 11 OF THE LAKEVILLE CITY CODE CONCERNING SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 9 of the Lakeville City Code is amended by deleting Chapter 3 in its entirety. SECTION 2. Title 11, Chapter 2 of the Lakeville City Code is amended by amending the definition of "sign" to provide: SIGN: Any letter, word or symbol, poster, picture, statuary, reading matter or representation in the nature of advertisement, announcement, message or visual communication, whether painted, posted, printed, affixed or constructed, including all associated brackets, braces, supports, wires and structures, which is displayed for informational or communicative purposes. SECTION 3. Title 11, Chapter 2 of the Lakeville City Code is amended by adding the following definitions: ABANDONED Any sign and/or its supporting sign structure which remains without a SIGN: message or whose display surface remains blank for a period of one (1) year or more, or any sign which pertains to a time, event or purpose which no longer applies, shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Signs applicable to a business temporarily suspended because of a change in ownership or management of such business shall not be deemed abandoned unless the property remains vacant for a period of one (1) year or more. Any sign remaining after demolition of a principal structure shall be deemed to be abandoned. Signs which are present because of being legally established nonconforming signs or signs which have required a conditional use permit or a variance shall also be subject to the definition of abandoned sign. AWNING: A roof-like cover, often of fabric, plastic, metal or glass designed and intended for protection from the weather or as a decorative embellishment, 1 and which projects from a wall or roof of a structure primarily over a window, walk, or the like. Any part of an awning which also projects over a door shall be counted as an awning. AWNING SIGN: A building sign or graphic printed on or in some fashion attached directly to the awning material. BALLOON SIGN: A sign consisting of a bag made of lightweight material supported by helium, hot, or pressurized air which is greater than twenty-four (24) inches in diameter. BILLBOARD: See off-premises sign BUILDING SIGN: Any sign attached or supported by any building. CANOPY: A roof-like cover, often of fabric, plastic, metal, or glass on a support, which provides shelter over a doorway. CANOPY SIGN: Any sign that is part of or attached to a canopy, made of fabric, plastic, or structural protective cover over a door or entrance. A canopy sign is not a marquee and is different from service azea canopy signs. CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN: A sign or portion thereof that has a readerboazd for the display of text information in which each alphanumeric chazacter, graphic or symbol is defined by objects not consisting of an illumination device and maybe changed or rearranged manually or mechanically with characters, illustrations, letters or numbers that can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or surface of the sign structure. CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN, ELECTRONIC: A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, non-pictorial text information in which each alphanumeric character, graphic, or symbol is defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations of light emitting diodes (LEDs), fiber optics, light bulbs or other illumination devices within the display azea. Electronic changeable copy signs include computer programmable, microprocessor controlled electronic displays. Electronic changeable copy signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or objects. Electronic changeable copy signs do not include official signs. COMMERCIAL Speech advertising a business, profession, commodity, service or SPEECH: entertainment. 2 ELECTRONIC GRAPHIC DISPAY: SIGN: A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, static images, static graphics or static pictures, with or without text information, defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations of light emitting diodes (LEDs), fiber optics, light bulbs or other illumination devices within the display area where the message change sequence is accomplished immediately or by means of fade, re-pixalization or dissolve modes. Electronic graphic display signs include computer programmable, microprocessor controlled electronic or digital displays. Electronic graphic display signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or other objects. ELEVATION: The view of the side, front, or rear of a given structure(s). ELEVATION AREA: The area of all walls that face any lot line. ERECT: Activity of constructing, building, raising, assembling, placing, affixing, attaching, creating, painting, drawing or any other way of bringing into being or establishing. FLAG: Any fabric or similar lightweight material attached at one end of the material, usually to a staff or pole, so as to allow movement of the material by atmospheric changes and which contains distinctive colors, patterns, symbols, emblems, insignia, or other symbolic devices. FLASHING SIGN: A directly or indirecfly illuminated sign or portion thereof that exhibits changing light or color effect by any means, so as to provide intermittent illumination that changes light intensity in sudden transitory bursts and creates the illusion of intermittent flashing light by streaming, graphic bursts showing movement, or any mode of lighting which resembles zooming, twinkling or sparkling. FREESTANDING Any sign which has supporting framework that is placed on, or anchored SIGN: in, the ground and which is independent from any building or other structure. FREEWAY CORRIDOR AREA: A special signing area encompassing land located within one thousand five hundred feet either side (east/west) of the centerline of Interstate 35. GRADE: Grade shall be construed to be the final ground elevation after construction. Earth mounding criteria for landscaping and screening is not part of the final grade for sign height computation. 3 GROUND SIGN: Any freestanding sign with its sign face mounted on the ground or mounted on a base at least as wide as the sign and which has a total height not exceeding eight (8) feet. HEIGHT OF SIGN: The height of the sign shall be computed as the vertical distance measured from the base of the sign at grade to the top of the highest attached component of the sign. ILLUMINATED Any sign which contains an element designed to emanate artificial light SIGN: internally or externally. MARQUEE: Any permanent roof-like structure projecting beyond a theater building or extending along and projecting beyond the wall of that building, generally designed and constructed to provide protection from the weather. MARQUEE SIGN: Any building sign painted, mounted, constructed or attached in any manner, on a marquee. MULTI-VISION SIGN: Any sign composed in whole or part of a series of vertical or horizontal slats or cylinders that are capable of being rotated at intervals so that partial rotation of the group of slats or cylinders produces a different image and when properly functioning allows on a single sign structure the display at any given time one of two or more images. MULTIPLE Any site which has more than one (1) tenant, and each tenant has a TENANT SITE: separate ground level exterior public entrance. NON- Dissemination of messages not classified as Commercial Speech which COMMERCIAL include, but are not limited to, messages concerning political, religious, SPEECH: social, ideological, public service and informational topics. OFF-PREMISES A commercial speech sign which directs the attention of the public to a SIGN: business, activity conducted, or product sold or offered at a location not on the same lot where such sign is located. For purposes of this sign ordinance, easements and other appurtenances shall be considered to be outside such lot and any sign located or proposed to be located in an easement or other appurtenance shall be considered anoff-premises sign. OFFICAL SIGN: Signs of a public noncommercial nature including public notification signs, safety signs, traffic signs, direction to public facilities when erected by or on behalf of a public official or employee in the performance of official duty. 4 OWNER: In the case of a lot, the legal owner of the lot as officially recorded by Dakota County, and including fee owners, contract for deed purchasers and ground lessees. In the case of a sign, the owner of the sign including any lessees. POLE SIGN: See Pylon Sign. PORTABLE SIGN: Any sign which is manifestly designed to be transported, including by trailer or on its own wheels, even though the wheels of such sign maybe removed and the remaining chassis or support is converted to another sign or attached temporarily or permanently to the ground since this characteristic is based on the design of such a sign. PROJECTING Any sign which is affixed to a building or wall in such a manner that its SIGN: leading edge extends more than two (2) feet beyond the surface of such building or wall face. PUBLIC NOTICES: Official notices posted by public officers, employees or their agents in the performance of their duties, or as directed by such officers, employees or agents. PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY: The entire right-of--way of any public street. PYLON SIGN: Any freestanding sign which has its supportive structure(s) anchored in the ground and which has a sign face elevated above ground level by pole(s) or beam(s) and with the area below the sign face open. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Any district zoned for residential uses. ROOF: The exterior surface and its supporting structure on the top of a building or structure. The structural make-up of which conforms to the roof structures, roof construction and roof covering sections of the International Building Code. ROOF LINE: The upper-most edge of the roof or in the case of an extended facade or parapet, the upper-most height of said facade. ROOF SIGN: Any sign erected and constructed wholly on and above the roof of a building, supported by the roof structure, and extending vertically above the highest portion of the roof. ROOF SIGN, Any building sign erected or constructed as an integral or essentially INTEGRAL: integral part of a normal roof structure of any design, so that no part of the 5 sign extends vertically above the highest portion of the roof and so that no part of the sign is separated from the rest of the roof by a space of more than six (6) inches. ROTATING SIGN: A sign or portion of a sign which turns about on an axis. SHIMMERING SIGN: A sign which reflects an oscillating sometimes distorted visual image. SIGN FACE: The surface of the sign upon, against, or through which the message of the sign is exhibited. SIGN STRUCTURE: Any structure including the supports, uprights, bracing and framework which supports or is capable of supporting any sign. SITE: A lot or combination of contiguous lots which are intended, designated, and/or approved to function as an integrated unit. SUSPENDED SIGN: Any building sign that is suspended from the underside of a horizontal plane surface and is connected to this surface. TIME AND TEMPERATURE SIGN: A sign that displays only current time and temperature information. TOTAL SITE The maximum permitted combined area of all signs SIGNAGE: allowed on a specific lot. VIDEO DISPLAY SIGN: A sign that changes its message or background in a manner or method of display characterized by motion or pictorial imagery, which may or may not include text and depicts action or a special effect to imitate movement, the presentation ofpictorials or graphics displayed in a progression of frames that gives the illusion of motion, including, but not limited to the illusion of moving objects, moving patterns or bands of light, or expanding or contracting shapes, not including electronic changeable copy signs. Video display signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or other objects. VISIBLE: Capable of being seen by a person of normal visual acuity (whether legible or not) without visual aid. 6 WALL: Any structure which defines the exterior boundaries or courts of a building or structure and which has a slope of sixty (60) degrees or greater with the horizontal plane. WALL SIGN: Any buIlding sign attached parallel to, but within two (2) feet of a wall, painted on the wall surface of, or erected and confined within the limits of an outside wall of any building or structure, which is supported by such wall or building, and which displays only one (1) sign surface. WINDOW SIGN: Any building sign, pictures, symbol, or combination thereof, designed to communicate information about an acfivity, business, commodity, event, sale, or service, that is placed inside a window or upon the window panes or glass and is visible from the exterior of the window. SECTION 4. Title 11, Chapter 23 of the Lakeville City Code is amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 23 SIGNS 11-23-1: Findings, Purpose and Effect 11-23-3: Severabiliry 11-23-5: Permit Required 11-23-7: Permit Not Required 11-23-9: Non-Conforming Signs 11-23-11: Enforcament and Penalties 11-23-13: Substitution 11-23-15: General Regulations 11-23-17: Prohibited Signs 11-23-19: District Regulations 11-23-1: FINDINGS, PURPOSE AND EFFECT: A. Findings: The City finds: 1. Exterior signs have a substantial impact on the character and quality of the environment. 2. Signs provide an important medium through which individuals may convey a variety of messages. 3. Signs can create traffic hazards and aesthetic concerns, thereby threatening the public health, safety and welfare. 7 4. The city's zoning regulations have, since as early as 1970, included the regulation of signs in an effort to provide adequate means of expression and to promote the economic viability of the business community, while protecting the City and its citizens from a proliferation of signs of a type, size, location and character that would adversely impact upon the aesthetics of the community and threaten the health, safety and welfare of the community. The regulation of the physical characteristics of signs within the City has had a positive impact on traffic safety and the appearance of the community. B. Purpose and intent: It is not the purpose or intent of this sign ordinance to regulate the message displayed on any sign; nor is it the purpose or intent of this ordinance to regulate any building design or any display not defined as a sign, or any sign which cannot be viewed from outside a building. The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to: 1. Regulate the number, location, size, type, illumination and other physical characteristics of signs within the city in order to promote the public health, safety and welfare. 2. Maintain, enhance and improve the aesthetic environment of the city by preventing visual clutter that is harmful to the appearance of the community. 3. Improve the visual appearance of the City while providing for effective means of communication, consistent with constitutional guarantees and the City's goals of public safety and aesthetics. 4. Provide for fair and consistent enforcement of the sign regulations set for herein under the zoning authority of the City. C. Effect: A sign may be erected, mounted, displayed or maintained in the city if it is in conformance with the provisions of this ordinance. The effect of this ordinance, as more specifically set forth herein, is to: 1. Allow a wide variety of sign types in commercial zones, and a more limited variety of signs in other zones, subject to the standards set forth in this sign ordinance. 2. Allow certain small, unobtrusive signs incidental to the principal use of a site in all zones when in compliance with the requirements of this sign ordinance. 3. Prohibit signs whose location, size, type, illumination or other physical characteristics negatively affect the environment and where the communication can be accomplished by means having a lesser impact on the environment and the public health, safety and welfare. 4. Provide for the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this sign ordinance. 11-23-3: SEVERABILITY: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this 8 Sign Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of this Sign Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Sign Ordinance in each section, subsection, sentence, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid. 11-23-5: PERMIT REQUIRED: No sign shall be erected, altered, improved, reconstructed, maintained or moved in the City without first securing a permit from the City: A. The content of the message or speech displayed on the sign shall not be reviewed or considered in determining whether to approve or deny a sign permit. B. Application for an administrative permit shall be filed by the property owner or designated agent with the Zoning Administrator on forms to be provided by the City. C. Application for a permit shall contain the following information unless waived by the City: 1. Names and addresses of the applicant, owners of the sign and lot. 2. The address at which any signs are to be erected. 3. The lot, block and addition at which the signs aze to be erected and the street on which they aze to front. 4. Type and size of sign (e.g., wall sign, Pylon sign). 5. A site plan to scale showing the location of lot lines, building structures, parking azeas, existing and proposed signs and any other physical features. 6. Plans, location and specifications and method of construction and attachment to the buildings or placement method of the ground. 7. Copy of stress sheets and calculations showing that the structure is designed for dead load and wind pressure in any direction in the amount required by this and all other laws and ordinances of the City. 8. Written consent of the owner or lessee of any site on which the sign is to be erected. 9. Any electrical permit required and issued for the sign. 10. A detailed description of any electronic or electrical components that aze proposed to be added to the sign. 9 11. Other information to demonstrate compliance with this and all other ordinances of the City. C. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as established by City Council resolution. Applications for amending administrative permits shall be accompanied by a fee as established by Ordinance. D. The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant, in writing, of an incomplete application within fifteen (15) days of the date of submission. E. The Zoning Administrator shall review the application and related materials and shall determine whether the proposal is in compliance with all applicable evaluation criteria, codes, ordinances, and applicable performance standards set forth in this Title within sixty (60) days of submission of a complete application. 11-23-7: PERMIT NOT REQUIRED: The following signs shall not require a permit and are allowed in addition to those signs allowed by Sections 11-23-15 and 11-23-19 of this Title. These exemptions, however, shall not be construed as relieving the owner of the sign from the responsibility of its erection and maintenance, and its compliance with the provisions of this ordinance or any other law or ordinance regulating the same. A. The changing of the display surface on a painted or printed sign only. This exemption, however, shall apply only to poster replacement and/or on-site changes involving sign painting elsewhere then directly on a building. B. Signs two (2) square feet or less in size. C. One (1) sign per property in residential districts not to exceed nine (9) squaze feet. D. All noncommercial signs of any size posted in any number from August 1 in a state general election year until ten (10) days following general election, and thirteen (13) weeks prior to any special election untl ten (10) days following the special election. E. Official signs. F. One (1) sign shall be allowed per street frontage when a building is offered for sale or lease, provided that: 1. Within the R (residential) districts, no sign shall exceed twelve (12) squaze feet in area and six feet (6') in height for single-family, two-family, townhouse, and quadraminium units; or thirty two (32) square feet in area or eight feet (8') in height for multi-family or institutional uses. l0 2. Within all other zoning districts and in those cases where a parcel of land exceeds ten (10) acres, regardless of its zoning, no sign shall exceed sixty four (64) square feet in area or ten feet (10') in height. 11-23-9: NONCONFORMING SIGNS AND USES: A. Nonconforming Signs: A nonconforming sign lawfully existing upon the effective date of this chapter shall be regulated in accordance with Chapter 15 of this Title. B. Nonconforming Uses: When the principal use of land is legally nonconforming under Chapter 15 of this Title, all existing or proposed signs in conjunction with that land use shall be considered conforming if they are in compliance with the sign provisions for the most restrictive zoning district in which the principal use is allowed. 11-23-11: ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES: A. This chapter shall be administered and enforced by the zoning administrator. The zoning administrator may institute in the name of the City appropriate actions or proceedings against a violator. B. Inspection. All signs for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the zoning administrator. C. The City reserves the right to require the removal at the owner's expense of any sign when the requirements of this Section are not completely followed and adhered to, or if a sign is not properly maintained or falls into a state of disrepair. The City shall not have any obligation or liability to replace any sign when removed by the City. D. Any person who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with, or resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined. or penalized not more than the maximum levels established by the state for misdemeanor offenses. 11-23-13: SUBSTITUTION: The owner of any sign which is otherwise allowed by this sign ordinance may substitute non- commercial copy in lieu of any other commercial or non-commercial copy. This substitution of copy may be made without any additional approval or permitting. The purpose of this provision is to prevent any inadvertent favoring of commercial speech over non-commercial speech, or favoring of any particular non-commercial message over any other non-commercial message. This provision prevails over any more specific provision to the contrary. 11 11-23-15: GENERAL REGULATIONS: A. Except as provided for by Section 11-23-15.M and Section 11-23-15.Y of this Title, all signs must be accessory structures. B. All freestanding signs shall be setback fifteen (15) feet from any property line abutting a publicright-of--way and five (5) feet from any side or rear property line. No sign maybe located within a drainage and utility easement. C The design and construction standards as set forth in chapter 4 of the 1997 edition of the uniform sign code as maybe amended, are hereby adopted. D. The installation of electrical signs shall be subject to the state's electrical code. Electrical service to such sign shall be underground. E. No sign shall be attached or be allowed to hang from any building until all necessary wall and roof attachments have been approved by the zoning administrator. F. No signs, guys, stays or attachments shall be erected, placed or maintained on trees nor interfere with any electric light, power, telephone ortelegraph wires or the supports thereof. G. Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it impairs the vision of the driver and may not interfere with or obscure traffic signs or signals. Lighting may not illuminate any adjacent properties, buildings, or streets. H. Temporary signs: 1. The use of banners, pennants and similar devices shall require a permit valid for no more than ten (10) consecutive days. No more than three (3) permits per business shall be granted during any twelve (12) month period. The area of a banner, pennant or similar devise shall not exceed the area allowances for the specific zoning district in which the sign is located. Not more than one (1) banner, pennant or similar device shall be displayed upon a property at any one time. 2. Portable signs may not exceed thirty two (32) square feet and may not be illuminated with any flashing device. Use of a portable sign shall require a license. The license shall be valid for no more than ten (10) consecutive days. No more than three (3) licenses per business shall be granted during any twelve (12) month period. I. Signs requiring permits shall display in a conspicuous manner the permit sticker or sticker number. 12 J. No sign or sign structure shall be erected or maintained that prevents free ingress or egress from any door, window or fire escape. No sign or sign structure shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape. K. A freestanding sign or sign structure constructed so that the faces aze not back to back, shall not have an angle separating the faces exceeding twenty degrees (20°) unless the total area of both sides added together does not exceed the maximum allowable sign area for that district. L. Except for farm buildings, at least one address sign identfying the correct property number as assigned by Dakota County shall be required on each principal building in all districts. The number shall be at least three inches (3") in height. M. Off-premises signs: 1. Signs greater than six (6) squaze feet in area are a principal use of property. 2. Annual permits are required for all off-premises signs. Off-premises signs must be removed as a condition of construction of another principal use upon the property or platting or subdivision approval for the land on which it is located. N. The area within the frame of a sign shall be used to calculate the square footage except that the width of a frame exceeding twelve inches (12") shall constitute sign face, and if such letters or graphics be mounted directly on a wall or fascia or in such way as to be without a frame the dimensions for calculating the square footage shall be the area extending six inches (6") beyond the periphery formed around such letters or graphics in a plane figure bounded by straight lines connecting the outermost points thereof. Each surface utilized to display a message or to attract attention shall be measured as a separate sign and shall be calculated in the overall square footage. Symbols, flags, pictures, wording, figures or other forms of graphics painted on or attached to windows, walls, awnings, free-standing structures, suspended by balloons, or kites or on persons, animals, or vehicles are considered a sign and are included in calculating the overall square footage. O. The top of a sign, including its superstructure, if any, shall be no higher than the roof of the building to which such sign maybe attached. P. The azea around freestanding signs shall be landscaped with plantings and maintained in such a manner to accent and enhance the sign while remaining sensitive to the natural features of the site. Q. Signs for motor fuel facilities shall be regulated by the sign provisions for the zoning district in which the facility is located, except that within a freestanding sign, an area not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet shall be allowed for continuous display (no flashing, scrolling or other animation) of electronic or non-electronic changeable copy identifying current fuel prices in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes Section 239.751. 13 R. Window signs shall not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the total area of the window in which they are displayed. S. Separate commercial and industrial uses on adjoining properties with a common lot line may each locate a sign on one freestanding structure subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator, provided that: 1. The area of each of the individual business signs shall be consistent with the applicable district provisions in section 11-23-19.f this chapter. 2. The height of the freestanding sign shall be consistent with the applicable district provisions in section 11-23-19 of this chapter. 3. The maximum number of signs displayed on a single structure is two (2) signs. 4. No additional freestanding signs shall be displayed on the individual properties. 5. An agreement addressing construction, maintenance, and repair responsibilities and trespass rights is established and filed with the Dakota County recorder against the titles of the two (2) properties involved in the collocated freestanding sign. Amendment or cancellation of the agreement shall be allowed only upon written approval by the Zoning Administrator. T. Multiple Occupancy Commercial And Industrial Buildings: Whep a single principal building is devoted to two (2) or more commercial or industrial principal uses, signs shall be allowed subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator based upon the following requirements: 1. The maximum individual sign sizes for multiple occupancy buildings and individual businesses that may display a sign shall not exceed the maximum provisions in the same zoning district in section 1 I-23-19 ofthis Chapter. 2. Commercial retail, office, or mixed use multiple occupancy buildings may display a freestanding sign consistent with the applicable zoning district provisions in section 11-23-19 of this Chapter. 3. Except as provided for in this subsection 11-23-15.U, individual tenants of a multiple occupancy building within a commercial or industrial zoning district shall not display separate wall, canopy, or marquee signs unless the tenant's business has an exclusive exterior entrance and subject to the following requirements: a. The number of individual wall, canopy, or marquee signs shall be limited to one (1) per tenant space, except that not more than two (2) signs maybe displayed for the tenant of a corner suite or a suite that extends through the building thus having two exterior walls. 14 b. Each sign shall be limited to the maximum wall sign size permitted in the applicable zoning district provisions in section 11-23-19 of this Chapter. c. The sign shall be located only on the exterior wall of the tenant space to which the sign permit is issued, but are not required to face a public street. d. The provisions of Section 11-23-15.T of this Chapter shall not apply to multiple occupancy buildings displaying separate wall canopy or marquee signs for individual tenants. e. A comprehensive sign plan is submitted that includes all of the following information: (1) A site plan to scale showing the location of lot lines, buildings, structures, parking areas, existing and proposed signs, and any other physical features of the area included within the proposed comprehensive sign plan. (2) Elevations to scale of buildings included within the comprehensive sign plan including the location of existing or proposed wall, canopy, or marquee signs. (3) To scale plans for all existing and proposed signs of any type included within the comprehensive sign plan indicating azea, dimensions, height, materials, colors, and means of illumination (if any). £ No permit shall be issued for a new or replacement sign for an individual tenant except upon a determination by the Zoning Administrator that it is consistent with the approved comprehensive sign plan. U. On individual properties within commercial and. industrial zoning districts in cases where no freestanding signs are utilized and where principal structures have a front yard setback in excess of that which is required under the applicable zoning district regulations, the maximum property signage percentage limitation or maximum square feet restriction may be increased one percent (1%) for every five feet (5') of additional setback beyond the zoning district front Yazd setback requirement. This increase shall be limited to a maximum area of one hundred twenty five (125) percent and shall be applied only to signs located in the yard for which the calculation was made. V. Changeable Copy Signs: Within commercial and industrial districts, one (1) changeable copy sign (but not including electronic changeable copy signs) shall be allowed per site provided that the area of the sign not exceed twenty five (25) percent of the allowable sign area or forty (40) square feet, whichever is less, for a freestanding or wall sign. W. Within commercial and industrial zoning districts, an area not to exceed sixteen (16) squaze feet within a freestanding or wall sign shall be allowed for display of an electronic time and temperature sign subject to the sign provisions for the zoning district in which the sign is located. 15 X. Projecting signs maybe allowed in commercial districts provided that: 1. There is a minimum of eight (8) feet of clearance under the base of the sign to the ground below. 2. The sign does not project more than five (5) feet beyond the wall to which it is mounted, may not project over any vehicular drive aisle or traveled portion of a public or private street and except in the C-CBD District may not project over a publicright-of--way. 3. The area of the projecting sign is not more than 50 percent of the maximum area allowed for an individual wall sign in the respective zoning district in Section 11- 23-19 of this Title. Y. Existing billboards erected prior to January 1, ] 980 aze an allowed use subject to the following requirements: 1. The sign is defined as a principal use of the property upon which a billboard is located. No approval shall be granted for a second principal use upon a property when one of the principal uses is a billboard allowed by this Section. 2. The area of the sign shall not exceed 400 square feet. 3. The structure shall not exceed 40 feet in height. 11-23-17: PROHIBITED S1GNS: The following signs are prohibited: A. Any sign, signal, marking or device which purports to be or is an imitation of or resembles any official traffic control device or railroad sign or signal, or emergency vehicle signs, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic or which hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of any official traffic-control device or any railroad sign or signal. B. All signs over six hundred (600) square feet in area, except within the P/OS District. C. All off-premises signs greater than six (6) square feet in area except as allowed by Section 11-23-15.M and Section 11-23-15.Y of this Title. D. Changeable copy signs, electronic, except as specifically allowed by this Chapter. E. Content classified as "obscene" as defined by Minnesota Statutes section 617.241. F. Electronic graphic display signs. G. Flashing signs. H. Multi-vision signs. 16 I. Portable signs except as allowed by this Chapter. J. Roof signs. K. Rotating signs. L. Shimmering signs. M. Signs painted, attached or in any other manner affixed to trees or similar natural surfaces, or attached to utility poles, bridges, towers, or similar public structures. N. Video display signs. 11-23-19: DISTRICT REGULATIONS: In addition to the signs allowed by Sections 11- 23-7 and 11-23-15 ofthis Title, the following signs shall be allowed within the specific Zoning Districts: A. Within the A-P and RA Districts, the following additional regulations apply: 1. One (1) sign shall be allowed provided that: a. The area of the sign shall not exceed thirty two (32) square feet. b. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet. B. Within the RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4, RS-CBD, RSMH, RST-1, RST-2, RM-1 or RH-1 Districts, the following additional regulations apply: 1. Except for the uses specified in Section 11-23-19.B.4 of this Title, One (1) sign shall be allowed provided that: a. The area of the sign shall not exceed sixteen (16) square feet. b. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet. 2. In addition to the sign allowed by Section 11-23-19.B.1 of this Title, signs shall be allowed for a subdivision having not less than five (5) lots or dwelling units at its entrance from a major collector or arterial street defined by the Lakeville Transportation Plan provided that: a. Not more than one (1) sign shall be allowed at each entrance from a major collector or arterial street. b. The azea of each sign shall not exceed forty eight (48) squaze feet. 17 o. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet. d. Except for those signs established under the provisions of Section 11-23- 19.B.2.e, the sign shall not be illuminated. e. For sign(s) requiring regular long-term maintenance, the sign(s) shall be located on separate or common space outlots of sufficient size and area to accommodate said structure: 1. An association or other form of deed restriction and ownership deemed acceptable by the Zoning Administrator and involving all the properties within the subdivision shall be required, which shall own and be responsible for the upkeep, perpetual maintenance, taxes, insurance, utilities and other costs associated with the sign(s) and the outlot upon which it is located. 2. The association rules or by-laws, or similar legal document, shall specify how the aforementioned sign responsibilities will be delegated and paid for. Such legal document shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. 3. Separate or common space outlots for signs shall be considered and planned for at the time of preliminary plat application and be included in the final plat. The subdivision development contract between the City and the developer shall specify the designated use of the outlot(s), its ownership and the respective responsibilities regarding the outlot. f. The area around the sign shall be landscaped in such a manner to accent and enhance the sign while remaining sensitive to the natural features of the site. Detailed site and landscape plans shall be included with each sign permit application and shall be subject approval by the Zoning Administrator. g. The design and construction of area identification signs shall be done with the highest quality materials and workmanship to keep maintenance and upkeep costs to a minimum and to minimize the potential for vandalism. Area identification signs are to be aesthetically pleasing when designed and constructed. The sign shall be compatible with nearby structures in the area: Detailed construction plans and a materials list shall be included with each sign permit application and shall be subject approval by the Zoning Administrator. 3. Additional signs shall be allowed upon approval of a final plat for a subdivision having not less than five (5) lots provided that: 18 a. One (1) sign shall be allowed per project or subdivision or one (1) sign for each frontage to a major collector or arterial street, whichever is greater. b. The area of the sign shall not exceed thirty two (32) square feet. c. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet. d. The sign shall not be displayed for a period to exceed twenty four (24) months from the date a permit is issued for the sign or until building permits have been issued for eighty-five (85) percent of the lots or dwelling units within the subdivision, whichever is less restrictive. 4. Government buildings and structures, public, quasi-public or private recreation buildings, public parks and recreation areas, public and private educational institutions limited to accredited elementary, middle or senior high schools, and religious insfitutions such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues shall be allowed the following signs: a. The maximum area of all signs allowed for such uses shall be determined on the basis of the following criteria: Site Area Maximum Area for all Signs 0.0 acres 5.0 acres 32 square feet 5.1 acres 10.0 acres 64 s uare feet 10.1 acres < 15.0 acres 96 s uare feet 15.1 acres < 25.0 acres 128 square feet 25.0 acres or larger 160 square feet b. One (1) sign shall be allowed for each principal use upon a site not larger than twenty five (25) acres with the total area not to exceed the maximum allowed per site. c. Two (2) signs shall be allowed for each principal use upon a site twenty five acres in area or larger with the total area of all signs not to exceed the maximum allowed per site. d. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet. C. Within the O-R District the following additional regulations shall apply: 1. The total area of all signs displayed on a lot shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the total building fagade fronting not more than two (2) public streets. 19 2. Freestanding Sign. One (1) sign is allowed per lot. The area of a freestanding sign may not exceed fifty (50) square feet each side with a maximum height of twenty (20) feet. 3. Wall, Canopy, or Marquee Signs. For single occupancy buildings, not more than one (1) wall, canopy, or marquee signs shall be permitted on one (1) facade fronting a public street, except in the case of a corner-lot or through lot where wall signs maybe installed on two (2) facades fronting a public street. The area of individual signs shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet. 4. In addition to the sign area allowances established by Section 11-23-19.C.1 of this Title, a sign shall be allowed for a subdivision having not less than three (3) lots or principal buildings at its entrance from a major collector or arterial street defined by the Lakeville Transportation Plan provided that: a. Not more than one (1) sign shall be allowed at each entrance from a major collector or arterial street. b. The area of each sign shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet. a Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet. d. The sign(s) shall be located to accommodate said sign and related landscaping to meet all setback requirements. If the sign(s) are to be located on outlots, the outlots shall be designated on the preliminary plat and detailed plans for the area identification signs shall be submitted with the final plat. e. The area around the sign shall be landscaped in such a manner to accent and enhance the sign while remaining sensitive to the natural features of the site. Detailed site and landscape plans shall be included with each sign permit application and shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. £ The design and construction of the sign shall be done with the highest quality materials and workmanship to keep maintenance and upkeep costs to a minimum and to minimize the potential for vandalism. The signs are to be aesthetically pleasing when designed and constructed. The sign shall be compatible with nearby structures in the area. Detailed construction plans and a materials list shall be included with each sign permit application and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 20 5. Additional signs shall be allowed upon approval of a final plat for a subdivision having not less than three (3) lots or approval of site and building plans for one (1) lot by the Zoning Administrator provided that: a. One (1) sign shall be allowed per project or subdivision or one (1) sign for each frontage to a major collector or arterial street, whichever is greater. b. The area of the sign shall not exceed sixty four (64) square feet. c. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet. d. The sign shall not be displayed for a period to exceed twelve months (12) months from the date a permit is issued for the sign or until occupancy permits have been issued for eighty-five (85) percent of the tenant spaces within the development, whichever is less restrictive. D. Within the C-1 District the following additional regulations shall apply: 1. The total area of all signs displayed on a lot shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total building facade fronting not more than two (2) public streets. 2. Freestanding Sign. One (1) sign is allowed per lot. The area of a freestanding sign may not exceed fifty (50) square feet each side with a maximum height of twenty (20) feet. 3. Wall, Canopy, or Marquee Signs. For single occupancy buildings, not more than one (1) wall, canopy, or marquee signs shall be permitted on one (1) facade fronting a public street,. except in the case of a corner lot or through lot where wall signs maybe installed on two (2) facades fronting a public street. The area of individual signs shall not exceed sixty four (64) square feet. 4. In addition to the sign area allowances established by Section 11-23-19.D.1 of this Title, a sign shall be allowed for a subdivision having not less than three (3) lots or principal buildings at its entrance from a major collector or arterial street defined by the Lakeville Transportation Plan provided that: a. Not more than one (1) sign shall be allowed at each entrance from a major collector or arterial street. b. The area of each sign shall not exceed seventy-five (75) square feet. c. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of twenty (20) feet. d. The sign(s) shall be located to accommodate said sign and related landscaping to meet all setback requirements. If the sign(s) are to be 21 located on outlots, the outlots shall be designated on the preliminary plat and detailed plans for the area identification signs shall be submitted with the final plat. e. The area around the sign shall be landscaped in such a manner to accent and enhance the sign while remaining sensitive to the natural features of the site. Detailed site and landscape plans shall be included with each sign permit application and shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. f. The design and construction of the sign shall be done with the highest quality materials and workmanship to keep maintenance and upkeep costs to a minimum and to minimize the potential for vandalism. The signs aze to be aesthetically pleasing when designed and constructed. The sign shall be compatible with nearby structures in the area. Detailed construction plans and a materials list shall be included with each sign permit application and shall be subject to the review and. approval of the Zoning Administrator. 5. Additional signs shall be allowed upon approval of a final plat for a subdivision having not less than three (3) lots or approval of site and building plans for one (1) lot by the Zoning Administrator provided that: a One (1) sign shall be allowed per project or subdivision or one (1) sign for each frontage to a major collector or arterial street, whichever is greater. b. The area of the sign shall not exceed sixty four (64) square feet. c. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet. d. The sign shall not be displayed for a period to exceed twelve months (12) months from the date a permit is issued for the sign or until occupancy permits have been issued for eighty-five (85) percent of the tenant spaces within the development, whichever is less restricfive. 6. Signs for uses within the Freeway Corridor Area shall be subject to the regulations of Section 11-23-19.G of this Title. E. Within the C-2, C-3, C-CBD, and C-W zoning districts the following additional regulations shall apply: 1. The total area of all signs displayed on a lot shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total building fagade fronting not more than two (2) public streets. 22 2. Freestanding Sign. One (1) sign is allowed per lot. The area of a freestanding sign may not exceed one hundred (100) square feet each side with a maximum height of twenty (20) feet. 3. Wall, Canopy, or Marquee Signs. a. For single occupancy buildings, not more than one (1) wall, canopy, or marquee signs shall be permitted on one (1) facade fronting a public street, except: 1. In the case of a corner lot or through lot where wall signs maybe installed on not more than two (2) facades fronting a public street. 2. In the case of a single occupancy building or single tenant space exceeding with a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet or larger, additional secondary wall signs shall be allowed on one (1) facade fronting a public street. b. The area of individual signs shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet, except: 1. The area of one (1) individual sign for single occupancy buildings or individual tenant spaces with a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet or larger shall not exceed four hundred (440) squaze feet. If a second sign is allowed for a single occupancy building or individual tenant with a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet or larger by Section 11-23-19.E.3.a.1 of this Title, the area of the second individual sign shall not exceed two (200) square feet. 2. The total area of all secondary wall signs allowed by Section 11- 23-19.E.3.a.2 of this Title for a single occupancy building or individual tenant space with a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet or more shall not exceed one hundred forty-four (144) square feet and the area of any one secondary wall sign shall not exceed seventy-two (72) square feet. 4. In addition to the sign area allowances established by Section 11-23-19.E.1 of this Title, a sign shall be allowed for a subdivision having not less than three (3) lots or principal buildings at its entrance from a major collector or arterial street defined by the Lakeville Transportation Plan provided that: a. Not more than one (1) sign shall be allowed at each entrance from a major collector or arterial street. b. The area of each sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) squaze feet. 23 c. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of twenty (20) feet. d. The sign(s) shall be located to accommodate said sign and related landscaping to meet all setback requirements. If the sign(s) are to be located on outlots, the outlots shall be designated on the preliminary plat and detailed plans for the area identification signs shall be submitted with the final plat. e. The area around the sign shall be landscaped in such a manner to accent and enhance the sign while remaining sensitive to the natural features of the site. Detailed site and landscape plans shall be included with each sign permit application and shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. f. The design and construction of the sign shall be done with the highest quality materials and workmanship to keep maintenance and upkeep costs to a minimum and to minimize the potential for vandalism. The signs are to be aesthetically pleasing when designed and constructed. The sign shall be compatible with nearby structures in the area. Detailed construction plans and a materials list shall be included with each sign permit application and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 5. Additional signs shall be allowed upon approval of a final plat for a subdivision having not less than three (3) lots or approval of site and building plans for one (1) lot by the Zoning Administrator provided that: a. One (1) sign shall be allowed per project or subdivision or one (1) sign for each frontage to a major collector or arterial street, whichever is greater. b. The area of the sign shall not exceed sixty four (64) square feet. c. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet. d. The sign shall not be displayed for a period to exceed twelve months (12) months from the date a permit is issued for the sign or until occupancy permits have been issued for eighty-five (85) percent of the tenant spaces within the development, whichever is less restrictive. 6. Signs for uses within the Freeway Corridor Area shall be subject to the regulations of Section 11-23-19.G of this Title. F. Within the CC, I-CBD, I-1, and I-2 Districts the following additional regulations shall apply: 24 1. The total area of all signs displayed on a lot shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total building facade fronting not more than two (2) public streets. 2. Freestanding Sign. One (1) sign is allowed per lot. The area of a freestanding sign may not exceed one hundred (100) square feet each side with a maximum height often (10) feet. 3. Wall, Canopy, or Marquee Signs. For single occupancy buildings, not more than one (1) wall, canopy, or marquee signs shall be permitted on one (1) facade fronting a public street, except in the case of a corner lot or through lot where wall signs maybe installed on two (2) facades fronting a public street. The area of individual signs shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet. 4. In addition to the sign area allowances established by Section 11-23-19.F.1 of this Title, a sign shall be allowed for a subdivision ha~~ing not less than three (3) lots or principal buildings at its entrance from a major collector or arterial street defined by the Lakeville Transportation Plan provided that: a. Not more than one (1) sign shall be allowed at each entrance from a major collector or arterial street. b. The area of each sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet. c. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height often (10) feet. d. The sign(s) shall be located to accommodate said sign and related landscaping to meet all setback requirements. If the sign(s) are to be located on outlots, the outlots shall be designated on the preliminary plat and detailed plans for the area identification signs shall be submitted with the final plat. e. The area around the sign shall be landscaped in such a manner to accent and enhance the sign while remaining sensitive to the natural features of the site. Detailed site and landscape plans shall be included with each sign permit application and shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. g. The design and construction of the sign shall be done with the highest quality materials and workmanship to keep maintenance and upkeep costs to a minimum and to minimize the potential for vandalism. The signs are to be aesthetically pleasing when designed and constructed. The sign shall be compatible with nearby structures in the area. Detailed construction plans and a materials list shall be included with each sign permit application and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 25 5. Additional signs shall be allowed upon approval of a final plat for a subdivision having not less than three (3) lots or approval of site and building plans for one (1) lot by the Zoning Administrator provided that: a. One (1) sign shall be allowed per project or subdivision or one (1) sign for each frontage to a major collector or arterial street, whichever is greater. b. The area of the sign shall not exceed sixty four (64) square feet. c. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet. d. The sign shall not be displayed for a period to exceed twelve months (12) months from the date a permit is issued for the sign or until occupancy permits have been issued for eighty-five (85) percent of the tenant spaces within the development, whichever is less restrictive. 6. Signs for uses within the Freeway Corridor Area shall be subject to the regulations of Section 11-23-19.G of this Title. G. Within the Freeway Comdor Area the following additional regulations shall apply to all C and I District properties: 1. The total area of all signs displayed on a lot shall not exceed fi8een (15) percent of the total building facade fronting not more than two (2) public streets. 2. Freestanding Sign. One (1) sign is allowed per lot. The area of a freestanding sign may not exceed one hundred fifty (150} square feet each side with a maximum height of thirty (30) feet, except that the area of a freestanding sign for single occupancy buildings with a gross floor area of 100,000 square feet or larger shall not exceed four hundred (400) square feet with a maximum height of fifty (50) feet. 3. Wall, Canopy, or Marquee Signs. a. For single occupancy buildings, not more than one (1) wall, canopy, or marquee signs shall be permitted on one (1) facade fronting a public street, except: 1. In the case of a corner lot or through lot where wall signs maybe installed on not more than two (2) facades fronting a public street. 2. In the case of a single occupancy building or single tenant space exceeding with a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet or larger, additional secondary wall signs shall be allowed on one (1) facade fronting a public street. 26 b. The area of individual signs shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet, except: 1. The area of one (1) individual sign for single occupancy buildings or individual tenant spaces with a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet or larger shall not exceed four hundred (440) square feet. if a second sign is allowed for a single occupancy building or individual tenant with a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet or larger by Section 11-23-19.G.3.a.1 of this Title, the area of the second individual sign shall not exceed two (20D) square feet. 2. The area of individual signs for single occupancy buildings individual tenant with a gross floor area of 100,000 square feet or larger shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. 3. The total area of all secondary wall signs allowed by Section 11- 23-19.G.3.a.2 of this Title for a single occupancy building or individual tenant space with a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet or more shall not exceed one hundred forty-four (144) square feet and the area of any one secondary wall sign shall not exceed seventy-two (72) square feet. 4. In addition to the sign area allowances established by Section 11-23-19.G.1 of this Title, a sign shall be allowed for a subdivision having not less than three (3) lots or principal buildings at its entrance from a major collector or arterial street defined by the Lakeville Transportation Plan provided that: a. Not more than one (1) sign shall be allowed at each entrance from a major collector or arterial street. b. The area of each sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet. c. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height often (10) feet. d. The sign(s) shall be located to accommodate said sign and related landscaping to meet all setback requirements. If the sign(s) are to be located on outlots, the outlots shall be designated on the preliminary plat and detailed plans for the area identification signs shall be submitted with the final plat. e. The area around the sign shall be landscaped in such a manner to accent and enhance the sign while remaining sensitive to the natural features of the site. Detailed site and landscape plans shall be included with each sign permit application and shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 27 g. The design and construction of the sign shall be done with the highest quality materials and workmanship to keep maintenance and upkeep costs to a minimum and to minimize the potential for vandalism. The signs are to be aesthetically pleasing when designed and constructed. The sign shall be compatible with nearby structures in the area. Detailed construction plans and a materials list shall be included with each sign permit application and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 5. Additional signs shall be allowed upon approval of a final plat for a subdivision having not less than three (3) lots or approval of site and building plans for one (1) lotby the Zoning Administrator provided that: a. One (1) sign shall be allowed per project or subdivision or one (1) sign for each frontage to a major collector or arterial street, whichever is greater. b. The area of the sign shall not exceed sixty four (64) square feet. c. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet. d. The sign shall not be displayed for a period to exceed twelve months (12) months from the date a permit is issued for the sign or until occupancy permits have been issued for eighty-five (85) percent of the tenant spaces within the development, whichever is less restrictive. 6. Off-premises signs less than six (6) square feet in area and not more than ten (10) feet in height indicating access routing maybe allowed by approval of the City Council. H. Within the P/OS District the following additional regulations shall apply: 1. Freestanding Sign. One (1) sign is allowed per lot. The area of a freestanding sign may not exceed one hundred (100) square feet each side with a maximum height of twenty (20) feet and may include electronic changeable copy. 2. Wall, Canopy, or Marquee Signs. For single occupancy buildings, not more than one (1) wall, canopy, or marquee signs shall be permitted on one (1) facade fronting a public street, except in the case of a comer lot or through lot where wall signs may be installed on two (2) facades fronting a public street. The area of individual signs shall not be limited. 3. Electronic reader board space used separately or in combination on a sign shall not exceed a total of forty (40) square feet or twenty five percent (25%) of the allowable sign area, whichever is less. The message displayed on electronic reader board signs shall be depicted in one statement and not a continuing sentence or flow of information. 4. A portable sign shall be allowed subject to the following provisions: 28 a. The sign shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. b. The sign shall not be illuminated with any flashing device. c. Not more than one banner, pennant or similar device shall be displayed upon a property at any one time. I. In a planned unit development district, signing restrictions shall be based upon the individual uses and structures contained in the complex. Signs shall be in compliance with the restrictions applied in the most restrictive zoning district in which the use is allowed. SECTION 5. Title 11, Chapter 72-7.F.11.c of the Lakeville Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: a In addition to the freestanding sign allowed by Chapter 23 of this Title, convenience food uses with drive through facilities may display additional signs, provided that: 1. Not more than two (2) signs are allowed. 2. The sign(s) shall be single sided with an area not to exceed fifty (50) square feet. 3. The height of the sign(s) shall not exceed eight (8) feet including its base or pole measured from grade to the top of the structure. 4. The sign(s) shall not encroach into any principal building setback and shall be located directly adjacent to the drive through aisle and oriented in such a manner so that the sign provides information to the drive through patrons only and does not impair site visibility or obstruct circulation. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and shall apply to all sign applications applied for or pending prior to its enactment. ADOPTED this day of , 2007, by the City Council of the City of Lakeville, Minnesota. CITY OF LAKEVILLE 29 BY: Holly Dahl, Mayor ATTEST: Charlene Friedges, City Clerk 30 City of Lakeville ~ ~ Community and Economic Development Memorandum To: Economic Development Commission From: David L. Olson, Community and Economic Development Director Copy: Steve Mielke, City Administrator Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist Date: January 25, 2007 Subject: January Director's Report The following is the Director's Report for January of 2007. Downtown Planning Project The City Council approved the Task Force recommended Downtown Development Guide at December 18, 2006 City Council meeting. The approved Development Guide along with an executive summary is available on the City's web site. As the proposed Work Program for 2007 indicates, staff will be working on coming up with an Action Plan implementation plan for the next year with input from Downtown stakeholders. A special thanks to Jerry Erickson and other members of the Task Force for the time and contributions that they provided to the process, 2006 December Building Permit Report The City issued building permits through the end of the year with a total valuation of $173,001,636. This compares to permits totaling $195,246,366 during all of 2005. Included in this valuation were commercial and industrial permits with a total valuation of $40,823,500. This compares to a total valuation of $42,123,000 for 2005. The largest single project in 2006 was the Lifetime Fitness building with a building permit value of approximately $17,000,000. There are a number of commercial projects that were approved in 2006 that will not commence construction until 2007. These include the Northfield Clinic and Blu Chip Sports Academy to be constructed near Lakeville South High School, the Best Buy Store to be constructed in TimberCrest near SuperTarget, and the medical office condo project at Co. Rd. 46 and Kenyon Avenue. The City issued permits for 221 single family homes in 2006. This compares to 237 in 2005 and is only a 6% reduction. The City issued permits for 223 townhome and condo units in 2006 which is a 52% reduction when compared to the 428 permits for townhomes and condos issued in 2005. The housing slow down is obviously a part of a regional and national trend that will likely continue through part or all of 2007. More detailed information on the development activity for 2006 will be included in the Economic Development Annual Report that will be completed later in February. EDC Member Re-aooointments The City Council received a number of applications from persons interested in serving on the EDC. The Council will be conducting interviews in the next several weeks for all applicants that have applied to be appointed to the EDC as well as other boards and commissions. Decisions regarding appointments will be made shortly after the interviews have been completed. Dakota Future Event on February 7th at the Eagan Communiri Center Dakota Future is sponsoring an event on February 7~" titled Growing Our Future Together for Dakota County, The event will include speakers from successful local businesses including keynote speaker Eric J. ]oily, Ph.D, President of the Science Museum of Minnesota. If you are interested in attending, please contact Adam at 985-4425 as soon as possible and we will take care of your registration. ,ter Dakota-Scott Counties ,~'T71~a1c to-Scott Workforce Investment Board News and Notes Workforce investment ward December l~©h EdFl70tt, v01. 4-5 rersM~W.Mw~^I tw.. Providing comprelreasire, professional, and frmety services, fnr,}ohseekers and envpLryers. What Do You Want To Do Wkeu You Crnx~ ITp? Welcome to the Dokota-Scold Counties Workforce Help to find answers to that age-old question are available Investntenf Board's {WlBj News and A'ofes. Pkis at hau:/fwww.Iseek.orp/sv/IOZIO.isu. The site has a newsletter's purpose is to provide}'nu wiflr nn update of variety of assessment tools, resouroes and links to other workforce atu/ etonornic deralnpmend activities. sites to help you figure out what jobs/careers might fit your skills and interests. WIB Updates • Commissioner Will Branning is the new Chair of the Salary IflfOrmallaR Minnesota Workforce Council Association (MWCA) A common question from employers regards salary and, Cathy Weik, WIB Chairperson, was elected to comparisons. The State has salary survey information the MWCA's executive committee. available on-line, www.deedstate.mrt.us/ImUwarec.letm • Thursday, Jan. 11, 2007 -January Jump Start -West St. Paul (see below). • David Schultz, Hamline University, is the "Eye on the Local CUgtpanieS Honored at Awlrrds Future" speaker at the next WIB meeting -Friday, LatlCheon Jan. 19, 2007 at the West St. Paul WorkForce Center. He'll talk about the 2006 election andthe impact on The Dakota-Scott Counties Workforce Investment Boarad the 2007 legislative session. held its annual Legislative & Awards Luncheon Dec. 8 . Eighty-eight people attended. o The following awards were presented: November L "nemplovmenf Rate 3.3 /o its Dakala; 3.0% in Scatl • Commissioner Bob Vogel, Scott County - "Friend of The November unemployment rate (unadjusted) was 3.6°/n Workforce Development" for the state and 4.3% nationally. Commissioner Tom Egan, Dakota County - "Friend of Workforce Development" l~aiwww.deedstate.mn.ns/lmi/tools/laws/displav.a_sn?eeoe=2704 . LaDonna Boyd, outgoing WIB Chair, in recognition of her 10 years as Board Chair • Ryt-way Industries -the Bob Killeen Award for quality Unemplnyed? workforce practices You may be eligible for the Dislocated Worker Program, • ConAgra Foods and Vital Signs MN -Business which has training funding available. Champion Awards htm:Hwww.ntnwfc.ore~llakota/dworo¢ram/indcs htm • Apple Valley Parks and Recreation and Park Nicollet Health Services -Youth Employment Services Awards January Jump Start - January lllh Overcoming adversity and challenges is the message that WorKforce/Workplace Forecast - 2007 Jackie Pflug, keynote speaker for the 5`" annual January Here's a forecast from the Herman Croup regarding the Jump Start will provide tojob-seekers. Pflug was one of Workforce and Workplace in 2007. The full report is at: three Americans who were left for dead during a terrorist httn'%%wna'w.hermansrouo com;alertlalert index.html attack in 1985. Her presentation reminds us that tragedy, 1.7ob Hopping to Accelerate suffering and everyday issues always contain the seeds of 2. Employers Looking for Better Efficiencies new growth and learning. Part of the day will also include 3.Older Workers More Highly Valued job search topics on: Life After Being Laid Off; 4. Employers Will Embrace New Technologies to Do More Networking; Tough Interview Questions; Career Liftoff,- with Less lob Search After 40; and 10-Minute Resume Clinios. 5. Business Communities Wil] Address their Dissatisfaction with Schools The event is January 11th from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at 6. Continuing Increases in Training and Development the Minnesota WorkForce Center in West St. Paul. 7.Off-shoring and Reverse Off-shoring Will Continue to Admission is by ticket only. Free tickets may be picked up Increase at the WorkForce Center while supplies last. For additional 8. Using Technology and Business Intelligence, Recruiting information, contact Helene Woods at 651.554.5908 or will Morph check http:/iwww.mnwfaortz/dakota/ y 9 Q A v, n n ~ n a o z z x a n N~ A c 3~ o N~ z rt £ ~ ~ n. n. 0 0 0 o a o o rn a ~ o m ~ w o ~ 3 a B to to ~ ° 3 3 3 3 n 5 s~ o a y m ~ y w c ~ a as ~ s i 3 ~ ~ 2. rn n n m c' r, ~ a m~ o w ~ N 5' w ~ m m K 'if o - 7~ ? o ~ n n n n P m 7y ~ ~ ao `G S 0. ~ m r~ °".o is c z _ v o 'm a a~ S 3 c `C 3 0 a 9 e~0,f a e~ o a c m 5'd A a ~ m ~ v a ao o w n F _ ti o. y y - ~ 5 ~ n C A N y O C C C O O O C~ N O N r A Oa U O r O O r N O oo O b b' N W r r W W N Uj WV A GC N b W T A r W d) ~1 v. C\ Oo b W V~ y A U r N A ^+1 I O O O O w O O O Oo O ~ Oo N b O O O ~O O b O O O u [i] G O O O V'i O O O O u O O u O tNn O C O ~ O O O O O O O O ~ ~ N C A ~ r e ~p e T N C ~ 2 W O W N ~D Y O ~ O U O r W ~ P - O O `ri N O C O O O O O b P O O O y O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O Oi V~ O C O O O O O O O O O e O O G O O O G O O C O O O C G J~ O G O O O O C O O O O Q O~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O O O C C O O O O O O 'z q i %9 n C' "3 'z N N N "A I L"' Y O O O O A O O O N J C O~ C O N O O O w O O O O O C b C O ` rt C O O O O ~D O O O ~D ~ O C C O A O O O ~1 O O O O O O U C O ~ O C O G A O O O N d C r O O W O O O O O O O O O O N O ~ - io b A p W N O C O O - O O O T W - C r O w A V O O ~ O O O W W A W r ~w 'w vn ~m ~n c ~ ~ "w x J A ~O W co G'~ ~O ~ N u A J W u [+1 O O O O - O G O J U W P b A m O G A O O O O W Ci ;D O O O O N O O O N O N W N A G v. O O ~n O QQ O O A O~ O T ~ N O O O O U O C O ~n O ~n t~ vi O U C C O O O O O O O O O G b ~ r\Ci 'p [All O Ul ~ - _ N T N ti _ 7 U ~D O V. N O W N Oo a b A O A r C n O O O N O O O ~ C O O O O m O C O O O O O A to O C O O a U O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O N O O to O O O O O O O O i„l O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O C O O O C O O O O O O O O S O O O O O O O C O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O ~ 'L I C' u, ~ ~ ~ ~ 'z 'a O C c ? c o 0 o c cow u°Ci ~ c c w o o G o O o 0 0 0 ~ O0w e ~ C G C O O C O C G O A C U O C O O O O G O O O O O A N J b O O G O G C O O - A r O C b O O O O O O O O O Oc C P Oo ~`^r. c~ ~ ~ b c z e o r~ ~ n n r~~ o n r m ti m~~ 5 z~ -3 w ~ p ~n m m~ c ~a o 0 o y w w m m c w ~ e n o 7' o c c y x eo ~ ~ ~ y 'a c ~ n o ~a c a. o o y ~ = ~ a a n n y m ~ 3 i C' m m r-. C n y ~ W ~ ~ a ~ 'q ~ ~ c '+'1 tl0 w w a a~ w c= o ~ C x ~ ~ rn ~ n m ~ o o O h m D e e ~ C c m A ~ y r < 0 3 o a 3 °m ~ C n o a y' _ v, w G N ~ Y ~ ~ 0~4 6 d Z d N w C J A u N O O O T N ~ r O O v. oo - W U O O O O~ W in y O rn A W N J W A ~ N O N A J W W N lp N N O Q~ N N A ty.~ O Q~ O O Oa O N O O O O O G to O O O O O O O v~ '.p O O C O O~ G O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O C W O G C O O~ G O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O C O O N I O A n+ F O ~ - ~ a z 'W ' r y A Ja W ^ N O cn 00 ~A 'y O O N U U y O O O C O O O O O O O O 4~ O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O N [j O O O C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O O O C 0 ~ I+; O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A O O O O O~ a i S m z q n 3 ~ I ~ o z ~ z r c ~ c a, 0 0 0 0 o m 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c c c o o a o 0 0 o c e o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c c o 0 0 0 o c o c 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c c c o o J 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ,y O 7~ y ~ } y O O r b N J O O O O O b ~ N O O O U w pa w W O O O O k N . w .D 7] A C ~ W GN'~ Oo N A O P A A ^ O [+1 O C O ~O ~n O u O O O O O O U O O O O ~.n O G O O O O O O C O O U O O O O O G O O C G O O O O C G O ~ O O C O O~ N O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O C O ~G O O O O O m N C O _ uoi C y N A W ~ C A N L1 [a+ 0 C'~' _ O ~ O W ~ m ~ U O C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O C1 O O W J C O O O O O O C O O O O O O 'O O O O O O O O O u O G C O O O O O O y O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O o O O O O O O Q z b r o z 'a a o ? c c c o o c o c o 0 o c c o 0 0 0 0 0 o rn o 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c c c o 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 o c c c c c o c o 0 0 o c c c o 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 o c en N T 'n O b C N C ~ C ~ m y CJ C p (7 D x x ^ ~ m~ C Si '.T. m m ~ C o ~ rn a ~ ~ ~ c ~ .cv.. v e' 'ti c e' c o w`~ £ ~ ~ n 9 ~ g' m o a ? o y o n- c 9 v+ n ~ ~ ~ a ~ C to p ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ aco ~ to ~ ~ T ~ 6 k C7 ~ ~ w n VGO 9 b W _ ~ ~ V O O W W O r N W O C V T O J b to O O N O O N y K a U w A N y b N r r ~ w N N b 00 Ls1 b J r r W J b b J p'J J O N A A b O~ O O Oa Oo O b b L, O U ~ b O T b ~D O O O O O O~ ' in V~ C O to in O in O O O O U p~ C to O G O O G O O m O C O O c O O O O O O O O J O O J O O O O O O O N ~ O A r Q n+ 59 e e < z )O A ~ N C+ O~ ;D C N .J- O w O C •O G J y r 'Z O O O O O O O O O O ~ O J O O J ~ O O O O O O N O O O O G O O O O O O O O O O c G G O O O O O O Q C [+1 r O 6 6 O O O O O O O O O O O C C O O O O O O O O z a '9 [+1 _n ~ I ~ y ~ r Q O O O O O O O O O C C C C O O O O O O O O O O~ rt 0 O O O o O O O O O C C O O O O O O O O O G O O O~ ~ C O O O O O O O O O O C C - O O O O O O O O O O S m t Q z p ~ W k N N O O r r O W b N O O A V O W A O N O r A ~ V ~ m V W w pwp b A b W ~ r P b A N N N Oo V' J A O O b ~ o A o o u A r o OO w c V~ O O O O to ~ W O O C to ~n O O v~ w O O C to O to O O O O C O O O~ N W G O O O O O O O w O O O O C O O C O O O O O O~ O 'p A r+ ~ e u C r V' N N W J J O w W J ~ C n J U J ,x N ^ A A ~D ^ O W b O O O O O tbii tNi~ W O ~ O O O O O .A.. O O O O O O~ ~ O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O J O O O C O C O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O to O O O O O O Q Z I I '9 r Y b Z Y b ~ ~ c c c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c c c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o c c o 0 0$ 0 0 0 o m e z ro ~ ~ ~ 3 io ~ c~i v ~ R a 3 v 9 ~ N m a 3 m '3 9 a 3 n rv a n o ? m a y r: w m RE' ~ a c ~6 ~ ° w ~ K 'J ~ z 3 '3 ''9 ~ bP w ~ ~ = q n ^o m ~ ~ - a C7 c O ~ Q ~ r < ~ A f 0 d N ~ a R a 9 Q O O O r O O O O C ~n N W A O O N R W r N C W O Gi ~ a N y W G ~ lIi N ~1 O r W J 00 N ~my„~ O O O A O O O O O G O O Go O OJ W Oo ~p ~D O 00 O O ~ O O O N O O O O O O O O w O O ~n O to O O ~n C W ~j O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N C fl r G N a C TJ T ~ azi ~ T C N '~1 w _ ~ N a ~ Yy O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O vNi O O O O J O O O G C O O O O O O O O O O G C C O O O O O O ~'J Q C [~s1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 ~ [~1 n ~ y z ~ v ro r c r o 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m A °o °o o° °o °o o °o °o 00 °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °c °o °o °o °o °o °o o° ~ A O A R ~ » ~ r p~ O N O r ~ O O O O U W O ~ '~O N ~ A O C r Y N J S ~D N N Y % VJ Oo J O O O J w W J J W w W O O O O A L O O O O O O O O ~p O b P ~C ~ d W O W ~ I O O O ~ ~A O C C O O O O O O in Vi C ~n v. to to O U T. N I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C C O O O O O O Is; C ~p m r T- O C S Q r ~ N G' r ~ ~ N T ~ C Ll O ~ w r C o,°0 0 0 0 0 o c o c o o w o 0 0~ 0 0 0 o w o o a 0 o c c o o c c o o c o c o 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O q o 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `p 2 I r Z Y A ~ c o c o 0 0 0 o c c o 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 < °o °o °c °o °o °0 0 0° c c c o °o °o °o °o o° °o °o °0 0 0 0 0 ~ S A C O C ~ C b 'b ~J A y a 7 n 5 ° d rn O 3_ ~ ~ -r vii w ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s y ~ 0 3 C v J', m ~ O y o~ O ~ C+1 m- n 6 ~ ~ v w w ~ F ~ m a e C ~ b p, F o m 3 w A ~O w A W U N N O N O O ~ T 9 ~ N w S N A ~ m ~ O O O O O O O O A ~ J O O O O O O O C O m N O n N O T m N e in > J ~ N J a w ~`°i o 0 o p o 0 0 0 o N w b o b o 0 0 o c o 0 a m A o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 ~ } ~mf n 3 a y o 0 A ~ t" C .P o 0 0 o O c o o p~ en z ~ °o °o °o °o °o c c° °o °o ~ O z A * w ~ Oo N N _ A A N O O O r I~ A W I A a O O O J O O O V b m J w b N o 0 0 0 0 0 o O O ~ ~ b . ~ e C ~ O ti in N w ~ a ~ n J p K] N 1 A O O C O C O O O O ~ III p y ~ O O O O O C O O O Q z i b r ° Z n a p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ m x °o °o o °o °o °o °o °o iff 9 ~ b ~ c ~ m .a ~ n n n n r b d z~ a 9 G~ x g c~ o y d~ z ~ F °i a o. o o c a n o o rn h m y r. g w c o 0 ~ F c o ~ 3 p x c c 3 3 3 ~ a£ n n o " w c v m Q c w ~ ~0 00 `o o ,v ~ [x1 [n c ~ B B Y c ~ h uc ~ ~ o o c - o a' `ro 3 - c ~ ~ g 9 ~ w' m, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ as ~ x H a Y ~ 2 ~ ~ y F ~ ~ ° o ' f = ~ ~ ~ °e c c D 3 C 0. ti 1 C ~ ~ m' D c r G e 7 C N N N N W _ _ N N N U W N N N U VAi A ~p r QW+ A L J A ~ b N ~O A Oc Q~ C r Oa A .N-` k W H W A W w N V to to W W N ~p '.D Vi b N Ca A w A J W A N` T O~ T fyj. Vi J Oa O J N U W J N Oa V w O U w b b A T ~T O po 0 o C1 A A U W V. 00 Oo y J C N w N A O J O to A ~ V~ N ~ A OC C1 O N O J OC V' O ~O U O~ J N Oo O W O N O ~ l/~ lA ~ O J N J O O to O V^ u O Co ~ N C to Oo O O O O O O J J C A Ky O u U U O O C S U O O A O 4~ C O cn O O O O O O U b C A G ~ C Cl CC C }J C A W Ja A ~ C, Q 2 V r O~ Oo N r ~p N W r O A ~ N w lp p~ 01 'y y 00 N O A J O J 00 W A O A U w lG O O A w O~ J O to In W to r 1 N N W 01 W ~G N 1. O N O N ~ N O 4i O O U O O J O W ~ O W G ~ ~ O O O `D y Y O O O O O O O O O O O ~n O G O O O O u Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O w w G O O O O O O O O O O x O O O O O O O O O O O O j O b J C G O ~ O C O O O O O G ~ 0~ » ro z n~ b N 2 ~ y V U1 Vi N V ~ 1 r O ~ 'Jj ~ t+ ^ U ~ •J W W W W W CO W A W W F Y R1 O W J Vi r q b V~ C J W J ~p N J ~ ~ 17 O r~ O po J O O Oo N 00 W O Oo C O N W O O O O O O W Oa b N ~ = m O W O J W O O O W C\ b O w C C O O O O O O O b J J O~ O A O ~ O O C O to J J N O W C C N U O O O O O O A A T A ~ m 'O y _ "1 ~ Op ^ r lNp w vw. W r N - N O A ONi W Oo r vi A w r p~ N A Oo N J V~ N Oa Oo J to r ? O OC O\ `O J 01 J A U U O~ W W ~ ~ to U A b W V~ w w N r J ~ W O W Y Q~ N N % ~~D J N ` O b W O ~ ~D C A b W U J O ~ O~ W ~C N A b O ~.n U A J N Oa N w v. N ~n to J b S O b N m Q~ ~D Oa O W O J N w w T O U N U N W 00 A V O O O~ A L, w ~ O N 00 to O O L1 r n, tJi N O A U to A J V~ A O O C w U U W 'T1 ~ 0 4~ v~ C A O O O O CO Oc to v~ b O O O Vi O O G O C C to O O A ~ G S r N ~ O S _ i... ~ W ~O A W A N W b N ~ [.a N L9 ~O ~ W A W N O J N w r ~ A _V r G w V~ A W J W L1 A b N ~p O w Q~ N ~O 69 ~p W ~ C J b V ~p J O W W ~p W ~ N ~ O A V ~ U J O A O O O O O O O N O Oi C Q. r w O O~ H O O C O O ? p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c oa o0 0 o w o o O c c o y <n ~ 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 o c w o 0 o u o 0 0 0 0 o c c o y °o °o °o °o °o °o °O °o °o °o °o °o °o c c ~ °o °o °o o °o °0 0 0 0 o c° °o 'o w N U A W A r O Y ~ O J cn C N A w Oo ~p w A Z Y ~ W ~ Oo H w A ~ w A co N ~ C O b O O\ ~n vi J U N A A A b W ~ [z C C A A Oo O O u ~ Oo U O O W O O O~ A O O O C C b O v. in < C C w VWi twl~ O O N W ~bG ~ C O W O O ~ N O O O O O O S O A O S C'7 y .p b O A e f] C1 9 r A 'n Cl O C1 C' m r% ~ c a m H d m~ ~ p m b7 Ctl "~1 ~ c m o 0 o a o ti w < m c m c c m o c ~ o c c c ~ ~ 9 c 3 3 n y 'a e ~ m 3 ~ @ b c o c ~ m ~ ~ ~ 0. n. ° c ~ ~ " n ~ c a ~ S ~ ~ g ~ m ~r, o ~ rn os x 7 - ~ m o' ~ a ~ _ a o a F ~ ~ c C' t' c c+ c' ~ w ~G ~ r+ C C m C CC m ~ 3 ~ C '3 S D p ~ 3 0 ~ ~ ~ 'V y S a ~ 2~ c vCi rt ~ o. C] w y O g ° m b o _ ~ O m d' a tl a a ? c a o: a ~ c _ o ~ av a 'per 9 c A N N N O ti" r ~ W ~ C A ~ 00 J N N W b ~p C LL'. ~ 4i VNi 0~1 W O J O S N A OC N .N ~ r ~D W W t/i A W T W J W N ~ Sn ~D ~p ..pp P 00 w V~ w A A - - Vi w w ~p w O ~D U W ~ A O~ O C Go pp A Q\ U M N O Oo A Oo A O A ~ A O J 'V b w~ U O O O to C ~n O C to O to O to G O C C D to A OO O O - b ~ m O O O O O tNn O O O O C O O O O O O O O C C O O O N O S tJn m O C A N O p~ C A C ~ z S v 9 ~ ~3 V A w O A W.. G m ~r. N ~ w to 0p .y pi to O A O N O O a ~ O N U to O iD O to O O O O 2 O O O N N O O O O O to O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O N ~'j G C O O C O O O O O O O C O O C O G O O O O O C C O Q O R] O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O 9 O O O O O ~ O O O O O O z q b A n 3 r a z w a r' c w N ~ X [n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O G 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 c o 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o b o o J o o c c o o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `n o o A o 0 o S ~ „y O ti N p N N ~ ~ J N N O N O O J O O O A ~ u W A O W ~ b W A C\ ~ ~ - ~ A W O~ ~O _ Y.` Oc a w Oo A A w Co S ~p lp O~ C O~ N A A W W J ~ GO W N J V W W G N ~ ~p to ~ U ~ 00 Oa N N W A N O~ O A N N - U N W b ~ P ~ O b O O O C O O U O b U O C ~.n O N O O N ~p N O ~D Co O~ C U N O u U O C C C O O G to G O O C O C O O - to O w to V. O O v~ O O O o O O C C O O O O C C C C O O O 7o U O O O O G~ C A r 'A N ~ O UCi Q ~ r r ~ W N J N - N - C U ~ - O A O ~ C n ~O A c J J ~n ~p to G C ~ N w U ~p O O A O O~ ~D C C O O a U O O O O J C O O O O m ~ O O O J ~ y°°i ~ O O O O a U O O O O U O O O O O O O O O O U O O O C U C C O O O O~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Oo to O O O C J O O O O O Q z 9 l' z 'a a ~ N ~ O O O O O O O C C C O O O O C C C C O O O J ~O O T O O O C O O O G O C O O O O O O O O C O O C O O O ~p O V O O O O O O O O O O O G C O O O O O C O O O O O A to O O O O O [~i] N ~ z ~ b ro C A 4 ~o r 5 D " y ' ' C 'S x v~ v~ _ p v, vi H ~ ~ o a m ~ 0 9 m m m o w. 't ~ e ~ q 7 n o w £ e, a 4 7 ? a z ^C = ~ e ~ ° C ~ ~ u ~ ,.j p ~ n 5 coo n = ro 9 ~ ~ ~ 9~ iu ~ b3O 0=G ~ CC y G, ~ y ~ C b ''j ~ ~ ~ y C 2 w~ 3. n D c - a a ~ a s o-y k ~ o w c h ~ - n d x x a w 7 ~ ~ ~ c 3 'a a ao ~n A ~ U ~ U W J ~n W N N N .W-• N ~ r O w to O+ A O A OA N O W O W N O~ W ~O N O~ N O N - A N O~ N lIi A ~O W 9 O W r W ~ N ~ W U r A b J to U ~O r Vi A [+1 b ~O N C W N W Q W J C\ O O A O~ 4. A . A N N A U O ~O A W W r W ~p N A O w O V~ G C Vi O U r O ~ O O m u O W U O ~n G O O W O O O w O N O O O C O O O ~n O O~ O O ~D W O N O O O po W O O U O to O C O C O O O O O O C O PJ r" ~ O O W r r ~ ~ J A N N _ 9 p~ r r pp N J r ~ A Oo CNn A V~ A O J n N A N J N (A O A Vi In N W A O A T C r J Oo H y O O ^ W O J U V~ T O N Z O~ O b W ~D O O O N C O 00 O J p O r O O O u O C O N C O O O O O O O O O O~ O O O O~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O I+1 ° C O O O O O O O O Oo O G O Oa O O O O O O O O O O O O z A ~1 ~ rl r ~ ~3 7 i°„ m z r x c 0 0 0 o c c o 0 o p o 0 0 o c o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o G o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o ~ °o °o °o o° °o °o = °c °o °o o °o °o °o °o °o ~ O x N N y N N ~O ~p to W N Vii W N N W N J W W ^C V b A O c0 A to N W A O A ~ U W O W r c.n r Oa T N A N N In In GO W U W N r a •N W - O A N r ~A W ~p ~ W N N W J Vi A W N N Vi ~ ~ V~ w W W O w ld r .p r W p~ ~n T N A ~ W A A N W A N W N J W A J O - ~ V^ N GO W O O U O O W O C O O~ p to cn O A to tN O O O O ~ u N T N O G G O O C U C O w.. O O Oo O O O O O w N C O ~n P U O O O O O O O C O C~ r• "A N o < N J y N - N r pp N A A N C r ^ ~D W T N ~O W W r W G1 ~ O n N W A O~ N A u ~ C N w oo w O A W ~ N ~L J J iL Ga O C J W U ~ b w p r W J N J O J J N J N O ^ U a J1 - U Oo O A o O O A A O O w J N O O o v~ O O O o O~ C C ^ ~D O O O w G G G O C O C O C O O O C G G O O O O C J O O O O O O O O O O C W O O O O O O O O O O Q 2 r z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o f o c o c q o 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 o c c o o c c c c o 0 0 O O O O q O O O O O C O O O O G O O O C O O O C C O ~4yj W v, w y h b m b ~ O ,'s Q 03 ~ L ~ t~1 !e ~ ~ v, ~ .3 ro o P n F Y 5 r" ~ Q ~a n 3 a ~ 5 '3 m z e' a n a' o w a " d m c c ~ c ~ } c Y ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ r 3 ~ N c a a ~ Y ~ ~ ~ = ° ~ o` ~ ° ~9 m - y i ~ m ' m m c B ao r~ ~ a ~ ~ v~ o g 3 3 ~ c~ a v y z c0 c0 ~ ~ w h ~ ~ c ~ h 8 ~ ~ c _ a f7 ~ c w ~ a ~ ~ o w m 09 F y o o' v. ? m ~ ~ r.~ w ~o c N w eo ~ c o J ono o 'Q r p~ A L. A N to A A N J r to Ga O r N J U G1 N~ i.n A J r N Oo A Oc ~ L y I T W Q~ W W to VJ N J W U O W 00 O N L'11 J W ~ W Vi N N J C r V A O N - W W ~D A W J yy A N A W O W ~ W OO OJ O J A ~O ~ O O l0 A rl J J in in 'v. O O C C in U in in ~l in G G O in U Oa A U C O ~ O O O O J G J J C O O ~n O O O O O O N A C O O O O N O ~ _ _ [i] P in a y Q y A W N N A a b W C' N ~A O O A u ~ J U A ~ - 2 O O O O O O O oo O O O ~n O C O O O N N W O O N O O C O O O O O C O O C O O G O O O u W O O Q O h] O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O C z ~ » b I ~ A C: .°a b _ Y I ~ b 7+' t' C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c c o 0 0 0 o c o o c p o 0 0~ < p o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o o c o c c c c o 0 0 0 0 0 o c o o c c c 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0~ m b v^ F .j ~J U N ~D N N A W W GG 07 O N - 'G - O O O A Vi N N W A A b Co W A U O W 1 J r u U N U U Oo A A a pJ W GC ~ r W r A J N CO ~O A r~ J J N to O N J W W A V~ ~ U W ~ b W O u~ I S- O O O 4~ O V' V^ m O b W W A Q~ J J N J W % 0 tl~ G O O ~'J' O O C to O O O O O ~ C W Vi J J N U 4~ h1 O O O O O O O W O O O O O O O O S O J ~p O O O m ~ N ~ C ~ N _Q U A N in A > .w.. Z m ~o o ~ c ~ ~ u N CJ O~ to VI J 00 V~ lp ~ lJ ' ° m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p o « ,,°0 0 0 0 0 ~ a o o a O O O G O O ? O C b C O O O G ~ O C r+ OO O O O O O O O O O ~D O O ~ C O O O O O O O C~ b O O Z I b Y b z a a ~ 0 0 o c p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c c o 0 0 0 0 0 o C c o 0 0 c c c o 0 0 o c o c o c c c c c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 o c o 0 0~ 9 A w lV m ~ y ~ e e e e y ` 'o ~v a ~ e 3 c ~ ~ e 'rn C o y o ~ - S n ~ m ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ n _ ~ m m ~ m n 3 'O m o ~ ~ n ~ ° 2 ~ n c ~ 3 m K ~ s a c ' ~ H c' a g o. O~ 6 ~ N n ~ 3 ~ ~ 3 a c oo ~O w O O ~ ~ ~ a v w J N r O In VNi r O A N J ~l N L1 ~ W O A N O Gt N y N A W r' ~ Vii N A W C N N N r '~O r Q1 L'+] 00 C N M Oo Oo ~ r J O~ ~l A~ Oo O O O O N O O O N Ga O ~D ~O O Qi ~O ~ j~ O C O O O O O O O Oo U C La O O O O~ T O O C O O O O O O u O O to O O O O ° I e !i N O J 0 W T O Oo W ,Y ~ P U ~ N T. w c °o w w y z n o 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 ~ o o u~ o 0 0 0 ~n c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p e~ ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z a I 7 A n~ ~ a ~ r c 0 o c c o ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 o m < A u °o c °o °o o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o c °o °c °o °o ~ n z O~ N ~ ~ K O u r r w ~ to iD J ~ U r H r W A A N N A 00 J W N ~y p A N 00 V~ N Iv N W W~ p Qi O T N W ~O W C A GO to w W~ U cn O O b O O O iD A W O N A W 00 Oo O c C o 0 o U U O o o iv o o V cn ~n o o'] c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m O c w o 0 0 0~ 'O ~p r ~ N O U C ~ G ~ u N •A J V a n.. Z Ot W W C" p C y~ N N G' C m O~ W W ~ U O\ O O C O O O O O O T O O Qi O C O O y N O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O C to O O O O C O O O O C O O O O O O O z i ~v z n A A J ~ J C O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O C J O O O O O O O O O J O C J C O O O A C O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O [i~ r U A turbu.ent mazket http:/iwwwstartribune.com/332/v-print/story/881404.htm1 StaE'iribune.com ! MINIwTEAPOLIS - ST. PAUL. MiNNESDTA Last update: December 19, 2006 - 9:24 AM A turbulent market Kowalski's announcement that it will close its doors in Lakeville next month is the latest swell in the sea change the city's grocery market has weathered in the past five years. By Sarah Lemagie, Star Tribune Five years ago, Lakeville had zero big chain grocery stores. Now it has four. As the city's population balloons Lakeville currently weighs in at just over 50,000 SuperTarget, Cub Foods, Rainbow Foods and Kowalski's Markets have all rushed in to stake out their territory. The results? They're more varied than you might think. Shoppers who previously drove to Apple Valley or Burnsville for low prices now have more choices. But the sudden influx of big-name stores has also created turmoil in the grocery market. After just 15 months in business, Kowalski's said this month that it will close its Lakeville store Jan. 15 because of disappointing sales. The announcement came six months after century-old Enggren's Market closed in downtown Lakeville, and three years after the closure of Our Family Foods, a smaller store that went under a year after the first big-box store, SuperTarget, came to town. That bigger stores pushed out the smaller operations came as no surprise to anyone. When SuperTarget opened in 2002, "it was just a question of time" before Enggren's Market went under, said former owner Jody Braun. "I hung in pretty darn long having those big guys there," she said. But some industry experts --and players see the closure of Kowalski's as a sign of market oversaturation. "Everybody knew that Lakeville was a hot, growing area, and it seemed like everybody jumped on it at once," said David Livingston, a supermarket analyst with DJL Research in Milwaukee. "The market just wasn't hot enough to absorb all the square footage at once." When he studied the Lakeville grocery market a year ago, Livingston said, Kowalski's and Rainbow were both struggling, pulling in about 50 percent of the metro area's average for weekly sales per square foot, "SuperTarget was performing at abelow-average level for supermarket operations, but that is normal for them. They are probably happy with the store," he added in an e-mail. "Cub was below expectations, but by no means hurting." 1 of 3 12/19/2006 12:02 PM A turbtuent market http://wwwstartribune.com/332/v-print/story/881404.htm1 Kowalski's, he said, "probably had the least ability to wait out this game of chicken while everybody is waiting for the market to grow." Livingston also attributed Kowalski's troubles to its location in a shopping mall at the corner of Cedar Avenue and 160th Street. "I remember I had a lot of problems just getting in and out during peak traffic periods, and it was kind of frustrating just trying to figure out how to get in and out of the store," he said. Customers such as Lakeville resident Jim Vaag said they shop at Kowalski's for high-quality and specialty items in Vaag's case, staples such as meat and eggs that, he said, were higher quality than products offered at competing stores. Vaag also thought the upscale store picked the wrong location, but he gave a different reason. "There's no yuppies within athree-mile radius of here." Valley Natural Foods, which has been pondering a second location in the space vacated by Enggren's Market, also took Kowalski's announcement as a bad sign, said marketing and member services manager Charli Mills. The store has not ruled out the possibility of expanding to Lakeville, she said, but is also looking at space in Rosemount and Eagan, and may also choose to expand at its current Burnsville site. "We're probably not on the same timeline as the developers (who own Enggren's Mall)," she said. "I'm sure they're probably anxious to get somebody in there, and we're not moving as fast as perhaps they would like us to be." Indeed, Enggren's Mall owner Mark Hotzler said last week that attorneys were working out an agreement with a prospective tenant --and that tenant isn't Valley Natural Foods, said Mills. But the departure of Kowalski's isn't giving everyone pause. Plans for a second Cub Foods in Lakeville, near Dodd Road and County Road 50, will appear before the Lakeville planning commission Thursday. The store would be the first supermarket south of 185th Street in Lakeville since Enggren's closed, said Dave Olson, Lakeville community and economic development director. "I imagine some of these retailers are looking beyond the (city) boundaries to the townships and smaller communities beyond us," he said. Meanwhile, some shoppers in those smaller communities are looking back at Lakeville for an idea of the grocery amenities they might someday enjoy. Northfield resident Kyle Carson, who shopped at Kowalski's last week in preparation for a dinner party, said he was sorry to hear the store was closing. "I was hoping in the future that Northfield would have something like this," he said, "but if Lakeville and Apple Valley can't support it Sarah Lemagie • 612-673-7557 • By SARAH LEMAGIE 2 of 3 12/19/2006 12:02 PM ocation, location and lifestyle http://www.twmcines.conll„„~~~w,n~,u..«~~~ u~~~- _ . _ , Posted Sn Sun, lan. 07, 2007 Location, location and lifestyle Kowalski's learns hard lesson in Lakeville BY GITA SITAtUMIAH Pioneer Press An upscale grocer debuting in an affluent suburb with lots of new McMansions makes perfect sense. Right? Wrong. That's what the people behind Kowalski's learned after they opened their Lakeville location in August 2005. They're shuttering the store lan. 15 because of bleak sales. Weekly sales have been less than half of those at other Kowalski's locations, store officials say. It's a mystery to owner Mary Kowalski why the store didn't take off. Other suburban locations, such as its Woodbury store, have worked well. "There's all kinds of things we can speculate," she said. Retail experts offer some theories about the pending Kowalski's closing in Lakeville. Stiff competition and prices too high for house-poor families with big mortgages are likely factors. Some blame the store's location, which is surrounded by more modest homes than many of the spacious, executive-style spreads being built elsewhere in Lakeville. The moral of this retailing story is that operators have to look beyond hard data about household income and home prices before opening in an untested location, no matter how safe the move seems. Retail consultants say they need to be mindful of factors less easy to quantify: lifestyles of potential customers, how they get around, what's in the works as far as the competition is concerned, and the demographics in the area immediately around the store. Kowalski said the Lakeville location, which boasted an olive bar, an array of takeout options and organic produce, may simply have been ahead of its time. _ Others agree that the customer basecould grow, especially after young families are done paying for flute lessons and braces. Retailers that can afford to wait for growth often do just that. "Major retailers like Wal-Mart and Target build before the market gets there and sit back and wait for the market to come," said Stan Pohmer, a retail and marketing consultant in Minnetonka. Lakeville is growing fast. The population shot up around 10,000 residents to nearly 54,000 last year from 2001, according to city estimates. The Metropolitan Council projects the city's population will jump to 86,000 by 2030. County and $45,722~ndRamseyrlCountyl ac o dingsto the mostee~ent U.S. census data available f om lit9h9961,863 in Dakota At the same time, Lakeville's median home price was $258,900 in October, about $30,000 higher than in the overall 13-county metro. Despite the appearance of wealth, many households in Lakeville probably don't have a lot of disposable income. Residents don't have lifestyles that fit the pattern of upscale shoppers, said Elliott Olson, president of Dakota Worldwide Corp., a Minneapolis consulting firm for supermarket chains. Upscale stores, according to Olson, tend to have customers who are either young or empty nesters no longer burdened with the economic pressures of children. "When you're raising a family and have just bought a big home and have a bigger mortgage and have a bunch of kids, you're buying hockey skates and ballerina shoes and saving for college," Olson said. "Your disposable income just isn't there. That's probably one of the big factors." Scott Winer, owner of the upscale Copper Bleu in Lakeville,. finds his year-old restaurant slow on weeknights, though he tries to feature many dinner entrees under $20. "Although the demographics seem to be there, I'm not sure the spending habits are reflected by those demographics," said Winer, who also owns franchises of Champp's in Maple Grove and Burnsville. "So demographics don't mean everything." Stores such as Kowalski's often do well in urban neighborhoods where there's a heavy concentration of what Minneapolis retail consultant Jim McComb calls "one-bag" shoppers, such as singles, empty nesters and people reliant on public transpiration with few other grocery options. High-end grocers also do well in a suburban area once it's established and if the stores are set in a major shopping hub. Other high-end grocers have fallen victim to the allure of growth. In 1996, Eden Prairie officials were surprised when Lunds closed its store in that growing suburb. Lunds was likely surprised, too: It was the first time the company had been forced to close a store. The suburb's new construction was attracting residents, but some were living on the financial edge. "You have people with the income but not with the disposable income in a more established neighborhood,' McComb said. 1/8/2007 11:30 Air of 2 ,ocation, location and lifestyle http:(/www.twincities.comlmld(twincitieslbusiness116394363.htrn?temp.. Besides budget-conscious shoppers, Kowalski's also faced growing competition. Rainbow Foods, SuperTarget and Cub Foods all moved into the neighborhood in recent years. Kowalski's wasn't the only one to suffer disappointing sales. The century-old Enggren's Market closed last year, with the owner citing lost market share to new competitors. Some things Kowalski's owners may not have anticipated included Rainbow beefing up selection. Lakeville shoppers favor the lower prices and big selection of the other new stores, McComb said. The Lakeville Kowalski's was about half the size or smaller than nearby Cub, Rainbow and SuperTarget. There probably weren't enough of those "one-bag" shoppers in Lakeville to make up the difference, he said. When it comes to choosing sites for grocery stores, retail market research is both science and art, McComb said. In other words, retailers need to scrutinize more than data to understand whether a customer base exists. "You can be misled by the science if you don't do a good job of applying the art into the interpretation of the data," he said. Gita Sitaramiah can be reached at gsitaramiah@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5472. 4'i 2007 St Paul PioneerPress and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved ht~://www.twincilies.com of 2 1/8/2007 11:30 AM nap:!/WWw.tw inGl uca.wuu m..a being'another Woodbury' so awful? Posted on Sun, Jan. 14, 2007 Is being 'another Woodbury' so awful? Suburb bristles at criticism as neighbors adopt tactics to curb their own growth BY BOB SHAW Pioneer Press "We don't want to be another Woodbury." It's spoken like an insult, spat out as iF describing atoxic-waste dump or leper colony. Woodbury's neighbors say it all the time, making the city a symbol of exactly what they don't wan[ to be. WhaYs wrong with Woodbury? How did the fast-growing city of 56,000 become whipping boy of east metro suburbs? "It could be a little bit of jealousy," said Woodbury Mayor Bill Hargis. He said the city's rapid growth proves people like its location, shopping, restaurants, trails and lakes. Experts agree, saying Woodbury is swell-planned model for suburban growth. But rural neighbors assail it as too congested, too fast-paced, too "cosmopolitan." They make Woodbury the fulcrum of a debate about the metro area's changing personality. Driven by Woodbury-phobia, they are adopting tactics to avoid Woodbury-like growth. These include outlawing Woodbury-style development through zoning; encouraging "cluster developments" of homes; and starting rainy-day funds to combat growth they've described as "Woodbury-esque." The anti-Woodbury drumbeat is unrelenting: • "Woodbury is used like a mantra in Troy Township," Wis., as a one-word synonym for unplanned growth, said Dan Pearson, a member of the town board. • "I think of Woodbury as a noncohesive sprawl from St. Paul," said Lake Elmo City Council Member Steve DeLapp. "There is no center in Woodbury, just a series of little or big shopping centers." • "We do not want to be another Woodbury. We like our open space and lack of congestion," said Cottage Grove Mayor Sandy Shiely. • "I don't think any of us want to see another Woodbury here," said Scandia City Council Member Dolores Peterson. The comments puzzle Hargis. He is proud of his city. "If you live here, You know the city and why people like living here," he said. Growth may have been rapid, he said, but it was carefully planned -with 3,DD0 acres of open space, 100 miles of trails and a variety of houses. A measure of success, he said, is the influx of upscale homeowners and businesses that have made Woodbury one of the fastest-growing cities in the state. Money Magazine in 2003 declared Woodbury "the hottest place in the Midwest to live" among cities with populations of less than 100,000. Critics charge that the city has no center. Development director Dwight Picha said that's because Woodbury never had a historic downtown comparable to those of Stillwater or Lake Elmo. instead, Picha said, officials carefully spread the shopping areas along freeways to avoid traffic congestion. He said [hat congestion, especially along mall-flanked Radio Drive, isn't any worse than other shopping areas. Still, congestion is the No. 1 complaint about Woodbury. "I don't want to insult Woodbury. A lot of my best friends live in Woodbury. But Cottage Grove has asmall-town feel," said Shiely, who shops regularly in her city's larger neighbor. "Woodbury is more cosmopolitan, more upbeat and upscale. It depends on your personal taste and your lifestyle.' A deeper issue is how outlying towns see themselves. Are they independent cities like the tiny towns built in early 1900s? Or are they Woodbury-like suburbs that should change along with the metro area? Lake Elmo has always chosen the former, struggling to resist growth and preserve its rural roots. After years of refusing to plan for more growth as required by the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered i[ to do so. "Woodbury has done a nice job of planning, but it looks like a gated community," said Deb Krueger, former member of the Lake Elmo Village Commission. "We want to be able to look at the oldness rather than contrived newness. We didn't want to be a suburb." 1/16/2007 11:07 AP of 2 s being'another Woodbury' so awful? htto://www.twincities.com/m1tL'twincities/news/16454836.htm?[emplal.. But that's the point, say civic experts and Hargis. Like it or not, if the people of Lake Elmo work and shop elsewhere, they are living in a suburb -and should be considered part of the metro area. "I take a little umbrage at the talk about independent living," Hargis said. 'They bash us, but I'll bet they use our restaurants." The Met Council finds itself inthe middle of the pro- and anti-Woodbury arguments. The council requires cities to submit comprehensive plans every SO years. Those documents must include plans to absorb some of the 1 million people expected to move into the Twin Cities in the next 30 years. Bob Mazanec, who serves as a liaison between east metro cities and the Met Council, said titles are free to plan growth as they wish -along freeways, in clusters or spread over the countryside. But they are not allowed not to grow. Growth in any form is jarring to some towns. Mazanec said small-town officials say: "We don't see ourselves as suburban. We see ourselves as rural." They attack Woodbury, he said, because it's nearby and well-known to them. Rural areas employ a range of tactics to avoid "Woodbury-style" growth: • Cluster housing. These are typically houses grouped closely in a small area under rules that require tracts of open space to be preserved nearby. • Regulations spreading houses far apart, such as a requirement to build only on two-acre lots. • "Development rights." In Troy Township, a landowner can sell his or her "development rights" and agree not to develop the property. The buyer of those rights can build extra housing somewhere else. • Open-space defense funds. Troy Township has started a fund to pay for the costs of legal battles or other expenses related to preserving open space. • Growing differently. In Lake Elmo, Krueger is one of many officials working on a design for the Old Village, a renovation and expansion of the historic downtown area. She envisions a compact city with stores, homes and trails interconnected. "You should be able to take a walk, get some coffee and get your hair cut," said Krueger. No big parking lots, no big-box stores. "It's wrong to blast everything down and pave it over," said Krueger, "and make something that is not right." Yet, local efforts to stay small almost always backfire, said Myron Ortield, a former state legislator and expert on metro-area development. "It's impossible to do much unilaterally," Ortield said. Growth in rural exurbs is inevitable as long as people want to move there, and landowners have a right to sell their land for development. Better, said Orfield, to preserve certain areas through region-wide planning by groups such as the Met Council. Cities could address a source of suburban growth -flight from decaying first-ring suburbs, which he called "the Maplewoods of the world." Ortield encourages redevelopment in such areas to attract families and promote "infill." Local solutions, however, still have appeal in places like Troy Township, which sits across the St. Croix River from Afton, "We don't mind some growth," Pearson said. "But we don't want to make it Woodbury-esque." Bob Shaw can be reached at bshaw@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5433. 4"i 2007 S[ Paul Pioneer Press and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. htry://www.M~inci[ies.com of ~ 1 /16/2007 1 L07 AM