Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-26-07 City of Lakeville Economic Development Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 26, 2007, 5:00 p.m. City Hall, 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN 1. Call meeting to order. 2. Approve April 24, 2007 meeting minutes 3. Presentation on the impact new development standards for the Vermillion River Watershed Management Organization (VRWMO) -Keith Nelson, City Engineer 4. Presentation of the results of the 2007 Decision Resources Community Survey -Brian Anderson, Asst. to City Administrator 5. Review of Draft Airlake Airport Comprehensive Plan Update 6. Update on Strategic Plan 2007 Work Program 7. Director's Report 8. Adjourn Attachments: May Building Permit Report "Minnesota tax burden is no longer in top 10," StarTribune, June 12, 2007 "Pawlenty's vote scrambles MOA, Thomson Plans°, Minnesota Real Estate Journal, June 1, 20D7 State of the City Booklets DRAT T w~ Nom City of Lakeville Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes April 24, 2007 Marion Conference Room, City Hall Members Present: Comms. Matasosky, Emond, Schubert, Gehrke, Erickson, Vlasak, Pogatchnik, Brantly, Ex-officio member Mayor Holly Dahl, Ex-officio member City Administrator Steve Mielke, Ex-officio member Chamber of Commerce Executive. Director Todd Bornhauser. Members Absent: Comms. Tushie, Smith. Others Present: David Olson, Community & Economic Development Director; Daryl Morey, Planning Director; Allyn Kuennen, Associate Planner; Penny Brevig, Recording Secretary. 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 March 27, 2007 Meeting Minutes Motion 07.08 Comms. Erickson/Schubert moved to approve the minutes of the March 27, 2007 meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 3. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Presentation and Discussion Comm. Matasosky introduced Planning Director Daryl Morey and Associate Planner Allyn Kuennen. He indicated that they will provide a summary of the feedback that has been received from the first round of 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update neighborhood meetings held in March and April. Mr. Kuennen stated that he would like to hear the Commissioner's thoughts on the comments received and issues associated with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update neighborhood meetings, specifically the CSAH 70/I-35 area, the possibility of increasing Corporate. Campus areas, transportation issues, and the urban reserve area. He suggested that they fill out the questionnaire that was included in their packets and return it to either himself or Penny Brevig within the next couple weeks. Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes DRAFT Aprit 24, 2007 A discussion amongst the Commissioners and staff followed, including a timeline of future drafts, meetings, and reviews of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. They discussed the Metropolitan Council and how they viewed the updates. Mr. Olson discussed the Metropolitan Council's affordable housing requirements and how it could be a problem with no funding available. Comm. Erickson asked what the latest position was on the land in Eureka Township by the airport. Mr. Olson commented that there has been little or no discussion of the issue recently, however, he thinks it could be brought up again in the near future. Mr. Kuennen indicated that the City Council will receive a review of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update sometime in May. The Commissioners asked how the word was getting out to the residents and businesses. Mayor Dahl and Mr. Kuennen stressed that we have so much more to work with since the last Update, such as direct mailings, cable broadcasting, Listserv, a-mail, the Messages Page in the local newspaper, and the City's website. The EDC members all asked to be included in the Listserv for updates. Mr. Olson commented on the April 23, 2007 City Council work session where Springsted representatives were brought in to present their Economic Impact Study. He indicated that they will be fine tuning some things and the City will get them under contract. The information will be done specifically for Lakeville and the results will be made available to the EDC. 4. Director's Report Mr. Olson reviewed the Director's Report. He commented on the exterior elevation of the Hewitt Investments First Addition building that will be constructed in Downtown Lakeville, next to Erickson's Drug and stated that City Council approved the final plat at their April 16th meeting. The Commissioners commented on the parking, entrance and size of the building, and the retail space. Mr. Olson also reviewed some. of the. other businesses currently under construction in Lakeville. Mr. Olson asked for a volunteer to present the Spotlight on Business at the May 7"' City Council meeting. They will be highlighting the Holiday Inn and Suites. Comm. Pogatchnik volunteered. The Commissioners asked if they could get an update on the Vermillion Watershed planning activities. Mr. Olson stated that an update will be forwarded to the EDC next month. 2 Economic Development Commission ®R A F T Meeting Minutes Apnl24,2007 5. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Attested to: 'ti Penny a ig, Recording S cretary R. T. Brantly, Secretary 3 '~~m No~ 3 City of Lakeville ' ~ Community and Economic Development Memorandum To: Economic Development Commission ) From: David L. Olson, Community and Economic Development Directo`~ Copy: Steve Mielke, City Administrator Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist Keith Nelson, City Engineer Date: June 19, 2007 Subject: Presentation on New Development Standards for the Vermillion River Watershed City Engineer Keith Nelson will be in attendance at the meeting to review how the new development standards that have been approved by the Vermillion River Watershed Management Organization (VRWMO). The attached memo from Barr Engineering provides an overview of how the City's present ordinances compare to the recently adopted standards and identifies ordinance provisions that will need to be updated to come into compliance with the new VRWMO standards. This information will also be presented to the city Council at their June 18th meeting. - Barr Engineering Company 470D West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601 • www.barr.com An EEO Employer BARR Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO June 5, 2007 McKenzie Lafferty Via a-mail: mcaffterty@ci.lakeville.mn.us City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN 55044 Re: Local Water Management Planning Assistance -Ordinance Review Dear Mr. Lafferty: As part of the Local Water Plan assistance effort we have reviewed the City of Lakeville's stormwater-related ordinances and official controls for compliance with the Vermillion River Watershed JPO Standards. The city's standards were located in several city ordinances as well as in other city documents, specifically the 1995 stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), [he 2003 Wetland Management Plan (WMP), the 2007 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and the 2007 Nondegradation Report (NDR). Based upon that review process we have prepared the following recommendations and comments: Overall: The current City ordinances do address many of the requirements of the Vermillion River Watershed JPO (VRWJPO) Standards. There are several areas that will need to be updated to reflect the requirements of the Watershed. The Following are some of the specific comments as to where changes will be needed and are organized by section of the new VRWJPO Standards. Additionally, because there are several documents that contain the various policies, standards, and criteria for the City of Lakeville, we recommend that the City compile a summary of these documents to assist in using the documents. Floodplain Alteration Floodplain ordinances for the City of Lakeville can be found in the City's Code of Ordinances (Title 11, Chapter 101) and are referenced in the SWMP Section I-D: Floodplain and Shoreland Regulations, although this reference does not appear to be consistent with the current numbering of the ordinances. This is likely due to Ordinance revisions since the plan was completed in 1995. The new VRWJPO Standards require LGUs to adopt ordinances that are, at a minimum, consistent with Dakota County. Additionally, the new Standards have extended beyond the basic requirements of the State and County and it appears that the current City ordinance requirements will need to be expanded to meet all policies and standards outlined by the VRWJPO. Discussions with Dakota County indicate that changes will be made during the summer of 2007 to the current County Floodplain Ordinances so that they will reflect the VRWJPO Standards.. City of Lakeville Sune 5, 2007 • Page 2 One of the key components of the VRWJPO Standards with regards to floodplains is [he concept of "no net loss of floodplain storage." This concept is not discussed in the current City of Lakeville floodplain ordinances and will need to be expanded to meet the VRWJPO Standards. Wetland Alteration The current City of Lakeville WMP and Wetland Ordinance (10-4-12) outline the policies and standards related to wetlands and wetland alteration in the City. Any mention of wetlands in the SWMP is superceded by the information contained in the WMP. The WMP was developed in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act regulations (WMP -Section II) so it aligns with most of the VRWJPO standards. Lakeville's BWSR-approved Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan was adopted prior to the adoption of VRWJPO Rules. In this situation, the VRWJPO Standards allow the City's current ordinances to govern buffer widths, restrictions, allowable uses, and monumentation until such time as the VRWJPO completes second generation Watershed Plan in approximately 2015. If Lakeville's Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan is revised before a second generation VRWJPO Watershed Plan is completed, the revisions will need to include the VRWJPO standards. Buffers The City's current shoreland and buffer policy is outlined in the City's Code of Ordinances (Title 10, Chapter 4 (Wetlands) and Title 11, Chapter 102 (shoreland Management)). Additionally, there is buffer information provided in the City's WMP. Although there is a buffer policy outlined for wetlands in the City of Lakeville, there does not appear to be mention of buffers specifically for other water bodies and stream comdors. In general, City policies and standards will need to be expanded to include a buffer policy for all water bodies and VRWJPO designated streams. Additionally, current ordinances will need to be modified to include the following VRWJPO Buffer Standards: 1. Buffers based on stream corridor classification will be needed. 2. The City needs to review exemptions.to the VRWJPO Buffer Standards and incorporate these exemptions, as a minimum, into Ci[y Policies and Standards for streams. 3. The City needs to review the Trading concept discussed in the VRWJPO standards with regards to stream temperature. 4. Although there is mention of creation of habitat in various sections of the ordinance, the ordinance needs to be expanded to include the prevention of fragmentation of natural areas and habitat corridors (see VRWJPO Buffer Standard Policy 2). 5. The City needs to identify acceptable natural vegetation (see VRWJPO Buffer Standard Criteria 1). 6. Buffers will need to be identified, staked, and protected during construction if deemed adequate (see VRWJPO Buffer Standard Policy 3). 7. With regards to buffer planting/replanting, [he City will need to include [he methods and seed mix standards to reflect those listed in the VRWJPO s[andazds (see VRWJPO Buffer Standards Criteria 3). 8. The City needs to review activities permitted in the buffer zones and limit those activities listed in the VRWJPO Buffer Standards Criteria 5. City of Lakeville June 5, 2007 Page 3 Stormwater Management City of Lakeville Stormwater management standards and requirements are listed in Appendix E of the SWMP, City Ordinances 10-4-5, 10-4-6, 10-4-7, 10-4-8, 11-16-7, the City of Lakeville SWPPP, and the City's Nondegrada[ion Report. The SWPPP makes reference to the MPCA NPDES General Permit for Construction Activity, setting water quality standazds for Stormwater runoff management during construction as well as post-development. The City's current ordinance meets portions of the VRWJPO Standards with regard to covering all land disturbing activities and requiring a permit (including a SWPPP) for disturbance of more than 1 acre of land as part of the NPDES General Construction Permit Requirement. This VRWJPO requirement also applies to creating more than 1 acre of impervious surface. However, the VRWJPO Standards go beyond the requirements outlined by the MPCA NPDES permit requirements. The following summarize some of the changes that will likely be needed for the City standards to conform to the VRWJPO Standards. Changes needed: 1. The VRWJPO standazds require no increase in runoff rates for 1-yr & 10-yr critical duration storms for post-development conditions. Additionally, the VRWJPO's interim standard requires no increase in the existing 1.00-year critical event peak discharge. This interim standard applies while the subwatershed-specific rate controls are developed to not increase the 100-year, 4-day peak flaw of the Vermillion River. The City's current peak flow control standard requires control of the 10-yr and 100-year storm events. This should be expanded to include the 1-year storm event as well. 2. Pond design standards should be upgraded to reflect the guidance provided in the MPCA Stormwater Manual and NPDES General Construction Permit requirements (current or most recent versions). 3. The City has adopted the draft VRWJPO standazds for infiltration since 2005 (see NDR Section 3.2.3). The draft Standards included the infiltration of 0.5-inches of runoff from all impervious surfaces for new development except for the South Creek watershed, which requires 1.5-inches of runoff from impervious surfaces to be infiltrated; these requirements provide equivalent (or better) volume control than the VRWJPO requirement for the 2-year, 24-hour storm. 4. Although the City has incorporated thermal standazds in areas draining to temperature sensitive water bodies based on the draft requirements of the VRWJPO (see NDR Section 3.2.3), the City needs to verify that those requirements meet the current VRWJPO Standards. 5. Easements and maintenance expectations must be included. 6. The VRWJPO Standards include the voluntazy use of turbidity standards to help identify non- compliant construction sites. Failure to meet turbidity measurements downstream of a construction site can result in a construction erosion control inspection for non-compliance. This may be incorporated into the City's Ordinance. Drainage Alterations Although existing ordinances and standazds align with some of the VRWJPO standards with regards to Drainage Alterations, the City's ordinances need to be expanded to meet the VRWJPO standards. City of Lakeville June 5, 2007 Page 4 This review of the City of Lakeville ordinances provides an overview of the major VRWJPO Standards that will need to be addressed during ordinance revision. If and when [he ordinances are revised, a more detailed review of each of the VRWJPO Standards and criteria, as well the recently adopted VRWJPO Rules, should be a key component of the revision process. Remainine nroiect budget We have currently expended 90% of the allocated budget for the City of Lakeville. If you have further questions regarding any of these items, please contact me at 952/832-2904 or Kazen Chandler at 952/832-2813. ~Sincerel / Q ~i yTe~f ~y Lee Senior Ecological Planner 'gem No, ~ City of Lakeville ' ~ Community and Economic Development Memorandum To: Economic Development Commission From: Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist Copy: Steve Mielke, City Administrator David L. Olson, Community and Economic Development Director Date: June 19, 2007 Subject: 2007 Community Survey Results Staff has received the results of the 2007 Community Survey conducted by Decision Resources. The results of this year's shortened survey indicate that the overwhelming majority of residents (97%) rate Lakeville as having an excellent or good quality of life. The following are four specific topics residents were surveyed about to help the City Council and staff better plan for the future: 1. Property Maintenance -The survey showed that 94% of the residents felt the general condition of their neighborhood was in either excellent or good condition. The remaining 6% cited rundown homes and messy yards as their main reasons for stating their neighborhood was only in fair condition. When asked if they would support or oppose a property maintenance ordinance, 78% of the residents stated they would strongly support or support it (which Council passed in April). 2. Surface Water Quality -The vast majority of residents, 81%, felt that Lakeville's emphasis on environmental concerns relating to surface water is about right with only 8% cited it is to low and 10% stating they didn't know or refused. When asked if they would support or oppose a fee funding water quality improvements, 51% stated they would strongly support or support a fee. 3. Preservation of Open Space -When asked if the City should preserve open space and natural areas, a resounding 90% strongly agreed or agreed. When asked if they would support or oppose and increase in property taxes for the purchase of such property, 58% stated they would strongly support or support an increase in property taxes. When asked how much, 33% said nothing while 17% said $10 per year and 16% said $20 per year. 4. Transit -The survey showed that 91% of the residents don't use public transit to downtown. Only 29% would favor increasing taxes $40 per year to improve transit services in neighboring cities while 43% would favor increasing taxes $40 per year to provide public transit services from locations in Lakeville. Although these questions were revised, it appears to be a slight decrease from the previous survey. Brian Anderson, Assistant to City Administrator will be at the meeting to .present this year's results to the EDC. City of Lakeville 2007 Residential Study Decision Resources, Lltl. Selection of Community 2007 City of Lakeville UNY 6 M ~orao~ 4 Sdmle ~ u Fbu~g m~~ X2001 Swtly ~9W3 SU~y RvaVSme9 T4Nm ~ a r'd1Jt S NBBr bE tli Neer Family ~i J Scellemtl a ~ ~ 0 5 t0 15 20 25 30 Deasion Remurwe. Lb. Quality of Life Rating 2007 City of Lakeville 120 100 BS-------"--"9'lL---------'-92'"---------'~---------~ B~ 41 43 39 90 p ~ 8 5 0 0 1991 1999 2001 2005 2001 Ilent ~amlti~re ~ save oade~on Reaomcea, gyn. 1 Like Most about City 2007 City of Lakeville rvoArewer LPCBBen Sdwols PeaPle ' ' ~'i OuieVPeaceful Small Town Ambience X2001 SWtly Open Space ~2p085NCy rvN9nbomcaCS ~200]Stutly sate Suburmn :I " 'I 'I CHy seMCes I sratlere0 ~ No1M~g 0 ' S 10 15 20 26 30 35 oa~~sa~ Reaowces, ua. ' Like Least about the City 2007 City of Lakeville No Ae~l NMN~g a Taxes ~ u Logan GroMNCmwEirtJ ~ 4 ~ X2001 Snxfy RoeONNigMwys ie ~ X2008 SWtly Sclroob a'. ~20pi SWe City GOVemme@ a, I Lack Of Rahil OPWtlumYies ~ ~ Scetteretl a 6 10 16 2p 26 90 36 dp Deciflion Remumea Lld Home vs Place to Live 2007 City of Lakeville tw fip --n----------TS--- i1 88 40 26 21 20 21 20 _._15 D 1931 lsss zopl zoos zpp~ ^Ibme'~11apP Eleewlrere Denslon Remurces, LM. 2 Community IdentitylNeighborliness 2007 City of Lakeville m Sg w yg 3g m 20 ~g g ~ggr ig8g zao+ zoos zom naeaae ~Decreaee ~JO C e Oec~im Resources. L~tl. - Value of City Services 2007 City of Lakeville rye EKalbrt is; tt a OCOE ~ 'a ~2gg13wtly . Only Feir m ~ ~ ~2gg53W0y rt ~2ggi 3Wtly . n Poo s S a I I Uroere 0 10 20 ~ OD 5g e0 )0 80 - Dalsnn Remurces. Ltrl. Property Tax Rating 2007 City of Lakeville Somewhrt Hlgh C3% Very High 16% nsun a% omswhW Low 2% AhoutAwmga 3M Decision Ravurc~,LW. 3 Police Protection 2007 City of Lakeville 1ao g0 e~__ w .z 40 20 0 199] 1999 zom roes zoo] bm ~POSithre ~N a8ve Unsure oaas~o~ a¢somces. ¢a. Fire Protection 2007 City of Lakeville 100 e. 99 g0 40 _ so _ a' t99] 1999 2001 2005 9f0] x¢ellBnt ~POellive ~lJegallve Unsure ~acision Remurces. Lltl. Storm Drainage/Flood Control 2007 City of Lakeville 109 80 _ _ 40 v xt 20 ~ 0 ~ 199] 1999 2001 2005 200) cell¢m ~POSItlv¢ ~J¢9¢5vB ~ll!@IP¢ oa~~~o~ aewmces. ua. 4 Park Maintenance 2007 City of Lakeville t29 too ----------------------------'---'----w 5s 40 z~ YU 0 s 1%1 1999 2001 2005 200> xcellam ~Pasitlve ~IJe9ative ~Uneiue i D~~san Resources, ua. Street Repair and Maintenance 2007 City of Lakeville to _____________n__- ________a w ao zB ro z9 o' tssT i9ss zaoi zoos z9m xc&lem ~POSiSVe ~IJe9aGVe 1lreirte Decision Remurcas, ua. Greater Police Emphasis 2007 Ciry of Lakeville TreRlc Enfomemvi ~ I I N Nelahhorlnoa PNrol RT CommemiBl ARB PNmI ~ ~ i ~ ~ i t Ctlme Prevmdion f t5 29 ~20055Wtly communiry lmavemem 't ~2o0]sway yl Droe Emoroemsm so @° Imam&-RebUd ~ tt w+we j o s to is zo 2s so ac ao De[ISion Remurces, LiE. J Neighborhood Appearance/Condition 2007 City of Lakeville )o 5z so aP _3e_ ~ - - ~~z5as sway 3P ~2Pm swa 2P i to _.s__@_______.___._....... o t p t p E[mllenf Gaotl Only Far Poor Ursure pedsion Resources, ua. Code for Exteriors and Garages 2007 CRy of Lakeville SlronBly @wPOrt 35X Unwre 3X 3PPPOR Strongly OPPOSe 8% OPPO@e t2% pecision Remumea. LM. Emphasis on Environment 2007 City of Lakeville too _ ]@_ 81 80 - )9 _ 50 1~250t SNCy -SOS SNTy ao ra2om sway 5 11 f0 5 ) 10 t0 A t 0 TPp High AboN RgM ,Too Low Une~Xe pecsion Rewurces, Lta. 6 Fee Increase for Water Quality 2007 City of Lakeville support aax Strongly &uPPOrt 10% Unsure i% gtron9tY OODOSa ooPPee u% sax Dec~do~ aem,~,c~. ~w. Park System 2007 City of Lakeville tgo v ~ r~ •----~•-;r ~ >an - - - a ,.a ° ag ~ - m - - - a w. Irv. ~..+nvm a~.».u,.~,.o... ~APP~ova12001tiADDnr'gy 2005 ~APMOVai 200) ~DisaPPmvai 2001 ~plsaPP~ova11005 ~DISaPWOVa1200) ~USage 2001 ~Ueage 2005 ~USege 200) Dec'~io~ aeeourcea, ~w. City Preserve Open Spaces 2007 City of Lakeville Strongly Ves 5f% nsure d% Strongly NO t% No S% Yes 39% pecis~on aewurws, ~w. 7 Open Space Properly Tax Increase 2007 Ciry of Lakeville sworn 40% SWrgy $appoR 18% uRaam 6% ce~ne+i...l• a+oaoo.rra Snpngy OPPOSe Oppose 18% 21% Doas~on Raaaames, im. Lakeville Area Arts Center Attendance 2007 City of Lakeville Lakavilla ARe Fadivel Concert Or Play MaClem or5ummar AR CamO MuHlple EvaMa *ey dLrxNxm Unwre ~ ~ ImL4p x.mm pap wore 0 +0 20 30 40 50 00 1~20055WGy X2001 Snwy Denson Remmces, tld. Planning of Development 2007 Ciry of Lakeville 10 _____________________________________m w b ao 30 20 a 5. - t0 e.____ 0 +99) 1989 2001 2005 2001 - ell-Plannetl ~UnplanneR ~SOmetimes ~UnaOre Decision Rerourcea, Lld. 8 Interest in Input 2007 Ciry of Lakeville ,e; 97' McIl3urvny ~ p' ~ Ms200551uUY NpglYwmuY Matl~ga t0 Msp00)SWE 111 wwre M i} unmereasa o m zo w w m peovon R«orv~. ue. Top Priority for Development 2007 Ciry of Lakeville BInpN Famly HOmu x' M@menh L~ TownMUex y 1 Profceelona0ewluM Oifiue s ~ ~ CommerdaMtptall S~ppe y1 L'ght lntlugry ~Y MY14pla iu Nom p Umun ~ o iY zp zo as w M120055 M120W SWtly peaeron Resources, Lttl. Adequate Mix of Housing 2007 City of Lakeville unsure 2% NY 16% pecision Remurcee, LW. Encouragement of Life CyGe Housing 2007 City of Lakeville vo 81 50 a0 30 __28_________ _ _ 20 _ 3U 10__________________ 14 11 10 1Z f0 _ _ _ t__i_ R ~ 0 EzceIMM Gootl Only FaV PaOI Uneure i~2001 Sntly ~20056Ntly e/200)SNtly Deciaon Remurces, Lttl. Need for Senior Housing 2007 City of Lakeville sw~ely vea ves 21% asx uraure 1Ah No sbangly NO ' tax ~ oe~~sm~ easoum~, ua. City Role in Affordable Housing 2007 City of Lakeville ves azx Strongly Vee vx ureure 8% Na SlronglY No 1~5 15% ~ro~ aesomces. ua. - 10 City Funding for DBD 2007 City of Lakeville swngly swport s~Part n% 43% Unvae 6% StrPn91Y OPPOSa 10% Oppose 20% OeGGOn ReSOmcw.LW. ' "City Messages" 2007 City of Lakeville m6 es ~ T9 TB___ U2 ~ __.____,O 65 ~ CO - - 20 - 0 1991 1999 2001 2005 2006 ~Recall~RecalVReatl oeaaon Remurtez lttl. Primary Source of Information 2007 City of Lakeville clry webeae 6% Llle & Tlmes 63% essages 8% ' nsun xX r 2% Channel i6 8% Star Tribune 3% Vbneer Preas 3% Sun CurteM 16% Oecisbn Rawurces, Lltl. 11 Adequately Informed 2007 City of Lakeville 1m ¢2 ei BO gp _ _ 12885 SNtly ~20p]SNey p ____x_...16___________________ 3 1 0 Yea No Ureure oeciam~ ae®e~res, ua. Internet Access 2007 City of Lakeville 1W 91 ~ 63 BO gp ~ ____d`_S___ qpp{_____________________________ _ 3p D1 pp - _18__18_ 6 11 0 Yea No ViaX WebeiW ~19995NGy ~20615Ney ~S665 aNtly ~200]SWby Decision Rmnumea. LW_ Cable Television 2007 City of Lakeville eo a a. qo z6 0 +oa~ sbv zoos sNeY aw]swes aNEy 3W5 a4Cy ~ SubscnpAOn ~FRyu¢!A Cl~anne118 Deciwun Resources. LW. 12 Viewership of Channel 16 Programs 2007 City of Lakeville Bullefn BaaN u.a'reoaa cm wa~a Meatinpe "Fxueee Lekavllle' 'Lekavllle Mfoeepes' roo-cair •LPO.loumer ~I "Leksvilla KklcBGOVemmenY "IwiEe Lekavllle' SpadalProgrema 0 ZO 40 ~ BO ~Frepuentl ~OCCBebrlall oenaioe Reraumee, Lm Public Transit to Downtown 2007 City of Lakeville No 81% Yes 9% Deasion Resources, Lid Tax Increase for Public Transit 2007 City of Lakeville fY NS yayyly Favor 4Paa ~ aa~F~w in iry' Urur~ en~u ay t% see.yh avea•• s aw.eb WVe.~ MY SY More ParkinBB Bus Routes GOm Bus Rou[esirom LakevJle Omer Ckbs Geciaon Rawmws, LW. 13 Decision Resources Survey Tracking 1999 % 2001 % 2005 °k 2007 1 Approximately how many years have you lived in Lakeville Less than one year 1 4 3 4 _.._One or two years 12 9 9 7 Three to five years 24 18 17 15 Six to ten years 25 25 25 24____.-,-. ....Eleven 20 years 21 23 29 27 __21 to 30 years _ >20 = 18 11 10 15 Over 30 years 10 7 9 _ - --Refused N/A--- 0 0 0 2 In what city and state did you live before moving to Lakeville Always in Lakeville 3 „ _ 6 3 _ 2 Eagan 6 8 10 7 Burnsville 13 16 12 13 Ample valley _ 5__,_ 8 9 il _ _ Rest Dakota Srntt Co 7 7 8 7 I _ . . Rural Minnesota 10 9 7 10 Minneapolis 10 5 10 9 ___Rest of Hennepin Co. 7 12 7 _ _ 6 .Bloomington _8.-.-..-. _-N[A 6 6 - Rest of Metro Area 9 1 7 6 Out of state 20 24 19 20 Farmington N/A _ N/A 2 3 3 If "out of state" in #2, Which state? Wisconsin 23 12 14 24 -Iowa --9 8 _ _ North Dakota 5 8 5 N/A South Dakota 4 N/A 3 2 Illinois 7 5 9 12 East Coast N/A 11 8 7 South 13 18 11 _ West -N~A 13 13 Rest of Midwest 9 14 19 Northwest 8 8 N/A Out of the Count N/A N/A N/A 5 4 As things now stand, how long in the future do you expel to live in Lakeville Less than one year 3 3 4 3 One to two~rs 5 __4 2 _ Three to five years. 7 8 8 7 Six to ten years 7 8 9 8____ ---Over ten-years 56 _56 6$----- 73------- ------Don't know /refused 22.---- 22 9 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 5 Thinking back to when you moved to Lakeville, what factors were most important to you in selecting this location? _ Don't know/refused 3 5 3 2 Location 23 19 13 14 Schools 16 16 20 26 _ .-.-_Available housing _ _ 18 21 _ 23 _ 21 _ _ Rural/Small town 21 20 16 15 Well planned _ _ N/A.... _.__N[A N/A Near job 8 10 13 9 Near family 7. 6 10 9 --Scattered 2 N/A 4 3 If response given in Q#5.• 6 How would you rate Lakeville on that today, excellent, -good, only fair-or poor Excellent 28 24 39 32 Good 54 57 43 52 Only Fair _ - 12 11 10 10 Poor _ 5 7 4 4 -Don't know /Refused --2_... 2 4 2 7 How would you rate the_quality of life. in Lakeville?__-_-_ Excellent _ _ 38 39 47 45 - Good 54 53 48 52 Only Fair,- . 6 ? 5 3- Poor . _ -1-._ --1 0 ....--1-- ......Don tknow Refused 0 1 ---0_ 8 What do you,like MOST about Irving in Lakeville Don't know/refused 2 2 3 3 _Nothin~._- _2 ---1 2 . N/q Location 34 31 25 26 Schools 5 6 8 13 People 3 8 11 9 _Qwet[peaceful 14 _ 11 9 - _8 Small town ambience 19 17 19 12 Open space 10 _ ? 5 - 5 - Neighborhood 7 8 10 9 _Qty services _ 3 2 3 ----Safe.----- --z--- 6----- _-----Suburban 2 --3----- Parks and trails N/A._ _N/A --3---__ Scattered 3 2 2 1 9 What do you_like,_LEP,ST-about it Don't know refused 17 7 5 7 Nothing- - 14_.-.- _20 _ 23 18 Taxes 10 11 9 16 -2- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 Growth/crowding_ _ _ 31 32 26 22 Nothing.to do N/A N/A N/A 3 Roads/traffic 5 4 19 14 Schools N/A N/A N/A 3 Gty government 6 4 2 2 Gty services 2 1 2 3 Location N/A N/A N/A 3 . _ Lack of retail N/A 8 5 N/A Lack of restaurants NJA 2 N/A Need More ehoppin~ _ N/A N/A _NJA , 5 Scattered -5--- ....-.-.-._3 6 6 10 Which of these statements comes closer to your feelings? (A) I call Lakeville "home" (B) Lakeville is just a place to live; I'd be just as happy elsewhere. Statement A 68 77 75 84 Statement B 21 20 21 15 Neither 5 _ 0 1 0 Don't Know/Refused 5 0 0 0 11 During your time in Lakeville, from what you have seen or heard, do you feel that there has been an increase, a decrease, or no change in the strength of community identity and the sense of neighborliness? Increase 26 39 33 _ 29 Decease 20 18 18 20 No Change 38 39 46 47 Don't Know/Refused 16 5 4 5 12 In Comparison with nearby areas, do you feel that the property taxes in Lakeville are very high, somewhat high, about average, somewhat low, or_ very lows Very High_ N/A _ N/A NJA _ _ 14 Somewhat Huh _ N/A, , N/A N/A _ 43 ---About Average N/A_-- N/A --_.N/A 37 Somewhat Low N/A N/A N/A 2 _ _Very Low_ _ _ N/A_- N/A N/A _ _ 0 Don't Know/Refused N/A N/A N/A 4 13 When you consider the properly taxes you pay and the quality of city services you receive, would you rate the general value of city services as excellent, good, only fair, or oor? p _ Excellent it 19 15 12 Good 56 58 58 67 _ Only Fair 20.-- 18 - - 2D 17 Poor 5 3 3 2 ...........Don't know/refused._... 8 3 4 3 -3- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 How wou/d you rate the quality of these Gty services? 14 Police protection? Excellent 23 _ _ 38 34 4Z Good 50 53 56 49 Fair 15 4 3 6 ..Poor 3 2 1-.-.-.___-- , ? . Don t KnowJRefused_ 8 4 6 2 15 Fire protection? Excellent 16 37 32 38 Good_ _ 50 50 54 52 Fair 13 3 1 3 --..._____Poor.._-.-:-.-.-._ _l.._-..... . 1 Don't Know/Refused 19 10 12 7 16 Storm drainage and flood control Excellent 12 16 18 18 Good 57 57 62 65 Fair 14 15 8 10 Poor 7 2 4 2 Don't Know/Refused 11 11 9 6 17 Park maintenance? Excellent 20 36 28 28 Good 50 54 65 61 Fair 17 6 3 8 Poor 1 1 0 1 Don't Know/Refused 12 4 4 3 18 Animal control? N/A Excellent _ _ _ 16 16 18 Good 60 67 60 Fair 12 7 12 Poor _ 4 3 4 Don't Know/Refused 8 8 6 19 Street maintenance Excelle_n__t__ 10 16 16 14 Good 67 64 63 60 Fair 17 15 15 20 --------Poor---------------------- ------4 --_.-..5.........._- - ---4---------- -----6 Don't Know/Refused 3 1 2 0 _ Wh~did you-only rate ( as.only fair or poor? _ ----Unsure.----- _ - - - 3 Loose animals 16 Floodmg _ 15 Potholes 21 Poor street maintenance 4 Slow street maintenance 4 Slow police/fire response time_ 7 _ Clogged storm drains _ _ _ 9 Slow plowing_ 4 - Trash and litter in parks 4 -4- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 ,Weeds and tall grass in parks 3 Need more police patrolling _ 6 ,Scattered 5 20 If you could direct the LPD to place a greater emphasis on certain activities, which of the following would you want the department to focus their resources on? Traffic enforcement 10 12, 11 Patrol of neighborhoods _ 28 27 30 Patrol of commercial areas 0 2 1 Came prevention 22 15 19 Community involvement 14 7 7_-_-- Drug enforcement 17 34 19 Something else.. . 2 0 1.____.----- Don't know/refused 8 4 3 21 Do you feel safe in your neighborhood walking alone at night? Yes 91 92 88 No 8 8 10 Don tknow/refused 1 0 3 22 (if no to Q21) What could the LPD do to increase your feeling of safety --------Unsure.--- 10----... _-___Nothn9_.-._ 21--- _ More police patrolling,.,, 49 More street lights _ 18 -------Scattered- 3 23 Are there other areas in Lakeville where you do not feel safe walking alone at night? If yes, which areas of Lakeville come to mind? Unsure.---- 16....... ti------ - -.-.-No 63_-.-.-. 78 Parks and trails 22 35 4 Downtown 15 19 4 _ Everywhere 32 21 4 Trailer parks 7 _6 2 Scattered 13 2 24 Do.you currently have a.child in school? Yes - _ - - ---.-..47 _ No 53 25 (If yes Q#24) Are you aware of Lakeville's SRO program? _ - 40 Yes ------No------- 58-----_ Don't know /Refused 2 -5- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 26 (If yes to Q#25) How would you.rate that program Excellent 21 Good 60 Only Fair_. .9-- _-,_-.-_Poor 0 Don't know/refused 9 27 In the past two years, have you called the Fire Dept. .about a fire or-for arescue/emergency situation _..._Yes..-.-_.._._-...__...._...._.....---- 9._...__._. No 92 91 28 (If yes to #27) How would you rate the service provided by the Lakeville Fire Dept? _ _ _ Excellent 72 64 Good 25 28 _Only fair__ 3 _ _ 6 Poor - 0 0 Don't know/refused 0 3 29 Are you aware of the City's fire prevention activities such as school presentations, fire station tours, open houses, safety camp or national night out? .............Yes 78---.-.-... - No _ - 22 - 30 If yes to #29, has a member of your household attended any of these fire prevention activities Yes 59 --No------ - - - _ - 41 - Don't know refused 1 . 31 Haw did you-hear about this activity? Schools 32 Local newspaper 41 City website 1 Signs 4 Word of mouth 14 Don't know /Refused 4 Scattered 3 32 How would you rate the general condition and appearance of properties in your neighborhood ..............Excellent _ 45 ----52--- 39-. 36-.-.-._.__.. Good 48 41 52 58 Onlyfair_- 6 5 8 -6 Poor 0 2 1 0 Don't know /Refused - D 5 1 -6- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 33 If only fair or "poor", why do you feel that way? Rundown homes 29 39 Messy yards _ _ 36 35 -----__Junk.cars_. - 3 15__,.._.,.-.-_ Poor lawn care 24 N/A Outside storage _ 9 4 Scattered N/A 8 34 Do you feel the City is too tough, about right, or not tough enough in enforcing the City Code on such nuisances as junk cars, messy yards, weeds or tall grass and outside_stor_age?,_.-.____ ___Tootough- 3 3 3 About right 60 67 _ 66 -.-_._.-..Not touch-enou9h...... 25 . _..___._24 Don't know/refused 15 6 7 35 If "too tough" or "not tough enough" in Q-34, why do -.you feel, that way? Junk cars 18--._.. 24 -24 ------Me~Yards 8 _ 26 32 Weeds/tall grass, 19 10 16 Outside storage 13 10 12 Uneven enforcement 31 _ 13 10 Loose animals _ 1 Rundown homes 5 2 Multi le violations 1 - p - - - Don t know refused-- 2 _ 4 3 36 Other than voting, do you feel that if you wanted to, you could have a say about the way the City of Lakeville runs thin s? - - _ - Yes 45 60 6D _------.No..----.... 37--- ---36 _..__34------- Don't know/refused 19 4 7 37 How much do you feel you know about the work of the Mayor and City Council - a great deal, a fair amount, or very.little Great deal 12 5 3 Fair amount 38 39 41 Very little_ 46 55 55 Don't kn_ow[refused 4 1 1 38 From what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the job the Mayor and City Council are doing? And do you-feel strongly that-wad? , ---Stronglyapprove...-.-.-.-._ - _-15__ 15 11 _-__Somewhat approve.------------------------------------- . 50- _ 57 _.-..-.-.-.__69 _ Somewhat disapprove _9_. - _-__8 4 -7- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 Strongly disapprove. _ 9 4 2 _ Don't know/refused 16 16 14 39 How much first-hand contact have you had with the Lakeville City. staff, quite a lot,.some, very littler none? Qude a-lot 9 __5 „ . 4 ....Some - 26,-- -._29 - 32 _ _ Very little_ 47 _ _ 41 41 None 17 25 23 40 From what you have seen or heard, how would you rate the job performance o the Lakeville City staff Excellent 12 13 ll Good „ 52-.-.-.-.. 59 59 Only fair.-._ 16 9 Poor 3 3 1 Don't know/refused 17 16 16 41 Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that Could be better _ 35 14 24____ Didn t listen 19 35 27 Rude 4 3 Poor communication 35 33 Don t know/refused 3 12 9 , - Scattered_._ _ 5_.__ ---12 3.------ 42 In general, do you think the City of Lakeville's emphasis on environmental concerns is too high, about right, or too low? Too~h_ 3 _ 4 6 About right,. 55 78 75 Too low 20 11 10 Don tknow [Refused 22 7 10 43 _-~If too low) why do you feel that, ways - ----Unsure...--- _ 3-------- Too much growth 23 Losin~open spaces 23 Losing wetlands 26 Losin9 trees 10 Trash and fitter m.city 8 Need more recycling 8 44 Have you visited any of Lakeville's lakes within the past two years? Yes 58 70 No 41 29 Don't know ~ Refused 1 1 -8- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 2007 45 Which lake do you visit most often? Lake Marion 79 Orchard Lake 10 Crystal lake 7 Valley Lake -__,_-...4 .Something else, „ 0 Don't know/refused 0 46 How would you rate the water quality in that lake - excellent~good~ only fair or poor?___ ------Excellent___....... 6 . _ _ _.-.-.-.-_Good 66 -Only fair. 26 Poor 6 Don tknow /Refused 6 The Lakeville Park system is composed of trails, athletic facilities, larger community parks and smal/er neighborhood parks. Of these four types of facilities, which do members of your household use? 47 Trails _._Use.--- - - -51- - _ .-.-.-5$ 59 58----- Non-use 45 42 41 38 Don tknow /Refused 4 0 _ 0 4 48 Athletic facilities ----__Use 38 37 41 42 Non-use 59 63 59 52 Don't know /Refused 3 0 0 6_ _ _ 49 Larger communityparks?.,..., Use _ 62 74 63 69 Non-use 35 26 37 28 _-.-.-....Don't know /Refused _ 3 0 0 . 3 SO Smaller,neighborhood parks Use 68 74 69_-_...__ 1i9 . Non-use 29 2S 31 29 .Don't know /Refused . _ 3 1 0 2 - From what you have seen or heard, how would you rate the quality of each component in the park system? 51 Trails? _ _ _ _ Excellent 21 26 22 22 Good 43_ „ 44 SO 34 Fair 4 4 3 3 ---__-.Poor ......1.-.-.-._ 0 Don't know/refused__ 31 26.... 26 42- 52 Athletic facilities? Excellent 16 19 15 17 Good 34 40 43 21 _-----Fair _ _ -6--- --3 4.----- 3-------- ----Poor----- - . .-i_-. - 0 1-------- -9- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 Don't know/refused 42 38 39 58 53 Larger community parks? _ Excellent 26 35 21 32 Good 47 46 54 36 Fair 3 4 4 2 -----Poor . 1---- _ 0 4...-.-..__._ Don't know/refused 23 16 22 31 54 Smaller neighborhood parks Excellent _17 30 18 25 Good 55 53 59 40 Fair _ 6 6 7 3 Poor 1 0 1 1 Don't know/refused 21 11 16 31 SS Doyou feel thepark.trails are adequately lit at nic,~ht?__ _ _.-._Ye5 _ 24.. -----No .-------24 Don't know/refused 52 56 Doyou feel safe walking on the park trails at night? - ---Yes - _ - - .34 - NO 16 Don't know/refused 50 57 (If no to Q-56).why do you-feel.that_way?-------------------------.-------_--_..- _ ...Unsure.-.-..-. 3------- Not enough lights.---._ 61 Seduded...- _ 14---- -----Never safe at_night - 14 _ -Not enough people around 5 Troublesome Youth 2 Recent crime at park 2 58 How high a priority would you make lighting more trails at night -,top_pnority, high,.medium, low, or not at all? To riori 4 ----High_priorjty- 15 Medium_priority 43 Low~riority 23 Not a priority at all 8 Don't know/refused 8 Many cities have established movab/e skate parks throughout their city for chi/dren to skateboard and rollerblade. 59 Would you support or oppose Lakeville establishing movable skate_parks throughout the City?_- _ ----SuPP°-rt- 67 DPP°~..._ 21----- -------Don't_know/refused.-- - 12 _ -10- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 60 Which of the following events at the Lkvl Area Arts Cntr have you or members of your household attended? Lakeville Arts Festival 12 The Taste of Lakeville 16 ___A concert or play . _ 15 An art class or summer art camp activity 2 Multiple.__. . 13 Don t knowJrefused „ 18 _----NOne _ 24------ For each of the fo/%wing events or performances, which would be you very likey to attend, somewhat like/y, not too likely or not at all likely? 61 Concerts? Very likely. ----17 Somewhat likely _ 50 _ __...Not too likely..._ _ 15 Not at all likely _ 16 Dan"t know/refused 2 62 Pla s? Very likely 16 Somewhat likely 4P_. Not too likely 19 Not at all likely _ 24 Don't know/refused 1 63 Children s theater Very likely_ _ _ _ _ 15 Somewhat likely _ „ _a 32 Not too likely 20 ,Not at all likely _ 32 Don't know/refused 1 64 Comedians? Very likely _ 14 - - - Somewhat likely 41 -----Not too likely----- 16 Not stall hkely_,_,_,_____ „ 29 Don't know/refused 2 List of places the LAAC activities have been advertised.• Have you seen these advertisements? 65 _-Lakeville-Area_Arts Center Playbill _ _Yes.. 34 _.._NO . 65---- Don tknow Refused 2 66 Lakeville Parks & Recreation Brochure Yes - _ _ . - 69 No 31 Don t know ~ Refused 1 67 Lakeville Community Education News -11- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 -------Yes 61 _ ---No--------------------. _ _ 38--_ Don't know / Refuse__d_ 1 68 Lakeville cable television _Yes...___.._._. _ 30. _ No--...----- 70_.------ Don tknow 1 Refused 1 69 The City s web site Yes 18 No 81 Don tknow /Refused _ . 1 70 Local newspapers _ Yee _.._.,78 N~ - _ . 21 Don't know /Refused 1 71 Do you feel that Lakeville residents have an adequate opportunity for input into the zoning and land decision- makin rocess? 9 P - Adeguate_-. 32 48 „ 50 Inadequate 33.,_._ 35 29 Don tknow (Refused 35 17 21 72 If "inadequate", what change or improvement would you like to see made? Don't know /Refused 1 8 . 9_ More commune involvement 4 28 24 tY _ - More information 28 26 12 Qty listen-more 13 24 _ 36 _-Land overdeyeloped_ _ . 31 11 11 Develop comprehensive plan___ 2 N/A _ 5 _Other..-----. 4--- 3 73 Does development across the city seem well planned for the future of Lakeville? _____--Yes _ 41 59 69 68 No 19 17 15 14 Sometimes 16 16 7 9 Don tknow /Refused 24 8 9 „ . 10 _ _ 74 _If"No" to_Q#731 Why do you feel.that way? GrowinQtoo fast_ _ __.._57 53 33 Poorly..Qlanned 10 36 32 Still need things - _ _13 3 - 22 Overcrowded Schools N/A N/A 6 ----Losing open space---- N/A 3 N/A - Don't know /Refused _.-_N/A 2_._-.-.-_-. N/A Scattered 11 3 6 -12- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 Part of the process for the Crfy to update their 2008 comprehensive land use plan is to seek input from a/I interested residents. 75 Would you be interested in giving the City input for the comprehensive plan? If yes, how would you prefer to give-that input? _ E-mail 18 16 Survey in the mail 37 34 Neighborhood me_etmgs.,. _ 9 19 All of the Above N/A 1 Something else__- _ 0 N~A_.__,-._-- Don't know /Refused 17 10 _.._.._No _ _ _ 19 -21. 76 Which of the following types of development in Lakeville wouldyouu make the top priority,for the, cites _ Single family homes 31 36 28 .Apartments 1_._- 2 Townhomes 2 2 3 - Professional-business offices 5 3 1 Commercial/retail stores/shops 21 28 32 _ Light industry 8 _,_,10 _ 17 None vol. 4 8 10 ------Multiple(vol~--------------------------------------------------------------........_6..- ___.-..__..-_10----.-....-----6------ Don tknow /Refused 3 3 3...-,__,__. 77 Do you think Lakeville's current housing supply is an adequate mix of all types of housing? Yes 78 83 No . _ _ _ - - 16 - - - ----16 Don't know /Refused 4 2 78 If No to Q-77, What type of housing do you think is needed in Lakeville? _Unsure-__._.. _.3 . _-~--3----- Middle income single family-homes 24 7 Apartments 18 10 --------Starter homes 53 48 Townhom_ es 3 8 No more Townhomes N/A 7 Semor Housing N/A 10 -----EverZthing N/A 8 The City encourages a variety of housing types in order to promote opportunities for people at a/I stages of their lives, from first time home buyers to senior citizens. 79 How would you rate the City's efforts to date in encouraging life_cyde housing in Lakeville?.-._-.-.-._-._-_-.-.-.-_.-.-._-.-.-_.-.-..-_-_____,_ Excellent 4 7 12 11 -------Good - _ _ 30 44 59 61 -13- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 -_._Only fair_..- 13.-___ 28 20 18 ------Poor . -1Q-_.. 10 3------- Don't know /Refused 42 12 8 7 80 In general, where do you make most of your purchases for yourself and your household Lakeville 4 9 31 _--Apple Valley SO - 56 47 Burnsville 21 24 13 Farmington_ 1 0 1 Someplace else 2 2 1 All over 18 7 6 Don't know /Refused 4 1 81 On average, how often do you make any purchases of goods or services for yourself or your household from business establishments in Lakeville? Daily 6 _...._6 -_WeeklY..-...-- 33 44 62 Two or three/monthly _ _ 19 17 : _ 16 Monthly 16 10 _ 7 _ .Rarely - - - _ 15_ --17 6 - - - Never------ _ .------...-......-._4.-.__ . -6 1 . Don't know /Refused 8 1 0 82 Where do you most often make your Lakeville purchases? SouthFork, 40 44 12 Lakeville Crossing _ 17 21 11 Lakeville Crossroads 30 TimberCrest 23 Heritage.Commons 1 Downtown Lakeville 23 26 21 .Somewhere Else 13 4 0 Don't know /Refused 6 1 1 83 What types of retail or service businesses would you like to see in Lakeville? Dan t knowL Refused 25 8 8 ------None--------- 19..._......- ---14 -----1_6---- Discount store 10 12 9 Grocery store _ _ 25 23 6 Restaurant 12 31 41 Hardware store 3 3 3 Clothing store 3 7 10 Specialty.store 4 Health club 2 ---------Scattered ---4.. -...--2 -------2--------- 84 Have you, moved to Lakeville in the-past two~rears~ . _ -14- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 Yes 11 12 9 -------No 77-._-.-. _ 91 - 85 If yes to Q-84, do you recall receiving a welcome packet in the mail,-includmg_th_e Resident Guidebook? Yes 36 74 80 No _ 23 18 Don't know /Refused 2 3 86 If yes to #85, how helpful was the guidebook in informing you-about-City government and it services? _ _ __Very helpful 44 44 ____..29 Somewhat helpful _ 44 _ _ 47 46 Not too helpful 13 0 4 Not at all helpful 0-„-_.., 0 11 Don't know Refused 0 9 , „ 11 87 Do you recall receiving new resident informatioh from any othersource? Yes 23 No - 71 Don't know /Refused 6 88 If yes to #87~-was the information from _ Chamber of Commerce 13 Welcome Wagon 38 - School District 13 Somethi~ Else _ _ 13 Don't knpw1 Refused 25 89 Was the information helpful in informing you about City ovemment? g Yes.... - _ 75 _-._.._No--- - - - _ - ---13 Don't know /Refused 13 90 During the past year do you recall seeing the "Messages" page.in Thisweek Life_and times.newspaper? _ Yes _ - 65 82 74 73 _-.-_-.--No 33 18 26 27 Don tknow [Refused 2 0. 0 _ 0 _ _ 91 Were you aware that °Messages" is produced by the City _,and_serves as the City's_weekly newsletter? _Yes 74 ----NO _ 26 Don't know /Refused 0 92 Do you or any members of your household regularly read it? -15- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 Yes 82 70 87 -----__No ...._18 30------- 13 Don't know /Refused 0 0 1 93 If yes to #92, what types of information do you like most reading.in Messages? _ _ Unsure 8 Community events 24 Current news 13 Gty services 3 _ Parks and Recreation offenngs 4 Road construction 32 General information 4 Development protects 6 Job listings _ 4 Scattered-..., _ 3,----- 94 What other types of information would be helpful or interesting in Messages?..... - Unsure 31 -Nothing _ _ 35 Community events 6 -City services 3, Park and Recreation Offerings .3 General Information 2 Development ProJeds 10 Crime reports _ _ 2 Codes and ordinances 3 Council minutes 2 Scattered 4 95 Do you think the current weekly format provides useful information? Yes 99 No 0 Don't know /Refused 1 96 Would you be more likely to read the City newsletter if it were in a more convenient location. in the newspaper? _ - Yes 11 No 84 ---Don tknow /Refused _ - _ _ -5 - 97 Would you be more likely to read the City newsletter if it -came in a different form,-other_than in the newspaper? -Yes - - - - - - 31 - _ No 62 67 _--Don tknow /Refused - 98 If yes to #97~ would~ou prefer it-to be directly mailed_to -16- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 your home quarterly, be included quarterly in your utility bill or some other format? Mailed to home 15 35 Utility bill - 9 53_ Other format 6 7 Don't know /Refused 7 5 99 Which of the following would you say is your primary source of information about City government and activities? .Messages- - 11 8---- 9 -City website 1 4--- -6- ThisWeek Life & Times 54 51 55 Sun Current 13 12 14- Pioneer Press 5 5 3 Star Tribune 7 4 Channel 16 _,,...-9 , 9 6 ..-_Something else _ 3 3 ? - Don't know /Refused _ 0 2 2 100 Do you feel adequately informed about City govemment and its activities? Yes 82 $1------ --------N~ _ 15 18------- Don't know /Refused 3 1 101 If no to Q-1D0, what types of additional information would you-like? _.-_.-.-.-.-.-._Unsure ______.._--26------- ---Nothing..-.__. - Taxes 3 Council minutes 9 Development pro~eds 26 Road construction 2 All types _ 16 Parks and Recreation 2 Community events 2 -_.-.Scattered 8 - 102 Do you have access to the Internet at home or work? Yes 64 84 83 91 NO----- - - - 36--- -16 18---.-.-. Don't know /Refused 0 0 0 0 103 If yes, have you visited, the City s.website? ....Yes 38 55 37 -----No - - - - 62.....-- -45 - 62 - Don tknow /Refused ~ . 0 -17- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 104 If yes, What did you use the website fore Unsure 7 , City services 7 General information 13 Community events 11 Crime reports _ 2 Codes and ordinances 15 Development protects 8 Parks and recreation offerings-_ _ _ 19 Council minutes 2 Job listmgs 5 Road construction 2 School information 8 Scattered 2 105 What additional information would you like to see on the City of Lakeville's website? Unsure 34 _---Nothing-- - - 43 _ Community events 7 Development protects 3... Parks and recreation offerings-_ 2 Council minutes 2 Road construction 2 Current news 2 Scattered 4 106 Would you be interested in using the City's website to conduct business with the City online instead of in person - .-....Yes . - ----60 . NO . _ . . _ - _ _ 44. - Don't know /Refused 0 107 If yes, what kinds of city services would you like to see offered on the City's website Unsure - 37 Bill payment _ 31 Doc license 3 Drivers license tabs 7 Park and recreation registration 5 Permits 15 Scattered 3 For each of the fo/%wing potential website services, tell me if you would be interested in that service. 108 Utilitybill,payment Yes _ 77------. ---No 23 -18- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 2007 Don't know /Refused - - - - 0 109 File or request-a police report? „ , Yes 81 No 18 Don't know /Refused _ 1 110 Doy-_license application -----Yes _ 69 ----.-.-Na - - _ 28_ _ Don't know /Refused 3 111 How interested would you be in receiving the City newsletter via email? . Very interested _ 13 Somewhat interested 16 Not too interested 32 Not at all interested 37 Don tknow (Refused 2 112 If "very interested" or "somewhat interested" which of the following types of information are you most interested in? Parks and Recreation classes _ 26 Arts Center classes 1 Police Chief's newsletter 2 _ Police bulleting and~ress releases 9 Fire Chief's newsletter 0 City Administrator s newsletter 5 Economic Development newsletter 5 Road Construction updates & information 13 City Calendar 6 Multiple__ _ 30 Don't know /Refused 3 RE: High Speed Wipe%ss Internet access 113 Would you support or oppose Lakeville offering high- . speed Internet access? Do you feel strongly.that way? _ strongly support 29 Support 41 -_~pPo~--- 10 Strongly oppose 4 -Don t know J Refused 16 114 If strongly support or support, If Lakeville were to offer high-speed wireless Internet access haw much would you_be.willing.topeyper month for that service? _ Less than $20 41 -19- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 $25 31 $30 13 $35 3 Over $35 1 Don't. know /Refused 11 115 Does your household currently subscribe to cable television, satellite televis_io_ n or neither Cable 64 71 64 67 Satellite 10 30 22 24 Neither 14 10 Don't know /Refused 0 0 116 If Cable, how often do you watch the Lakeville Government Channel 16? Frequent - 10...._ 11 - $ 3 .Occasionally 54 54 45 41 Rarely- NSA- ..NSA....... N/A 20 _ Never 34 35 47 36 Don tknow /Refused 2 0 0 D If frequently or occasionally to Qi16, how often do you watch the following programs? 117 Bulletin Board listing of meetings, events and information? Frequently 8 8 6 7 _Occasionally 59 61 63 65__.__-,_ Do not watch it 33 31 30 27 Don't know) Refused 0 2 2 118 Live or taped_re-broadcasts of City_Council meetings _ _ Frequently is _ ,15 15 8 Oaasionally 66,-__ 7D 55 65 Do not watch it 19 14 29 26 Don't know /Refused 1 2 1 _ 119 Focus on Lakeville? Frequent _ 3 5 ___Occasionall~___.-._ _ 50 45 Do not watch it 45 49 Don tknow-[ Refused 2 2 120 Lakeville Messages N program?__ Frequently _ 6 6 4 4_ . Oaasionally 55 61 41 442 Do not watch it 37 33 53 52 Don't know /Refused 1 0 2 2 _ 121 Lakeville Fire Department's On Call"~ Frequently 1 4 Oaasionally 22 24 Do not watch it 75 69 ---Dontknovi /Refused - - 2----__.. 4......-.-._... 122 Lakeville Police Department s'~LPD Journal'? -20- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 Freq_uently 8 7 7 5 Occasionally 48,-,- 47 _ 45 46 Do not watch it 42 45 46 47 Don't know /Refused 2 1 2 1 123 Lakeville Kids and Government _Freq_uentlY-.. . 3 2 2..-----__.. _ Occasionally 30 29 31 Do not watch it 65 67 63 Don't know /Refused 3 2 5 124 Is there any additional government-related programming „you would like to see offered on Channel 16? Unsure 7 No 86 City planning _ _ 4 School events/athletics 3 125 Were you aware that the City manages and operates all liquor store facilities within the City of Lakeville _ _ _ _ Yes - - 91 - - No 9 Don't know /Refused 0 126 Are you aware that the profits from the liquor operation provide money for Lakeville services and assists in reducing taxes? Yes 74 No 25 _ Don't know /Refused 1 127 Have you ever visited one of Lakeville s liquor_stores? 84 ----Yes------ _ 16...----- _ No 1 Don tknow /Refused If yes to Q127, please rate your experience in the liquor store 128 Customer service? Excellent - - 45 Good 48 Fair 5 Poor 1 Don t knova (Refused 0 129 Product selection? Excellent 33 Good 58 Fair 7 ---Poor . - O - Don t,know (Refused 1 130 Pnces? - -21- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 ExcellenE --,_..12 --------Good...-._- 62 _ Fair 21 -...-.-....Poor - Don't know /Refused _ 3 _ 131 Location? Excellent 36 Good 59 Fair 5 _Poor 0 Don't know /Refused 0 132 Restricting sales to minors? Excellent 37 Good 44 Fair 4 Poor 0 Don't know /Refused 15 133 What is the main reason you shop at Lakeville liquor stores? Convenient location 84 Financial benefit 9 Product selection 2 Prices 2 Staff 0 Something else 2 Don't know /Refused 1 134 Do you regularly use public transit or the HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle).lane on I35W? No 86 82 89 Yes/~ublictransit 3 4 2 Yes / HOV lane 10 12 8 Something else _ _i 1 0 Don't know /Refused 1 2 D For each of the fo/%wing transit services, wou/d you be likely to use it, if it was offered? 135 Bus service from Lakeville to downtown Minneapolis? Very Likely _ ? 9 _ _ _ 8 Somewhat Likey__-____ _ 17 _ 14_ 13 Not too likely 19 23 14 .Not at all like~_.-._-.-__~ 51 53 65 Don tknow / Refused_ 7 2 1 136 Sen_ i_or bus service? Very Likely 2 Somewhat Likely _ 5 _ Not too likes-- _ - 9 -----Not at a.ll likely_----- 82 Don tknow /Refused 2 -22- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 137 Bus service for physically challenged or disabled residents? Very Likely 1 Somewhat Likely 3 _Not too likely 7 -------Not at all likely---- 88 Don tknow Refused 2 138 Would you favor or oppose the City providing peak and non-peak bus servce for the above? _ - _ _ Strongly favor--- - - 26 Favor,._ 49 O~pose___-- _ 10 Stron4lY._4PPos? . 3 Don't know /Refused 13 139 If "strongly favor or favor" (Q-138) would you still favor the City providing bus service if a properly tax increase of about X40 a year were necessary to fund_the service? Yes _ 67 ---VeiX..Likely _ _ 25 - --Somewhat Likely----- Of these reasons why people might NOT use public transportation for travel needs, which apply to you? 140 I prefer-to drive my-own vehicle-------------------------------.-.-.-.--- - Yes 72 75 82____-- - --N~ _ _ - 19.... __._Z~ i$ Don't know /Refused 10 5 1 141 Public transportation is inconvenient Yes 63 53 61 No 25 39 35 Don tknow /.Refused_____ 13 9 4 142 I have safety concerns about public transportation Yes 8 10 12 No 72 83 86 Don tknow /Refused 20 8 2 143 Public trens~ortation does not go where I need to go _ Yes 53 63 67 No 19 24 30 ---Don't know / .Refused. - - - -28 ----14 - - 4 For demographic purposes: 144 Do you have either afull-time or part-time home based business operated out of your home? If yes, is the home-based business operated by just yourself, your spouse orpartner, or by both of you? No 86 86 87 88 -Yes /self only . _ 8 _ 9 Yes /_spouse only--- 5 _ 2 -3..-- -23- 1999 % 2001 2005 % 2007 Yes /both --3 1 2 2 Don tknow /Refused 1 0 0 0 145 Are you currently employed outside your home? Yes 75 74 71 72 ......NO . . 25.--- ----z6 - 29 __ZB...---- Refused 1 0 0 0 146 __If yes~in what city is your fob located Lakeville 8 15 21 19 Bloomington 7 11 8 9 Burnsville 14 9 13 10 Mmnea~olis 16 16 12 16 Rest of Hennepin County 11 9 8 7 Eagan_____ 7 12 8 10 _APple Valley 3 ___6 _ _ S 6.. _ Ramses County__ _ 5 1 7 6 ...Rest of Dakota County SO _3 5 5 Varies -travel 8 _ 7 5 4 Out of Metro Area 4 2 2 2 Rest of Metro Area_ S _-.._____3 6.__..-.__. 3 -__Samt Paul N/A N/A _ N(A 2 147 Do you or your spouse or partner use any form of telecommuting to conduct business from your-home? Yes 22 21 23 No _ 78 79 78 Don"t know /Refused 0 0 0 How many peop/e in fhe fol%wing age groups live in your household? 148 Persons 65 or over None 89 93 89 90____._-._,__ One 4 4 4 4 Two or more 6 3 7 6 149 Adults under 65 None.. _ _ 9--- . ~ 8 One 8 11 12 7 Two 72 73 71 75 Three 8 7 7 10 Four or more 4 2 3 2 150 Children m Kindergarten through grade 12 None 51 52 52 54 One 24 20 19 17 Two _ _ 17 2.2 22 24 Three 7 6 6 5 Four or more 1 1 2 151 Prexhoolers? - _ None 81 81 79 82 -24- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 .One 12 15 15 16 Two or more 7 4 6 3 152 What is your age?. _ 18-24 2 7 4 3 25-34 20 20 14 10 35-44 33 35 38 37 45-54 25 23 23 25 55-64 10 13 13 15 65 and over 30 4 8 9 153 What is your occupation and, if applicable, the occupation ofyour spouse or partner? Refused N/A 4 3 Professional technical 21 32 31 33 Owner manager . 25 15 10 16 Clerical-sales 18 15 20 16 Blue collar 19 22 19 19 Retirees 10 10 12 12 Scattered 7 5 4 2 154 In which of the following income categories does your 2004 pre-tax_household income lie? _ - Under $25,000 - 5--- 3 3 1 _.$25 000 - $37,500_..- 4.-.-.-. 11 5 . 4 $37,501_- $SO~ODO--- _ - - _ 11 7 - ------$50,001 _$62,500__ 1D 19/ 10 14-._---- _ _ ------$621501.-.--_$75000._._.- 12 -13- -----$75,001_-_87,500--- 10--- ----17/- 9 -9----- _ $87501.-.--_$100,000.- - 11.__ 12 13 Over $100,D00 16-._-.- 23 _ - 21 _ 25 Don't Know 5 0 1 1 Refused 23 27 17 15 155 Gender Male _ 49 50 SO 50 Female 51 50 SO 50 156 City.Preanct _ Precinct 1 11 8 6 6 Precinct 2 11 8 6 6 Precnct 3 12 11 7 7 Precinct 4 11 11 10 10 Precinct 5 8 8 8 8 Precinct 6 11 10 7 7 Precinct 7 5 4 4 4 Precinct 8 9 8 9 9 Precinct 9 9 8 7 7 Precinct 10 6 6 9 9 Precinct 11 7 7 5 S -25- 1999 % 2001 % 2005 % 2007 Precinct 12 8 10 10 Precnct 13 4 4 4 Precinct 14 9 9 157 School District _ ISD 194 South /-West 32_--- 36 - 34 34 ISD 194 North /Central 40 34 37 37 ISD 192 10 9 11 11 ISD 196 18 21 18 18 -26- :!gem Nao 5 City of Lakeville ' ~ Community and Economic Development Memorandum To: Economic Development Commission From: David L. Olson, Community and Economic Development Director Copy: Steve Mieike, City Administrator Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist Date: June 19, 2007 Subject: Draft Airlake Airport Comprehensive Plan Update The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has been in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan for Airlake Airport for a number of months. The City recently received a draft copy of the proposed updated-plan. A copy of the Executive Summary of the draft document is attached. A copy of the full document is available for review at City Hall or on the MAC web site. The preferred alternative that MAC is recommended for Airlake Airport is a runway extension to 5,000 feet. They are recommending that this runway extension be completed in 10-15 years. MAC is also recommending that the south hangar be completed and "partially served" with sanitary sewer and water services. MAC is suggesting that agreements be pursued with the City and Eureka Township. Water service extensions are also being proposed for fire protection purposes. MAC is also recommending the installation of a stand-alone rest room in the existing north hangar area. One element that has been included in previous Comprehensive Plans for Airlake Airport is the future construction of a cross-wind runway. Based on wind data that has been collected from the On-airport station, analysis shows the existing primary runway meets the FAA recommended percentage for wind coverage. Based on this analysis and the limited incremental benefit that would be realized, a crosswind runway is not justified and thus no longer being recommended by MAC. Staff will be preparing comments on the draft plan for the Council's consideration in July. If the EDC has any comments, we will include them in the comments that are forwarded to the City Council. MAC • • s" ~ ~r~ ~ :Nt y , .i k ~ > ~ ' a r ~ E { y S ~i 4~ T~v~51r ~i4. ~ ~.'-'dL'o~~ng~LTer ~~.,Co~ s ~,prehens~i~ue Plan- ~ • ~ ~ _ mac, t t' .p _ J ¢s r ~ _ . °~~k i r- ~ ~ ~ ~ v~~ r` ~ 9 S/ y ~ Prepared by the Metropolitan Airports~Commissionr~ ~ ~ with°Assistance from FINTB Corp. n.- _ ~yfX _ Y~~~ ~ d ~ { , ~ -`-June 2007. R s '4c;, ~ isv~ T i ~ a ~ K" 1 s' ~ J .S. . n ~ , ~ e. m i ~ 1 _ srA ~ The Airlake Airport is located in Dakota County, approximately 16 miles south of the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport, 20 miles south of the City of Minneapolis, and approximately 25 miles southwest of the City of St. Paul. It lies within the borders of Eureka Township and abuts the southern border of the City of Lakeville. A small portion of the airport lies within the City boundaries. Airlake is one of seven airports owned and operated by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). See Figure 1-1. Airlake Airport consists of approximately 595 acres of land, and was purchased by the MAC in 1981. It has one runway (12-30) that is 4,098 feet long and 75 feet wide. There is an instrument approach (ILS/MALSR) to Runway 30. See Figures 1-2 and 1-3. The long term comprehensive plan update is a 20-year planning document, extending from 2005 to 2025. The last comprehensive plan update for Airlake was completed in 1989., That plan recommended extending the runway to 5,000 feet, constructing a 3,500 foot long crosswind runway and providing new hangar areas. Since that time, only additional hangar space has been constructed. ~ This report is organized into the following sections: • Inventory • Forecasts Airside and Landside Facility Requirements Alternatives • Environmental Considerations • Land Use Compatibility • Capital Improvement Program Costs Facility Implementation Schedule • Public Informational Process The inventory of existing conditions is used to establish a baseline of facilities and services available at the airport. The forecasts are used to determine the type of activity likely to occur at the airport and at what projected levels. Facility requirements use the forecasts to determine what facilities will be required to support the level of activity indicated by the forecast. The projected facility needs are compared to the existing infrastructure to determine if additional facilities at the airport will be needed in the future. The alternatives section identifies and analyzes the concepts considered for the airport, and indicates whether each alternative meets the needs of the airport as identified in the facility requirements chapter. In addition, the preferred alternative recommended for the airport is identified. The environmental considerations and land use sections discuss the existing and preferred alternative in relation to environmental issues, such as noise, and surrounding land use compatibility. The last sections identify the preferred alternative project items, lists costs and the proposed timeline for implementation. The final section outlines the public informational program that was followed, and summarizes any comments received during the document development process. vii r Forecasts were completed for both airport operations and based aircraft. Airlake operations for 2005 were estimated since there is no air traffic control tower. The estimate was calculated using an operations-per- based-aircraft average from the Flying Cloud Airport, which is similar to Airlake in fleet mix, runway length, and precision approach equipment. The based aircraft number for 2005/2006 comes from the MnlDOT aircraft registration data base. The forecast calculations take into account assumptions relating to the economy, fuel costs, fractional ownership, new very light jets (VLJs) just coming on the market, and general aviation taxes and fees. The baseline forecast assumes reasonable growth in all of these categories, and uses the FAA's forecast for fuel costs over the planning period. In addition to the baseline forecast, high and low range forecasts were prepared. These adjust the forecast assumptions from the baseline. In the high forecasts, it is assumed that the economy thrives, VLJs are very successful and fractional ownership increases. The opposite is used for the low forecasts. The reason for the range is to make note of the variability in the forecast assumptions. As will be discussed in this document, one of the concepts for Airlake includes an extended runway. Therefore, a forecast assuming a runway extension was also prepared. Table ES-1 shows the forecast figures for Airlake. Aircraft operations for 2005 were estimated at 57,001. The maximum number of operations the airport can handle, the annual service volume, is 230,000 operations. Therefore, from an airside standpoint, the airport is at 25% capacity. Even under the high scenario, the forecasted number of operations in 2025 does not trigger the need for additional runways at Airlake. The historical high for operations at Airlake occurred in 1994, with approximately 82,000 annual operations. The based aircraft registered for Airlake is 158 aircraft. There are estimated to be 160 actual indoor hangar spaces at the airport. That means the current landside capacity equates to about 99%. The historical high number of registered aircraft was in 2003 with 190 aircraft. The airport has more than 30 outside tie-down locations, which is how many more aircraft were stored at that time. Counting both indoor and outdoor storage, the landside capacity is about 83%. Table ES-1 Forecast Summa OPERAT{ONS 2005 57,001 57,001 57,001 57,001 2010 84,275 84,275 90,117 58,590 2015 93,558 93,558 103,548 60,546 2020 99,421 99,701 114,182 61,519 2025 105, 500 106,060 133,461 61,325 BASED AIRCRAFT 2005 158 158 158 158 2010 225 225 241 155 2015 234 234 260 153 2020 237 238 277 148 2025 239 241 290 141 viii ~ ~ - . . ~ ES.3.1 No Build Alternative The concept of a true no build alternative was not one of the general concepts: brought forth for comments in the public involvement process. A "no build" alternative would include no runway improvements, no changes to the airfield at all, and no hangar area development within the 20 year planning period. Since this concept includes a true no-build scenario, there are no related proposed projects or concept costs. However, it should be noted that the existing runway will need reconstruction within the 20-year planning period. Bituminous pavements rarely see a life longer than 2D years, and that is achieved only with solid pavement maintenance practices. The only difference between this no-build concept and the first general concept is the proposed construction of addiiioi ai hangar space. The justification ~ and reasoning behind additiona! hangar spaces are discussed in Section 4.1.2 as a part of that concept analysis. This justification explains why a no-build alternative does not meet the needs of the airport. ES.3.2 Hangar Area Development There is an existing demand and forecasted growth of based aircraft that cannot be accommodated with the existing number of hangars at the airport. While there are tie-dawn locations available, very few pilots will select outside storage as a way to permanently store their aircraft. The potential risks from wind and hail damage in the summer, combined with ice, snow and cold engine issues in the winter preclude outdoor storage as an option far many aircraft owners. The following table summarizes the forecasted need for additional hangar space: Table ES-2 Based Aircraft S ace Demands - ~ . - Current Number of Re istered Aircraft 158 Calculated Available Space within Existin Han ars 160 2 within existing hangars; 2010 Forecast 225 65 New 2015 Forecast 234 9 New 2020 Forecast 237 3 New 2025 Forecast 239 2 New 79 New Spaces by the end of TOTALS the plannin eriod ix Completion of the previously graded south hangar area is the preferred area for hangar development. This area can accommodate nearly all of the expected 20-year growth in based aircraft, and is also shown in Figure ES-1. Additional hangar space will accommodate the existing demand and forecasted increase in based aircraft. In addition, there is little cost to MAC since the construction of new hangar areas are to be charged to tenants who lease space within that area. Other considerations given to this concept are listed in Section 4.1.2. While this option is not the preferred concept, the development of additional hangar spaces is included in the preferred alternative. ES.3.3 Reduce ILS Minimums on Existing Runway with Hangar Area Development Runway 30 has an instrument landing system (ILS) that consists of a localizer antenna for horizontal guidance, a glideslope antenna for vertical guidance, and an aooroach lightina system to help locate the runway when landing. This system allows for landings in inclement weather, but it is limited to one mile visibility. This means that if a pilot cannot see the approach lighting system when one mile away from the end of the runway, they are not supposed to land at the airport. Improving this approach minimum limitation will allow for more landings when the cloud ceilings and visibilities are low. ILS systems can have'/• mile or even Ys mile visibility approach minimums. This alternative suggests reducing the approach minimums to %mile. While there are no changes to the ILS equipment as part of this concept, there are related airfield changes that would be required. The runway width must be increased from 75-feet to 100-feet, which also requires relocation of the runway edge lights. In addition, a portion of the parallel taxiway must be relocated to clear the precision obstacle free zone. To accommodate the taxiway relocation, four existing hangars would need to be removed. There is also some grading required within the approach area, but this is minimal. Aside from the hangar acquisition, there is no other land acquisition associated with this concept. There are also no noise related concerns, since the airport would operate in the same manner and configuration as it does today. This concept provides limited benefit by reducing the ILS minimums. When weighed against the cost of taxiway construction and the hangar acquisition required, it is not expected to provide a positive benefit-to- cost ratio. Therefore, it was not recommended as the preferred alternative. ES.3.4 Extend Runway 12-30 to 5,000 Feet with Hangar Area Development (The Preferred Alternative) N This alternative extends the runway to the southeast a total of 902 feet. It requires rerouting of Cedar Avenue with corresponding land acquisition, and relocation of a township road. The township road relocation can most likely be accommodated on property MAC already owns. There would be no required RPZ land acquisition. As part of the runway extension, the ILS approach minimums could be reduced to''/z mile. This reduction would require the runway to be widened to 100 feet, so there is an increased cost associated with it. The Airlake Airport is categorized as a B-II airport, meaning it serves airplanes with approach speeds less than 121 knots and wingspans up to but not including 79 feet. Aircraft in this category are typically less than 12,500 pounds, and include most single engine aircraft and light twin engine airplanes. The critical grouping for Airlake includes aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds but less than 60,D00 pounds. This includes small corporate jets, such as the Cessna Citation I, II, and III, the Dassault Falcon F-50 and the Lear jet 20, 30 and 40 series. The existing runway length accommodates approximately 100% of the aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds, but less than 75% of the critical grouping aircraft. The new very-light-jets (VLJs) coming on the market can also operate at Airlake in its current configuration. x The larger aircraft that use Airlake today and the new VLJs would benefit from a longer runway. They could operate at heavier loads, and some jets that could not use a runway shorter than 5,000 feet due to insurance requirements, could begin operating at Airlake. Given the proximity of the industrial park and other industrial/commercial property available for development near the airport, there is the potential for increased use of the airport by corporate jets. A runway length of 5,000 feet and the existing ILS system could be ideal for certain companies to use and perhaps base aircraft at Airlake. The timeline proposed for implementation of.the runway extension corresponds to the proposed installation program for sanitary sewer and water facilities to currently undeveloped parcels west of the airport. This alternative, including the development of additional hangar space, is the preferred alternative for Airlake. ES.3.5 Crosswind Runway As previously noted, the 1989 LTCP recommended the construction of a crosswind runway to meet the FAA's recommendations for wind coverage. Since that time, an automated weather observation service station has been installed on the airfield. prior to that, weather data from MSP was used by pilots to gauge weather ,,,,nd :ion at Airlake. Using wind data from the on-airport station, analysis shows the existing primary runway meets the FAA recommended percentage for wind coverage. Given this and the limited incremental benefit that would be achieved, a crosswind runway is not justified. Pursuing this option would require a significant amount of land acquisition and construction cost, neither of which can be outweighed by the benefit. Therefore, the concept was dropped from further consideration. Arunway extension project requires the completion of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), depending on whether federal funds are involved. Hangar area development typically involves the preparation of an EAW, unless federal funds are proposed to be used, then a federal EA could be required. The most notable environmental categories that will require study as part of any implementation of the proposed concepts at Airlake include noise, water quality, protected trout streams, and sanitary sewer and water facilities. An EAW was prepared in 1998 for the south hangar area, and the Phase 1 construction was completed in 1999. 1. Noise. MAC has prepared a 2005 noise contour for Airlake, as well as 2025 noise contour for the preferred alternative (included in Chapter 5). The 65 DNL lies entirely on MAC property for 2005 and almost en#irely for 2025, as does most of the 60 DNL contour for both 2005 and 2025. The noise contours also show a 55 DNL contour. The 55 DNL contour is depicted because the airport lies mostly outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA), and therefore, a 55 DNL contour is required per the Metropolitan Council. 2. Water Quality and Protected Trout Streams. Water quality will require review since all drainage from the airport ultimately flows to the Vermillion River or its tributaries, which are designated trout streams that are protected and have certain set-back requirements for development. The local watershed district will require that any airport project maintain the current storm water discharge rate and volume. Similar to other airport projects, MAC will design infiltration basins and outlet structures to achieve this. 3. Sanitary Sewer and Water. Most of the Airlake Airport currently lies outside of the MUSH boundary. However, the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) agency has requested that MAC provide sanitary sewer and water services for all of the Reliever Airports, including Airlake. Therefore, any hangar area expansion proposals must review the needs and feasibility or providing these services. xi N The public involvement process for the Airlake comprehensive plan update has included two meetings with community representatives, two meetings with airport users, and one public informational meeting for residents living around the airport. In addition, the draft LTCP was made available fora 30-day public comment period. Informal comments were requested at all of the meetings held. Prior to the 30-day formal comment period, MAC had received four completed comment forms or a-mails about the concepts under consideration. These include comments from three tenants and one resident. In very brief summary, the airport users want the south building area completed and some are willing to pay an assessment fee to build there. The resident is concerned about property impacts from the airport. The formal comment period occurred between June 8, 2007 and July 10, 2007. All letters and comments received during the preparation of this document are included in Appendix C. After reviewing all of the concepts, costs, benefits and negative considerations, the preferred alternative selected by MAC for the Airlake Airport is a runway extension to 5,000 feet. However, it is suggested that implementation of the runway extension occur in 10 - 15 years. Additionally, it is recommended that the south hangar area be completed and partially served with sanitary sewer and water services. At this time, there are a number of issues relating to land and sanitary sewerlwater installation that must be considered. Agreements could be pursued with the City, township, and adjacent land owners that include land exchanges for the future relocation of Cedar Avenue and joint agreements for the installation of the utilities. Specifically, the following is recommended for installation of sanitary sewer and water facilities at Airlake: 1. Pursue agreements with the City of Lakeville and Eureka Township that would allow MAC to serve the airport; 2. Provide sanitary sewer and water services to a portion of the south hangar area, construct a stand alone restroom facility, and designate the remaining hangar spots as anon-service area. This should accommodate those tenants that want connection and any corporate hangars constructed, along with reducing the overall cost of installation; . 3. As part of south hangar area installation, loop the watermain such that hydrants can be installed throughout the hangar area for fire protection; 4. Designate the existing north hangar area as anon-service area, but construct a stand alone restroom for tenant use that is connected to the sanitary sewer and water system. In summary, the Preferred Alternative (shown in Figures ES-1 and ES-3) includes the elements for the 20- year planning period. Please note that all costs are shown in 2006 dollars and include engineering. Timelines may vary, especially for projects that may receive federal funding. They would be planned when funds are most likely to be received. Additional information on all items is included in Chapter 4. xii Table ES-3 Preferred Alternative - Pursue sanitary sewer and water a reements 0 - 5 Years $0 Pursue an agreement with land owners for property 0 - 5 Years $0 acquisition/exchange to protect for the future relocation of Cedar Avenue Complete the south hangar area to accommodate the 2025 needs 0 - 5 Years $1,300,000 Provide sanitary sewer and water In conjunction with hangar area services as outlined above construction $1,200,000 Extend Runway and Taxiway A to 5,000 Feet, including ILS relocation 10 - 15 Years $6,900,000 and im roved minimums Reconstruct the Existing Runway Length 15 - 20 Years $gnn,000 xiii , < w x. k F c r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i , i • ti v ~ ~ o a ~ e Gam- c r t ~ ) fv ~ 4" ~rt ~ r~l ~ ~ 1~Fti l T3 4~ x v f ! i I 1 p O 'S / qa i 5 v~ ~ ~sGS ~Y ( I Y/ ~ ~ ~ O ~ 'm 4.' N 1~ 1 ~ _ of l ry~~pr~r i Q d S W ~ 1 m?lY 4~ 7 ~ } ~ ~ fi Q~ } ~ ~ ~ I/~ ~ eMYa ~ i! ~ ~ ~ yY ~ Y ~ ~Y F a ~3f i I ! n ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~f: e ~ e ~ ~ T ~ s ~ l ~ ~ 4 b~S ~ r ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~2~ ~ -i X ,y l ~ rt m ~t-' " S'~- ~ ~~n": r.y' r ~{4 .tf hk~" a . ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ y s+ ~ s r i C ~ -vim stir.. ~ ' ~ - N _ t y v~ ~ N y 'k F~ a ~ i ~ 3e:~ Y VJ a Y ~ ~ + / 'r' ~ ] E ~yFl f _ ~ Q WSi yL x,~ .i W ~ Y 2 ~..~~F ~ f Y - ~ 2 { 2 W ~ ~ \ S v r _ N ~ a s a..- g ';~~m No. ~ 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: ]une 19, 2007 Subject: Update on Strategic Plan 2007 Work Program The EDC and City Council approved the following 2007 Work Program for the 2005- 2007 Strategic Plan: i. Completion of an Economic Impact Study. 2. Completion of the Senior and Work Force 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 a corporate campus/office park market analysis. 6. Completion of the 2008-2010 Strategic Plan for Economic Development. The following are updates on the status of each of these work program items: 1. The Council approved retaining Springsted Inc. to complete this study at their May 7~' City Council meeting. A copy of the work plan for the project is attached. It is anticipated that the analysis will be completed by late summer or early fall and will be available to evaluate impacts of land use plan designations being considered in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan update. 2. The City Council authorized the submittal of a CDBG program amendment request to fund the preparation of a senior and work force housing needs study on April 16th and the Dakota County CDA approved the amendment on June 12"'. Maxfield anticipates approximately 75 days to complete this analysis. This information will also be utilized in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Update. 3. The Business Telecommunications Technology Task Force has been meeting on a monthly basis since early February. Steve Gehrke is the EDC's representative on the Task Force. The last two meetings of the Task Force have included presentations by the incumbent service providers and presentations by the business representatives on the task force regarding current service issues. The consultant that has been retained for this project is drafting the first sections of the report which will be reviewed by the Task Force at their July meeting. The Task Force is expected to complete their work before the end of the year. 4. Staff made a presentation on the recommended Action Plan for the Downtown at the June 11th City Council Work Session. A copy of the memo to the City Council that summarizes the recommended action items and the input that has been received to date is attached. The City Council authorized staff to further refine the priority of these Work Program items and to also identify the budget implications of the various items as well as possible funding sources and bring this information back for further review. 5. Prior to commencing with a market analysis of the future demand for corporate campus /office park development in Lakeville, staff is recommending that we invite a number of office park developers to a luncheon /panel discussion to be hosted by the City later this summer. Based on the input received from this event, the City could decide whether to proceed with contracting for a more formal market analysis. 6. Finally, staff has initiated discussions with Todd Rapp of Himle Horner who facilitated the process in 2004 for the preparation of the current 2005-2007 Strategic Plan for Economic Development. Mr. Rapp is interested in assisting the City with this project again. Staff will be meeting with Mr. Rapp in the next several weeks to discuss a proposed work plan and schedule for the project. Springsted City of Lakeville, Minnesota Fiscal Impact Tool ' Work Plan Apri12007 Objective(s) To develop a fiscal impact tool that enables the City of Lakeville to estimate both the costs and the benefits that are likely to result from the development of residential and commerciallindustrial projects within the City. Task I - Review Background Information ? Meet with City staff to review background information and study assumptions: - Review historical data related to economic growth, the growth in housing and population and their impacts on the City as they relate to revenues, operating expenditures and capital expenditures - Review the City's current operating budget - Review historical capital improvements and the funding sources used for the improvements - Review historical trends in housing unit development and commercial/industrial development - Discuss any anticipated changes in the pace and character of private development - Review historical informafion related to the growth in the City's tax base - Review the City's existing Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program - Review current funding practices, funding sources and other policies for fmancing capital improvements - Discuss alternatives for financing capital improvements - Review factors relative to impacts of development - Review any current allocation of revenues and expenditures to employment and residents - Discuss the planning period for projecting the fiscal impacts from development - Decision on what impacts are to be measured and to what level of detail. - Discuss the schedule for completion of the study City of Lakeville, Minnesota Fiscal Impact Tool Apri12007 Page 2 Develop the Preliminary Fiscal Impact Tool ? Develop the preliminary fiscal impact tool that recognizes the benefits and the costs of development in the CiTy including, but not limited to, the following: - Analysis of CiTy operating revenues by source to determine the amount likely to be generated by new residents and new employment over the planning period - Analysis of the additional property tax revenue likely to be generated by new residents and new employment over the planning period - Analysis of City operating expenditures by major category to determine the likely cost of providing services to support new residents and new employment over the planning period - Estimate future capital funding sources and impacts on city-wide resources - Define a method for estimating the projected cost of capital expenditures needed to support new residents and new emplcyment over the planning period - A method for estimating the net present value of the annual cash flows of operating revenues, operating expenditures, and capital expenditures over the planning period - A method to maintain the system on a current basis going forwazd Task II - Present and Review Preliminary Fiscal Impact Tool ? Springsted will meet with the CiTy in a workshop session to present and to review the preliminary fiscal impact tool ? Following a discussion and review of the fiscal impact tool, Springsted will modify or change the tool incorporating the City's comments into the final tool as requested. Task III -Present and Review Final Fiscal Impact Tool ? Springsted will meet with the City in a workshop session to present the final fiscal impact tool and to provide training in its use. Expectations In order to conduct this study, the City is requested to identify and designate a staff member to serve as a contact person between Springsted Incorporated and the City. This person will be responsible for the .gathering of accurate and timely information necessary to complete the project. At a minimum, the following informaticn will be needed to complete the study: ? Fiscal Impact Tool Required Information - A copy of the City's past three years Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports - A copy of the City's 2007 budget, including revenues and expenditures for all funds - A copy of the City's Comprehensive Plan City of Lakeville, Minnesota Fiscal Impact Tool April 2007 Page 3 - A copy of the City's current capital improvement plan - Copies of current City policies related to capita] expenditures and/or funding for them including special assessments - Information related to the anticipated growth in residential and commercial/industrial tax base for the period covered by the Comprehensive Plans - Informaton related to historical growth in the City, including, but not limited to, housing by type, commercial, industrial and office construction, population, family size, employment, school enrollment, and average values of all forms of new construction - Copies of any previous studies related to the allocation of revenues and expenditures resulting from development - Copies of any internal studies or projections related to the allocation of revenues and expenditures to residential and employment Compensation. We propose to complete this study as described in this proposal for the lump sum fee of $21,500 exclusive of any out-of-pocket expenses such as travel and copying. This amount would include up to three on-site meetings. We will complete the study within 16 weeks of receiving the notice to proceed provided that all necessary information is made available to Springsted in a timely manner and that City staff is available for required meetings. This draft schedule does not anticipate any unforeseen delays or other circumstances that would result in a later completion date. Should any unforeseen delays or circumstances arise, Springsted can draw on its staff of 70 professionals to keep the project on schedule to the greatest extent possible. Springsted would invoice the City for work completed based on the following schedule: Com letion of Task II 50% 50% Completion of Task III 40% 90% Com letion of Task IV 10% 100% City of Lakeville, Minnesota Fiscal Impact Tool April 2007 Page 4 Should the City request and authorize additional work outside the scope of services described in this proposal or additional revisions beyond those agreed upon at the discussion and review of the draft fiscal impact tool, we would invoice the City at our standard hourly fees. Title Rate Principal & Senior Officer $210 Officer & Project Manager $180 Senior Associate $150 Associate $135 Support Staff $ 60 We appreciate the opportunity to again be of service to the City of Lakeville. We want to ensure this fiscal impact study fully meets the City's objectives both initially and over the long-term. We welcome any discussion on modifying our approach and product to fully meet the City's objectives. City of Lakeville ' ~ Community and Economic Development Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council Steve Mielke, City Administrator From: David L. Olson, Community and Economic Development Director Copy: Allyn Kuennen, Associate Planner Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist Date: June 8, 2007 Subject: Downtown Development Guide -Annual Action Plan Implementation The Downtown Development Guide approved in December of 2006 included recommendations for its implementation. Included in these recommendations for implementation is the development of an "Annual Downtown Action Plan." The Annual Action Plan is intended to provide a means of focusing and prioritizing on current actions to be taken. The Development Guide recommends that action plans include the following elements: Identification and prioritization of steps to be taken in the next year Assignment of responsibilities for guiding these implementation steps • Determination of budget and funding needs The Development Guide suggests that the Annual Action Plan be prepared with the input of Downtown stakeholders. Staff has attempted to obtain input in a number of ways including individual meetings and other communications with key stakeholder groups such as the Downtown Lakeville Business Association (DLBA), Art Center Board and Friends of the Art Center and the Lake Marion Association. Copies of the written comments received from both the DLBA and the Lake Marion Association are attached. Staff has also attempted to solicit input through publicizing possible action items for the coming year through the use of the City's Web site and distributing the information via the list serve that was established during the preparation of the Development Guide. Downtown area residents also had the opportunity to provide input on land use and transportation planning issues during the first round of neighborhood meetings that were held earlier this spring in conjunction with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update process. A copy of the comments received at the Downtown neighborhood meeting has been included. Based on the stakeholder input that has been received, staff would recommend the following items be included in the 2007 Annual Action Plan for the City Council's consideration: • The City should consider steps towards the establishment of a public parking system. The Ben Franklin block is recommended to be considered first. (Note: This is the top priority of the Downtown Lakeville Business Association as noted in their letter dated March 28, 2007) • Review the recommendations of the Development Guide regarding land use in the preparation of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. In addition the proposed Iberia Extension and North Holyoke Area should be reviewed in the preparation of the Update. (Note: This is currently being pursued in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update process.) Further evaluate the feasibility of the concept for the 208"' Street Plaza (Note: The City has received a proposal to develop a new retail building on the vacant lot south of 208"' Street currently owned by Mark Hotzler including the development of a "Market Park" adjacent to the proposed retail building. The proposed site plan will be discussed as the next agenda item.) • Coordinate with the new owner of Enggrens Mall on the remodeling and possible re-orientation of the accesses to tenant spaces. • Continue to monitor the situation involving the Post Office location within the Lakeville Mall. Further pursue the design, size, exact location and possible funding sources for the north and south gateway improvements to Downtown. (Note: The Art Center Board indicated that the location of any proposed gateway improvements on the Art Center corner should be located so that site lines to the existing Art Center sign are not impacted.) Review of possible City initiatives to improve pedestrian connections to Downtown. (Note: In addition to other elements of the proposed Action Plan, the Lake Marion Association supports improved trail connections between Downtown and Lake Marion and Antlers Park as indicated in their attached letter dated April 11, 2007.) Staff is seeking the consensus of the Council regarding the proposed items to be included in the 2007 Action Plan for the Downtown. Upon receiving Council consensus, staff will attempt to refine the prioritization and funding needs and budget implications of the various items in the recommended Action Plan. ~ Downtown Lakeville Business Association t ~ h , . P.O. Box 371 Lakeville, MN 55044 952-985-0517 'i . www.down townlakeville.com March 28, 2007 Mr. David Olson Community 8t Economic Development Director Ciry of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN 55044 Deaz Mr. Olson: Over the past year and a half the Downtown Lakeville Business Association (DLBA) and other community .stakeholders have worked with the city in creating a Downtown Development Guide. This positive collaboration has resulted in an Action Plan that will occur over a period of years. The DLBA has reviewed the elements of the Downtown Action Plan and considers the public parking issue the mtmber one priority of the plan. With new businesses opening in downtown, the issue of pazking becomes a greater concern and this office has received complaints from visitors who say that cannot find a place to park. Property owners aze working with employers to encourage their employees to utilize vacant lots located off of Holyoke. Even with this measure pazking is and will continue to be a major problem. As we review the remaining elements of the Action Plan, we understand that the Development Guide will be included in the City's Comprehensive Plan Update; Enggwn's Mall is in the process of being redeveloped; the Iberia Avenue extension will be considered as part of the city's Transportation Plan Update and a number of the other elemens will evolve over time as redevelopment occurs. We strongly urge the City Council to consider establishing a public parlrirtg system utilizing the Ben Franklin block as the first step in this process. We appreciate the City's cooperation and support in funding this initiative and the work of staff and consultants that will result, over time, a more viable and sustainable downtown community. Sincerely, Nancy P. Smith, President NPS:jat Lake Marion Association "For the beliermen! ahtfe on Lake Marton" Hox 45 •^~eville,NIN 55044 Apri111, 2007 Mr. David Olson Director -Community and Economic Development City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN 55044 Dear Mr. Olson, We are pleased that you have asked for our Association's input in developing this year's Annual Downtown Action Plan. We reviewed the bullet points contained in the memorandum you sent to us dated March 28, 2007, as well as the Executive Summary of the recently approved Downtown Development Guide. As you know, the main priority of our organization, the Lake Marion Association, is to improve the quality of life azound Lake Marion and in the surrounding community. As such, we wholeheartedly support your efforts to vitalize the historic downtown azea that gives our City its unique identity. We are in general agreement with the seven points being considered for the 2007 Action Plan. We are particularly supportive of the 208t1i Street Plaza concept, the Gateway improvements, and the extension of Iberia Avenue - which will better tie the growing Heritage Commons complex into the downtown area. Above all, we believe that creation of swell-defined bicycle and pedestrian trail loop system, with a downtown hub on or adjacent to the 208`" Street Plaza should be a prominent part of the action plan. If done correctly, such a system could draw large numbers of visitors to the downtown area, potentially attracting outdoor oriented businesses, a bed and breakfast, a snack shop, or perhaps a more upscale restaurant to the vicinity. We reiterate our strong support for the completion of the planned trail system known as the Lake Marion Loop -much of which is already in place. Dovetailing this trail into the longer range downtown development plan would tie the Lake and Antlers Pazk into your big picture plan. The result would be a very desirable 15 plus mile recreational trail loop, with its major hub in downtown Lakeville. It might also make sense to "map in" a stop on the loop so that it can be accessed from the Lifetime Fitness Club now under construction. Thank you for your efforts. Please contact me if we can be of any assistance. Sincerely, Craig Manso President, Lake Marion Association 952/853-6022 Copy: Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist Steve Michaud, Parks and Recreation Director Steve Mielke, City Administrator Lake Marion Association Board Members: Craig and Martha Manson Jim and Yolanda Lowe 19839 Jersey Avenue 10187 205' Street Doug and Deb Anderson Mike and Pam McDonald 19827 Jersey Avenue 19039 Orchard Trail Joe Dammann Kent and Arless Matzek 10733 202"d Street 18850 Kanebec Trail Ron and Deborah Greiner Wally and Ardyce Potter 19803 jersey Avenue 10691 202"d Street Tom Klausler 10213 205s' Street Olson, David Prom: Kuennen, Allyn Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:29 AM To: Olson, David Subject: District 7 -Central Business District held on 13 March 2007. District 7 -Central Business District held on 13 March 2007 Attendance: 13 persons Comments: • A concern was noted that the rerouting of CSAH 50 from Holyoke Avenue costs the downtown area pass through traffic that might attract patrons to local businesses. • Questions were asked about the type of businesses that will be encouraged to locate downtown and City staff emphasized the need to make the area a destination versus convenience commercial location. • A question was asked as to the use of the financial tools recommended by the Downtown Development Guide. • A concern was expressed that the parking requirements outlined in the Zoning Ordinance are too restrictive for downtown. • Several residents spoke in favor of completing the greenway corridor connection between downtown and South High School. -Allyn Kuennen, AICP Associate Pl¢nner City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, Minnesota 55044 ph. 952.985.4424 fax. 952.985.4429 e-mail: akuennen@ci.lakeville.mn.us 1 '~~~~~rr~ Nos ~ City of Lakeville Community and Economic Development Memorandum To: Economic Development Commission From: David L. Olson, Community and Economic Development Directo Copy: Steve Mielke, City Administrator Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist Date: June 19, 2007 Subject: June Director's Report The following is the Director's Report for June of 2007. 2007 Mav Building Permit Report .The City issued building permits through the end of May with a total valuation of $67,371,945. This compares to a total of $60,946,065 during the same period in 2006. Included in this valuation were commercial and industrial permits with a total valuation of $20,026,600. This compares to a total valuation of $5,708,000 during the same period in 2006. The City issued permits for 102 single family homes through May with a total valuation of $27,249,000. This compares to 124 single family home permits during the same period in 2006 with a total valuation of $36,166,955. The City issued permits for 58 townhome and condo units through May which compares to 85 townhome and condo permits issued during the same period in 2006. New Commercial Developments The City has recently issued building permits for the following commercial projects: • Lakeville Collision (West side of Kenrick Ave. north of Holiday Inn & Suites) • TrainAmerica (Next to Northfield Clinic east of Lakeville South HS) • Kenrick Corner Office Building /New Market Bank/Pratt Dental (205"' St and Kenrick Ave) • Hewitt Investments Building/Holly's Center Stage Dance (Downtown on Holyoke) State of the City Address Included in your packets are copies of the State of City Booklets for EDC members that were unable to attend the State of the City Address held on May 22"d at the Holiday Inn and Suites. C,~ 'A 'A A o o~ o n~+ a n ao ~ d~~ a y~ K~~ c o 0 o E Kv~' a nG o ~ m R ~ p n a ~ E _n d~~ y<" a w m 9 3 q Go 'v p, pp C pr, o m ,n, ~ w a v m x a a 0] m g R 3 3 5~ rn i-o o~ C. ~ 2. ~ p°~, ~ S I-. Goo y ~ ~ y .p tm a,"Ir °o o n rn Y .~D. ~ ~ h m o JAG a o n a' ~e w ~ n ~ ~ ~ a C] z o w' ~ ~ ~ C~ Z o 5 a ~ ~ a Y ^ pap.. Z 'A ~ y ~ 2. G E ~ g ? 7y .2 E ~ ~ o -p; oy aZ 2 F U q aZ y ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ y a pp~~ p O w O N 0- A w w O O C N 0 0 Cn N O J N O O ~ O O A N N A N A~ 'G N- A '.n J P w J w Q~. O ~ ~ w N w J G~ J ~ ~n N J Oo N i-+ Do J J W ~O A ~O `O Vyi I ~O 'O J ~D J J Oo W J O- ~ b a A b T W J m J J IiJ O O~ O ~O O w cn Oo O ~O O N O p Op ~O pUp Oppo~~ p0p 0 0 0 p 0p 0 N O O N :P !C A~ O~ ~ O C O O O !i O CJi~ O O O C O O O O O O O S O 0 0 0 'i O O O O O C O O O O ~ K7 ~ O ~ J N ~D W w W W O W O A N N A A `TD U ~ W 7.7 O ?o m m O W A N O ~D O~ O O ~O Oo N O ~ f. Y w N w 0 O O N u O O O O O O C O O g J O N O O O C C O C O O O C O 'a p n y~y O C O O N O O C O o 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 o C C o C 0 "3 p v 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 2 J m A o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 o c g o o c r?~! °C ~ y r ro ~ ~ ' y es z ~ l~ A ~ N O N J O ~ J ~G OT. w W O~ ~ G ~ 0 0 0 0 0 Oo O J C O N O Oo O O O O C O O C O O O O J O C N DA A A O N~ .i ~ 0 0 0 0 0 Oo O C C G A G co G O O O C O O C O O O C w O C i- J ao ~ 4\ U ts1 0 0 0 0 0 O C O C~ O O O O O O O C O O O C J O O N W m ao O O~ N O J O J to OWO In A N N O C~ O N O N O O N A~ A O O C K' W I W A N J A S ~ T A W ~O O~ W A Oo W p~ cn 'A ao A ~ ' A N oo ~ N In A O~ In N U to cn ~D A ~D W O~ A A J to j O~ A O T A p T~ ~O A 0 0 O ppA O O p Op ~D pOp A Oc pO N O O oo w W A O O p Cp sy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VNi O O O O C Vii S O S 0 0 0 0 0 VJi O O U O O O O~ C O 0 0 7 f\ 7 - N U < a 0 A A O ~ J N tJii w O cp~n A A~~ O W O O O O to O O C O S C O O O 'a C O O O O O p w p Cp p O O p Op O O O O S O O O O O O O p O O O O O O C O S O O O ti C O O O O O O C O O O C S O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O C O O O O O O z a~ i b 7. a a w 2 A ~ C .A N w 'J- J C oa Iiy O p O p O O p Op O C O O O N O U O C O O O C O O C O 0 0 iD O O w J tNi~ :D O O C ~ OHO pj 8 0 0 0 O O O O O O~ O~ J O O O O O O O C C O O A O O~ OJ+ O~ S O C ~ 00 J ~ ~ ror'na ~ Cyyy~w~ m~ti~,~,zooo,'~grr55xxn"+'~m'~!nnnna~ ~ C E~. 'O C C C O R C 9 R¢ y O Y w C G A C ~ C ~ nn g 19 ~ ~ g g E Q rv 7. d'a em e ry R ~ ~ y E F v. nJ w. m~ 3 'r 7 w W y G n o O ro r~~ m v~ a m r y 'zl w c'. c c ~ m m~~ n A w b7 0 o 'C. ~ o n, ~ m ~ m ~ ~ R c a ~ = a X 0 9 a d' a ''a w ^ c a L, < ~ a B cn A O O O A w w O W O~ O O A~~ N O N W O W O O N~ w~ O w 0~ Vi A O O W ~ _ A A N N to J to U ~ w U A AA A w J A T A A A O\ W W~ O U w 0 J J O J w w W to ~O ~ 0 0 0 W ~ b O b 0\ 0 0 0 0 0o A ~D A O ~O w O m 0 0 ~O ~D Go ~ O Oo O ~D ~D O O Oa U O O O O O N N to O Cn O O O O O ~n Vi V~ to O O !n O In O C O D U to ~n O to J O O In N O O C O O ao O O C O O O O O O C C O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O J CT O O O U Vi O pN N U ~1 N N W Vi A OO VAi N A J ~1 J J C C U N~ N A ~ppOOo ~ S O O C O w (iii O O O S O S O 0 0 0 Vii S O O O O O O C O~ S O O O C O A A O C O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O S O O O O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O C A W O N O O O C O O O O O O C O O C O O O O O O O G C O O C O O O O O O C O O O C O O P O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O C O O C G C C O 0 0 0 ~D O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O C C O O C O O O C O O C O O O S S O S O 0 0 O N A C O D A CT A C~ O N~ O O A ~O A Oa O~ O C J N C O A O N ~D N O~ O Ol O pppp A w A 0 0 0 ~P O 0 0 0 0 0 vNi 0 0 0 cNi~ O O vbi O O O O~ S O U 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J O 0 0 0 0 O O C O O O O O O C C O O O O O O O O O O O S S O O O C O O O C C O U W W ONO N N T Oho Oho OAi O J O to O ~ O ~ C 0 0 0 0 O~ O O O O O O O O O O O O T O .^..J O O O O S O O O C O O O O O O O C O W C O ~ 0 0 O C O O O C O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O A W O b C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A O 0 0 0 0 C O C C C O C C O C C C C O C O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O C C O O C O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O S O O C O O O O O O O O O w m VS H 'V pp Vi V~ V~ b m ro ^n ~ ~ n v, f z~ g r= n n a z~ s x x n n a s eo C rn~ 7 C v v o f C v v v 'v c v o o a~ C a m v v~ ~ o q~ a w .s a o P n -oi rv y~~^ _S -vi ^ ~ N g n~~ a Q a c .b v .o w n H N m G y m y PC+ ~ ^ r y~ ~r' C c. S' _ 7 y^ n i o 'a d ~ ~ 2 'o' ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~t a .e .p n @ a x ~ S o ? ~ v ~ ° 5 2. Z ~ M1 ~ i A o ~ o a ~ ~ N S' @ t ^ D\ A N m O O O O O O N O ~ ~ in J O O W O A A^ w O W^ O w w Go O J O+ ~O W N N W ~ N ao J J O~ O A (n N r A a b ~ W N A W to O O O C N O O O O O O~ W J O O N OJi O O~ C A W~ Ow O J O O A ao O~ O~ ~n W O S O S O O S S S S S O O O O O O O O S S S O 0 0 Cn O~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u~i l~n ~ G\ N N J w J a b N W w W O~ i.n O W w ~ O~ IJ O to to ao Q~ O N O N W ~ J O to O O O C O O O C O 0 0 0 0 m W O O O O O O O C O O ~ O A O O O~ O O O Cn O O ~n O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O C O 0 0^`{ OO S O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O C O O O O C O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O C O O~ 0 0 O O O O O O O O O C O O O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o o c o 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 o b o o o 0 o g o 0 0 0 0 o 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 o C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 O N N O t,n r 0 0 0 N 0 ^ w N O J In O 01 N Oa N O W O O O O~ N A O to w w J w N to N to N oo pWp N O~ N T W N O N O vNi vNi O W C C O O~ O b ~ A A A~ W (J J J J N to J to `D A J p O J Oo O W N )D A )G O A O O O O to ~O Oc O J N a1 O+ O O O O O O O O O S O O O awo O O O O S O S S W S O C S O O C O O S O O O O O N N ~ ~ w w N W T ^ w .N- O CC O O w O o+p1 ~D A ~ cWp A O O O C S ~ C O O O C O O oo w 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 tNn O O J O C O O J O O O S O O C O O 0 0 O O O O O O C O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p p o 0 O O C O O C O O O O O C C O O O C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O C O O O O C O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O C O O O O C O".~ O O O C O O C O O O O O O C O C O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C O O C O O O O p 0 0 O O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 O C O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O C O O O O O C O O O C O O O O O O S N y w ~ D o vi ~ ~ S ~ w ~ Q o ma S ~ o ~ ~ rn ~ m w ~ y 0 a F ~ w V N to J O O V T O A O A N O O O C C~ i~+ S S S S C O J N b W O O O O O O O O O O S C O A GO O N D\ O O O O O C O S S S S O S J W w C O O O F~+ H A O O O O O O w O S O O O O F~+ O. N A C O? O O O C O 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O A W O A O 0 0 O O O 0~9 O O S O O S cy~zxnz'o3gr~~^n-nmtyceomaa-ly; ; nn~~-~~oonE. bz a£ a m m o o o o a w m c c n o m s, n n o 0 0 o E a e o m n o E^'. a D ~ a ~ ~ Q ' w a ~ y m it a ° y trl trf y ~ ~ @ 9 3 n ~ ~ m n A ~ y w £ a~ a 'o' o cxe ~ 5'_ .r, a m .n rn ° ~ b ~ ~ A 3 $ ~ a c a ~ V A Ctl b ~ Y ~E'. ar E' ~ a > w w m ? y y~ ~ £ ~ m o w~ ~ 2~ E~ SAD c rt y~ S n o rn R ~ _ ~ n ~ ~ G m c a ~ ~ w w Vii A~ O~ to n- C N J N O N J ~w O N N w~ N w N O~ O w ONO ON A N A K' N AA J O N~ u r- A ~O cn w m N J T W N ~ w A Oo A~ r w m~ w~ cn w~ ~p v J A N W Oo W W I A O~~ J J b~ J W oa J N J J J Co W C O W O w cn 0 0 iO A J ~O ~ O ~D O~ O~ O~ O O~ w cNn O vNi 0 0 0 0 0 0 s N O u O O O C~ O o s U~ cNii u~i tai O O O N C W O 0 0 C+7 t-0 C C e 'n z r ~ A J N A O~ ~D Co W N A W N u O~ N O~ w oO a w O N~~ C ONi W A O U G\ O O J ~D ~ ;D Oc ~p N w O r" H O A J N~ ~ in W U 0 0 0-~O g 00 O 00 Cp C p C OC ~ N$ O O O O OO O A O O O O O O O O C O O^.O O O O O O O C O O O O O O S O C H p~ ~ K O O O O O O O C O O O C O O O C O O O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O C O C O 0 0 0 0 0 QZ, I ~F"'~Y ~'C 0 I ~ y r r w N~ J O N W S ~ ~ ~ O N w N ~ O V O Oa A Oo U ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J O O~ O J N O 0 0 0 0 0 0~o O O O ,vii ,iJO O O~ O p wp N ON O A O O -O O O w C~ 0 0 N O w p~ O O C O O O O~ O O O O~ X 0 0 to ~O A A O~ O T 0 0 O~ W ~O U W N to N O N W A O J W W N C W~ O W N N O A~ A O I N W i- J r- r .r W r r W A N w W A~ . Np O~ ~ ' b N O J~~ W tin ~~Cpp to ~ A ~O to N A~ T N O~ ~ A A ~ b b A t~i~ [LJ 1 O to A O N ~D O A to to A O W J O N O A O O~ r w O O J to O Oo ~ ;D ~ A OO ~D O ~ J O C to C '.n N in N in O ~Gi N O~ C J C Li C V~ J J O C J J O Ln C N J ~D J O O '~7 O O O O O W O~ O O W O U N O U O O O O U to O 0 U 's O O ~ O In !.n O O l l C a o C w.-`wa p~ C °a 0 ~ b~~ ~ In W w r~ O A ~ P O A ~'~i N VG'i O J U O~ N m m N N J O a to p J O~ O O O~ C Q~ O O W O C 'cn oo O C C C O O S S l~i~ O O ~ ooco~„B,,~NO8o88o8808o8oo8SSo,°c °ooocoo~ooo ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o G o~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 ~ i t r ~ Y w a. z r, N.- oo A O, ~ py in A cNii O~ AJ ~ J w~ N~ v N C TJ w O o 0 0 0 ;O C to O O In O w~ C O O O C O O O O O~~ O O J ~O A U w ~O O y O O C O O A O Y O O U O O O O O O O C O O O O O W J O C Q~ O~ AA N ~D ~1 O ~ C O O O O O~ O O O U O N C O O O O O O O O O N A O O J ~D A J A T O ~ ~ C ti J C E~~ c ~ G o d o m E c" ~a m w~ 0 0 0 L o w y° o x~ m o o n v D 19 G y C ~ G y° C E a e 'a 3 m n' 9 T y 'e G ~o o° .d w m m 'O 3 ~ o~ O 7 C tp m C ~ " o ° t' ~ •y1 m v+ a ~ m 'q m vz o Q. a ~D io ~ ~ rn v. G7 ° ~ ~ ° ~ ~ rn y ° ~ ~ x ° r'v o rn m ~ m m o 5 ~ 'T ~c a ~ ~ ~ n CJ ° ~ a R ~ o .°i o. o. a t" k ~ R~ .3i 6 ° w ~ [i] 6 ~ v C pip ~i ~ O ~ '~3 = ry '~°J' F' ti. C = " a '30 ~ S ~ r ~ G S R ~ ~ ~ '3 3 N W W lAli r Vi ~D W VI W OA N ~O J C N A ~D to O W ~D In A N O W Go ~O N A J O T A O J A N W J A ~O r r O T N J Q~ N N W r N ~D J J O ~O O~ N w u r w O W~ N N r W N N r ~O to N oa ~O W J J N A W r U b O W N ~O ~O ~ N J Cn N w Ln ~D w Vri J W Oo J w W W W A O~ ~D T W U~ O~~ J O W A W A N ao O J O~ O Oo ~D W ~O A J oo J N ~D O J cn T O En O ~O N Vi O 'tn in in O In O in 0 0 0 0 0 ~n C O in 0 0~ O cn 'tn O to A N V~ C to O~ 0 0 0 O ao O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C C O O O O S O O O O O O N O O C O S N A A ~O U A m tAii A w 0 O J~ S N N Oa N J J J ~ N +1 W Ap~ Cn O N i0 W J Cn N W O C O O O vi ~n 0 0 0 vii S O O C O to O O w O C O 0 0 0 s S O C S O O P 0 0 0 0 N C 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O S O S S O S O p O 0 0 S S 0 S S O O O C O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J Co n O C O O O O O C O O O O O~ O O O O p O O O O O O O C O C O C C O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O 0 0 0 0 S S S S S S O S S S S S S S C O O S O O C O O O S O O O C O 0 0 0 0 N N N b N J A ao ao N to ~D N S A O A 0 0 ~D N O to N W In J w Oo A J oo C N A C ~O In .J ~ A A O C N O C O W O.r O s A A A to w u~ In A Oo A Oo - N Gi J ~D w N to N - ~ T ~ O W t~i~ O~ vi O In oo ao A ao A N O~ A A ao A ~O A Oo N Go N ~D N oo A O Oo O O~ O O O O O U O J ~n to O O U O .^,J O O U O C O~ O O O~ O O O w 0 0 0 O m S S O~ lNn O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O S O O S S O S O O O~ O O O S O W m W W W_ ~ ~ N cn A T N A w W ~ N N ~n A A m in ~ :n ~ A C J ~D ~O J_ O O J J w O O O O O~ N ~D O O O C O O O O O O O C O 0 0 0 :n J O O O C C N O O~ O O O~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~D O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O C C C C ~O O O O O C S O O O O O S O O O O O O S S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O N w O 0 0 0 0 O O C O O O O G O O O O O O O O O C O O O O~ C C O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O C O C O O O O O O C O O O C O O C C G C O O C C O S O C O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O G O O O O O S S O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~O y m y~ov; v, F~~n~~,~ob~n~ m ~~~xb3r5nna= ~ <a~xxnc~?naa eD G rn ~ 7 L w w F~~ o P G m w w •c p w o o n C m ,ate m°~ f o p c' ~ C P -mi ~ ~ y. n 7 a H g R N ~ a 9 B~ 3 C ti n~ w .o n A o o ~ o ~ n g, 5 c n" ry k+ 'c-' r! y x o ~ v' ~ .moo Gj c m °O ° ~o w v_ ° a y ~ ~ VJ V] ` ° a 4 ~ rt Ct ~ R 6 ~ .'w~ ,c. ° < rn ° ~ ° m ° w c _ c coo o' a o' S ~ ~ ~3 a na~.a ~a ~~a o ~ f g~ a ~ ~ < s ~ rt ~ = ~ y a s ~ a to A T Ge 'S A N N A W w w^^ 0o J cn O O O O ^ O w O w to N N N C N Cn ^ to T W N ^ A N O b A ~L` to O T n- N _ N N ;C ~D J w ~O w N ^ C in A ^ A ^ IJ PJ O+ ^ A Oo N ^ ^ C O w to A A ao N U T ao w ^ N w N to w w J W N O^ A W N w A A A ~O oo to w w to in O Oo C O O O A ~D O W T W O ~O to O ~O O~ J °o J ~O Cn ~D O O~ A ~C ~1 In O~ A O S S O O S S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w C O O O O C O O w 0 0 A O O O O O S O S~ 0 0 Go Oa O N W A ~ ~ N N ~ ~JD Vwi r N Oi O~ p~ oa L. iD U ~ In IJ N ~ T in in lJ Vi Cn A ~ ~ N v ~n w V c~i~ w N In pO pO C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U 0 0 0 0 ,^J to O .O J NQ A 0 0 Oo 0 0 0 to A O A O O O S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S O O O O O O O O S O S S O S S S S S S S S S S O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C OO C O O O O C O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 C C O O O C O 0 0 0 C O O O C C C C C C S O O O S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O C C O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O C to N W w A W N ~ J A a C U N w N GO W to J N O O O to O^ W T O N W J^ O N Cn T W l.n J N C^ A N A w O N ^ A ~O ^ W A to ~O 'iA-~ N A ^ in N O N A ~G W Oo ^ O N J T W J N to A In In O ~O N J^ O W W W w w W j T ~O W O w w w w ~D W V W J C O O )O A O O O N ~ A oo ~O W O O V to O ~O J to W v J O ~O ~O Opo N N ~D J J W A O O O ~ O S S 0 0 0 0 0 ~ w O O OO O O O O w 0 0 ~ Cw 0 0 0 S S S O O OAa O S ~ ~ O O N A N N ~ w ~ ~ N ~ b C i° +1 Ln A N A W A A N T s O O O O O N J O O N N J O N J to O N 8 0 0 0 ,O C O O J J J O O O O C u O U O O O O O J O O O C O N O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O S O O S O O S O S S Q O O O C O O ~O 0 0 0 O O O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 C O O O C C O O O O C O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O C O O O C O O O C C O O O O O O O O O O C O O C D O C O O C O O C O 0 0 C O C O 0 0 O O C O C C O C p O C O O C O 0 0 O G O O O O O O O O O O C O O C O O O S O O O C O O O O S O O C O O O O O O y w ~n 9 o v~ y~ ~a ~ R P % o C C ~ m y = Q O N ~ Q' C 'i fyi N O ~G y aZ p7 .nr N N b] n O 4 y G 'a ~ a E ~ y' ~ oc N N J O~ ~l ~1 ~ A ~ O N n e _ _ e in W N U8i O O O J O J O O L O C C O O C O O GO O O O O O C O O J J Ir A N O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O V GD a U W O O O O 0 0 0 0 i+ O O O C C C C O N O O O O O O O O r V J N ~ N 4~ W J N N W N N b W b O O O A O~ A~ W O O O tNn S S S 'N+~ O A _ _ a O C G Vii O O O O O O O O O O O O O S S C S W H r U O O O O O 0 0 0 0 b O O O O 8 C S S Minnesota tax burden is no longer in top 10 Page 1 of 2 StarTrlbu~e.cc~m I MIItiINEAPOLIS -5T'. PAUL,1~lIN1+lE5CTA Minnesota tax burden is no longer in top 10 It's the first time since 1981 that taxes in the state and spending have ranked so low. By Mark Brunswick, Star Tribune Last update: June 11, 2007 - 11:31 PM For the first time in about 25 years, Minnesota has dropped out of the top 10 in per capita tax rankings, according to an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, and now stands 12th in the nation in state and local taxes as well as in spending. But when taxes and spending are measured as a percentage of personal income, the numbers really nosedive. By that measure, the state has fallen to 23rd in taxes and 31st in state and local government spending, according to the report from the Minnesota Center for Public Finance Research, an arm of the nonpartisan Minnesota Taxpayers Association. The numbers reflect years of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's no-tax-increase policies and budget cuts, but they also show that local government appears to have remained in check as well. For nearly three decades, Minnesota has almost always been in the top 10 in most bottom-line measures of tax burden. This is the first time since 1979 that it has dropped out of the top 10 in spending per person by state and local governments and the first time since 1981 that it has dropped from the top 10 in taxes per capita. However, a year ago, a report from the Taxpayers Association, based on 2004 Census data, ranked Minnesota 16th among the states when state and local taxes were measured as a percentage of personal income. Trying to shed the label Governors in all three major parties in Minnesota, going back to DFLer Rudy Perpich, have made a goal of escaping the tag of top 10 tax status. Minnesota's tax ranking rose in the 1960s and '70s as state and local governments grew rapidly and provided more services, particularly in health, welfare and education, than most other states. The report released Monday shows that efforts by Pawlenty to change the tax burden have had an impact. Lynn Reed, executive director of the Taxpayers Association --which is not affiliated with http://wwwstartribune.com/587/v-print/story/1239955.html 06/12/2007 Minnesota tax burden is no longer in top 10 Page 2 of 2 the conservative Minnesota Taxpayers League said that the figures show that incomes remain strong in Minnesota, but that it might be difficult to sustain the kind of growth the state has seen. While taxes per capita have dropped, they remain in the top tier nationwide. Minnesota's change in the rankings also is a reflection of actions by other states. "We've dropped because other states did raise taxes during their budget crunch and generally we didn't," Reed said. Quality-of-life debate The numbers are not likely to quiet the debate about Minnesota's vaunted quality of life. Pawlenty heralded the new figures, saying they show his administration escaped the ranks of the highest-taxed states "by holding government accountable and setting priorities."That's good news for taxpayers and a signal to those who want to grow jobs in Minnesota that we're open for business," he said in a statement. A number of groups have said the tax decline already has been accompanied by declining graduation rates, slumping income growth, traffic congestion, increased poverty and fewer people with health insurance. "All through the period when we ranked higher in public investment, Minnesota actually was gaining on other states in income growth and quality-of-life rankings," said Dane Smith, president of Growth and Justice, a public policy research group that advocates for more progressive tax policies. "This is unknown territory for Minnesota, and it's not good for our state and our proud tradition of shared prosperity." Reed, of the Taxpayers Association, said his organization will remain neutral on the impact of the figures but predicted they would be used by various sides to support their positions. "It's a political thing. Each party is interpreting what they think voters want and positioning themselves. Voters will let them know in '08 and 2010 whether they think it was good;' he said. Mark Brunswick • 651-222-1636 • mbrunswick@startribune.com ©2007 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. _ http://wwwstartribune.com/587/v-print/story/1239955.htm1 06/12/2007 REJournals.com - Pawlenty's veto scrambles MOA, Thomson glans Page 1 oft ~r 1~lI TX ~t[ }~r~rx w » w rya: c: M-r€~ ~;i4~srnaarsr ;=ck rere:~ baar~ REIL ESTATE JOURMIL ~N~~¦ %H$OIPLItiEG RkSKTAK118G ~ : 1 Fflfl GREATER StICGESS ~iifiYiii7~ ~ Jun. 04, ; Friday June 01 2007 Welcome, Pawlenty's veto scrambles MOA, Thomson plans signout Tax bill contained subsidies for massive Twin Cities expansions Staff Writer RE]ournals.com Tax subsidies for two planned massive commercial real estate expansion projects fell by the wayside in late May as Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed an omnibus tax bill that had been passed by the DFL-controlled Minnesota ~ Legislature. In issuing the veto, the Republican governor said that "there were many positive items" in the tax bill, including subsidies for expansions at the Mall of America and in Eagan for Thomson West Publishing, but those were outweighed by his opposition to a provision that would have eliminated the prevailing practice of not taking inflation into account when issuing budget forecasts. DFLers say the practice ignores reality and makes for unrealistic forecasting; Pawlenty says the measure, passed when he was serving as majority leader of the House of Representatives, is necessary to prevent "automatic" increases government spending. "When complaints come about provisions lost as a result of this veto," Pawlenty r iyys C said, "I would encourage people to contact DFL leaders who chose to keep y controversial policy language in rather than passing a clean bill." The veto means a subsidy passed to help build an 8,000-space, $180 million w parking ramp - an integral part of the MOA's planned Phase II project was dropped. Mall of America management issued a statement expressing disappointment with the developments. ~ Mall spokesman Dan Jasper said, "We are hopeful our political leaders will find a solution to the omnibus tax bill that will allow Phase II to move forward as soon as possible. This $2 billion investment in Minnesota cannot sustain any delays. It is about families, jobs, and economic development. The time is now." In Eagan, Thomson West is planning a 505,000 square foot expansion to its ' publishing headquarters, a $100 million project the company says will eventually result in 2,000 high-paying jobs coming to the Twin Cities. The company had been asking for about $9 million in exemptions from state sales taxes on construction materials and supplies, a request that was included in the , tax bill but which also fell victim to the veto. Thomson West spokesman ]ohn Shaughnessy indicated the veto might have ~ , i some implications for the company's plans, although he declined to be specific. He released a statement saying, "We appreciate the strong support we received http://www.mrej.com/story.cfin?Market=MN&StoryID=14955 06/04/2007 REJournals.com - Pawlenty's veto scrambles MOA, Thomson plans Page 2 of 2 from the Governor, legislative leadership, the city of Eagan and others for the proposed expansion project. 1-t~O~C IFiSICl@ "We have immediate business needs that require us to start the data center. The overall campus expansion will need to be reviewed and reevaluated in the coming months." e F Would you li advertise wi Learn how v Minnesota Real Estate ]ournal 5353 Wayzata Blvd, Suite 3D7 Minneapolis, MN 55416 1-888-516-7939 Real Estate Publishing Group 415 N State Street Chicago IL 60610 Y-888-753-7828 Copyright 2000-2005 /c~ Real Estate Publishing Group. By using this site you agree to the Terms Of Use. http://www.mrej.com/story.cfm?Market=MN&StoryID=14955 06/04/2007