Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-06 City of Lakeville Economic Development Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 6:00 p.m. ` City Hall, 20195 Holyoke Avenue 1akeville, MN 1. Call meeting to order. 2. Approve Aprii 25, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes 3. Review and Discussion of proposed Economic Benefit Study ; 4. Review of Ma~eld Research Proposal for Additional..Housing. Needs Analysis for Lakeville 5. Update on High-Tech Subcommittee Committee Survey 6. Director's Report 7. Adjourn ....:Attachments: May 2006 Building Permit Report THISWEEK Newspaper Article - "Despatch jndustries receives ntematiortal trade award" THISWEEK Newspaper Article:- "Eminent Domain bill passed" - ? StarTribune Newspaper Ar#icle - "Minneapolis UUireless lntemet could become metrowide° ` Item No. DR^~~ City of Lakeville Economic Development Gommission Meeting Minutes April 25, 2008 Marion Conference Room, City Hall Members Present: Comms. Matasosky, Brantly, Emond, Smith, Tushie, Pogatchnik, Schubert. Members Absent: Erickson, Miller, Gehrke, Ex-officio member Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Todd Bomhauser, Ex-officio member City Administrator Steve Mielke. Others Present: Staff present: David Olson, Community & Economic Development Director; Jeff Lueders, Cable Coorclinator, Penny Brevig, Recording Secretary. 1. Call Meeting to Order. Chair Matasosky called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. in the Marion Conference Room of City Hall, 20195 Holyoke Avenue, Lakeville, Minnesota. 2. Approve February 28, 2008 Meeting Minutes and April 11, 2006 Special Meeting minutes. Motion 08.05 Comms. Schubert/Emond moved to approve the minutes of the February 28, 2006 meeting, and the minutes of the April 11, 2006 Special Meeting minutes, as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Update on Telecommunications Issues to be pursued in 2006 Mr. Olson stated that two of the goals under the 2006 Economic Development Work Plan are: • Improve communication and coordination with other units of government on important community and economic development issues facing Lakeville. • Create partnerships with the Lakeville Chamber of Commerce, DLBA, and other businesses and other development associations on mutual development objectives. Mr. Olson indicated that the primary activity that is being pursued under these goals is reviewing options and/or alternatives related to improved broadband technologies and/or citywide wireless Internet service. Mr. Olson indicated that the EDC may want to consider re-convening the High-Tech Subcommittee to begin discussion on a process to survey existing businesses to Economic Development Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes Apr! 2Q 2006 determine current and future Internet and information service needs and how these needs are being met by the current service providers. Mr. Olson reviewed the three goals that the High-Tech Subcommittee identified when it was formed in early 2001 and the two outcomes of these efforts. He also identified several different issues and/or initiatives to be considered with re- convening the High-Tech Subcommittee, which are listed in detail in the April 25, 2006 staff report. Cabfe Coordinator Jeff Lueders presented an update from the Telecommunications Commission. Mr. Lueders .:stated that .four members -have volunteered from the Telecommunications Commission to be on fhe High-Tech Subcommittee. He stated that they feel it would tie beneficial to survey Lakeville businesses to get their perspective. Mr. Lueders also said another option would be to hire a consultant to look at different options. He also indicated that we need to see what happens in Congress regarding increased competition and franchises. Mr. Olson recommended that the EDC consider appointing at least two EDC members to serve on the re-convened High-Tech Subcommittee and determine whether it is in agreement with the issues and/or initiatives that were listed in the April 25"' staff report. Comm. Tushie asked if anyone has checked out the cost of going wireless. He felt that Lakeville has become apro-active community and stated that it is important to keep moving on this. Mr. Lueders indicated that cost has not been determined, but it is one of the things that the sub-committee would need to find out. Mr. Lueders explained the difference between fiber and wireless and how they would work. He indicated that different cities have different options. We need to keep an open mind. Chair Matasosky stated that the sub-committee news to identify the market, study the financial aspect and the practical impacts. Motion 06.06 Comms. Smith/Emond moved to recommend the High-Tech Subcommittee re-convene with Comms. Miller and Brantly as members. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Review of Maxfield Research Housing Needs Assessment for Dakota County and Metropolitan Council Affordable Housing Need for Lakeville Mr. Olson stated that the Dakota County CDA contracted with Maxfield Research Inc. to complete a Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment for Dakota County in 2005. He indicated that the needs assessment calculates the housing demand in the County through 2030 and recommends housing products to meet these 2 Ecorwmic Development Commission DR A F T ' Mee7ng Minutes April 25, 2006 demands over the short term. Mr. Olson presented a PowerPoint presentation on the findings for Lakeville. Mr. Olson stated that he also provided to the EDC the recently distributed affordable housing need for Lakeville as determined by the Met Council for the period between 2011-2020. He indicated that the Met Council has determined Lakeville's share of affordable units to be 2288 for this period. Mr. Olson stated that he is just providing the EDC with this information at this point and will be seeking initial feedback and response to the information. Staff will bring this back for further discussions after we have had an opportunity to review this information further and develop initial recommendations to consider. Comm: Emond asked. if they. took-into consideration the amount of jobs and. transportation. Comm. Tushie stated that the City of Lakeville needs to have rental housing. He felt that we have always been behind on this. He indicated that from previous • associations with Maxfie[d that they are quite conservative and felt that they were not overstating their numbers. Mr. Olson commented that we have the budget funds to hire Maxfield to do further studies if it is determined that this is necessary. Chair Matasosky commented that the Maxfield summary of findings was a very good start and was glad that we did not have to pay for it. He wanted to thank Maxfield Inc. and the County for their research. The Commissioners agreed that they would like to use the CDBG funds that are in the budget to have Maxfield expand their research. Motion 06.07 Comms. Tushie/Pogatchnik moved to recommend the use of the CDBG funds to have Maxfield Research Inc. expand their research to include senior housing/life cycle housing, and housing as it relates to jobs and transportation. Motlon carved unanimously. 5. Director's Report Mr. Olson indicated that the neighborhood meeting for the Life Time Fitness proposal is scheduled far tonight at 7:00 p.m. at the Water Treatment Facility at 185' Street and Ipava Avenue. Mr. Olson stated that it is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on May 18`" and the City Council on June 5`h. Mr. Olson stated that the March building permit report was distributed with the EDC packets. Mr. Olson stated the EDC Chair Matasosky and Economic Development Specialists Adam Kienberger attended the Dakota Future Annual Economic Development 3 Economic Devebpment Commission DRAT Meeting Minutes ' April 25, 2008 Summit on March 23ro. Chair Matasosky indicated that the Summit had very useful information. Mr. Olson indicated that staff has met with Duke Realty regarding the property at the SE comer of Dodd Boulevard and 215"' Street which they plan to develop. The City has also been contacted regarding development of the Stepka property west of Dodd Boulevard and south of County Road 70. He indicated that a majority of this 175 acre parcel is not scheduled to come into the MUSA until 2010 and 2015. Mr. Olson indicated that the City Council discussed bringing the Stepka property into the MUSA early and indicated they did not wish to consider bringing this property into the MUSA until 2008 or later to allow for the completion of the County Road 70 Interchange, completion of the Elko-New Market Interceptor,-and for the. comptefion of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. update.. Mr. Olson asked for a volunteer to present the May Spotlight on Business, which will be Mills Fleet Farm, at the City Council meeting. Comms. Pogatchnik and Smith both volunteered. Mr. Olson will contact them. Two more handouts were distributed at tonight's meeting: The CDA Todav Newsletter and a copy of an invitation to Economic Development 101, sponsored by Dakota Electric Association and Dakota Future. 6. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Attested to: Penny Brevig R. T. Brantly, Secretary Recording Secretary 4 City of Lakeville Community and Economic Development 1Vlemorandum To: Economic Development Commission From: David L. Olson ,Community and Economk Development Director Copy: Steve Mielke, City Administrator Adam ~enberger, Economic Development Specialist ate: ]une 27, 200fs Subjer.~ Proposed Economic benefit Study The current Strategic Plan for Economic Development has the following goal under the category Managing Development: • Monitor development and advise the Council to ensure a balanced tax base and a manageable rate of growth. Identified in the Outcomes for this goat is the following: • Completion and approval of a study to determine the minimum market value of a residential housing unit that generates sufl5cient City property taxes m pay for the City services required by that unit. Disaassions that have taken place since the approval of the current Strategic Plan in December of 2004 have resulted in the consensus that the study should also include an analysis of the fiscal impact on City services of commercial and industrial devefvpmer~t in Lakeville. The City completed the "Lakeville Growth Study - A Fiscal Impact Analysis" In August of 1991. This study was prompted by changes to property tax laws by the State Legislature that included levy limits and reductions in Local Government Aid. A copy of the Executive Summary, Introduction and Principal Findings of the 1991 Study are attached. Staff obtained a draft proposal from Springsted in April of 2005 to complete an Economic Benefits Study (copy enclosed) that was intended to accomplish the above-stated outcome state in the current Strategic Plan for Economic Development. Springsted's draft proposal did not include a proposed fee for the completion of this study. Further consideration of this proposal was not pursued in 2005 because of staffing issues and the fact that no funds were budgeted for this activity in the Adopted 2005 Budget. This project is induded in this year's work program and the current budget identifies $iQ000 for the completion of this study. The City Administrator, Finance Director and I have recently again `discussed the proposed sthdy with Springsted representatives in an attempt to define the scope of work. It was the consensus of both City staff and Springsted representatives that additional discussion with the EDC on the objective and desired outcome of this study was needed. This discussion is necessary to allow Springsted to revise theirproposal ~ meet the City`s objectives but to aisa keep it manageable In terms of cost and staff resources required. Denriis Feller and Steve Mieike will both be in attendance at the June 27"' EDC meeting for this discussion. f r C FJi~CU7TVE SUMMARY In 1991, the State Legislature changed the tax laws which froze the City levy limits and decreased future property tax revenue. Lakeville needed to take action. On July 15,:1991, Lakeville's City Councr~ passod an interim ordinance which temporarily psoln'biis approval of new residential plats ' sad expansion or development of mobt7e (maaufacttired) home parks. This ordieaave easeatially provides the City with atime-out to develop a means of managing growth is a fiscally responsible ` manner. 'This fiscal impact study is the first action directed by the Council under the interim IF ordinance. The results of this study will be used as a base to develop impact fns. Fiscal impact analysis compares revenues and expenditures of various types of development to arrive at an overall net impact. T'hore was little factual data on w3ratresldentiai davdapmeats actually contribttta acid cost the City's financzs. Ice order to provide better fiscal impact data, a number of sites were selected to t+epresent various housing types and mazlmt vars. The reventus generated from property=tax and intergovernmental aid ase compared against expenditrres on a per- ersoa, per-acre or per-unit basis, is order to arrive at a net fiscal impact. Additionally, we conducted a focus group with department heads to provide context and a broader perspective. Also, we'analyztd current servioe:ataadards and nevv tax Iaws is order to provide an ioformatbn base for the next phase of thagrowth study. As ptobabiy expected, lower value homes tended to have a negative fiscal impact... The high value ha~mes had positive fiscal impacts. Senior housing, when not wastructed with tax increment financing, produces a net positive fiscal impact. Ice general, the higher dte density of hotigrog the more. the return, however, there ate diminishing returns after a point m market value and l density. Twinhomes, quads, townho~s and high value homes provide the best fiscal investment in housing. The acatbated development puts. an enormous strain on the City's operating and capital budgets and negatively impacts commeraal areas trying to establish service areas. -The 36001ots that are in line for development will act to randomly fiil in the northern part of the City. Future planning should be done ifl contiguous patterns. Increasingly, (sty efforts wr71 need to focus on redevelopment as the City ages. Mob>'le hoaas and areas with aged housing stock, in particular. are major concerns of the Couaal and City staff. This study Ends that these areas have a significant negative fiscal impact. Remedies incdudt focusing oa crmLe prevention and property maintenancx. Overall, the moratorium sad subsequent growth studus emphasize prudent City management. The ! City needs to be involved with other municipalities, wunties and school districts in order to ! coordinate growth is an environment of constrained resources. A Dakota County effort to conduct ' similar studies is highly encouraged, because many cities would benefit. 1 . ~ 1QNTRODUCTION Lakeville City Council adopted an interim ordinance on July 15, 1991 which ttmporarily prohibits approval of new residential plats and expansion or development of mobile (manufactured) home parks. This one-year moratorium will be lifted upon completion of this fecal impact study and ' drafting of appropriate growth management plans and controls. Issues surrounding the study include: • Lakeville's population is growing faster than the City's abrlity to provide needed services and infrastructure • T~ City ~ not willing to pay far growth by ditniniahing the quality 4f 5etvixs to existing residents • 'There is relatively little factual information on the costs and revenues of ditl'ereat types of devebpment ' Iaformatlen generated: by this fiscal impact study is to serve as a basis for developing growth managmnent Plans Overall tax levy has. been frozen by the Legislature, while growth continues. . t' Lakeville wears to develop fiscal guidelines for decisions concerning future residential development and growth. Numerous questions arxe in rsaponse to new properly tax legislation. Soate of the major questions posed by the City Council and Staff' include: • What types of developments pay their own way? • How do difftrmtt zoning categories fare in terms of the fuxatl impact? • At what deasity or value do developments become fea~ble (net positive)? • What are the critical factors affecting fiscal feasibility? What typos of cervix pmvhioa is needed for different type of devetopments7 • What may happen when school districts fax the new homestead legislation? • What would happen if 19931evy restrictions were applied to today's situation? Though not all these questions can be answered with this study, basic issues can be addressed. PleareiefereoAppendiuAforthespxiGcltesolo4on91A3whichcontsiosgeatadetailontheimpeW~forehissndy. e 2 I PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Fisica/ t New tax laws decrease revenues from all types of devdopau:.nt, with greatest decreasev from high value residential.. • Overall expenditures, adjusted to constant dollars, are on file rive. However, expenditures percapita -are somewhat declining which remits in population growth outstripping expenditure i?xreases. • Tho-higher the density of housing the more the return, however, tlsere ate diminishing returns after a ceraia point in market valve and density. 'I~ritthCSaea, quads, towahomes and high value htf~des provide the best fiscal iavesement m honoring. • Industry, a positive net fiscal lead use, requires adjacent low housir?g for its workers. This may act to balance the extra ecrsts as$oeiated with low income housing. • The City ahonid cantutueto ca:rfnny scrutiame thew of tax increment tntantaag for reddential devdopment. • Fiscal itapact fees ought to re5ect sewers, roads, additional services such as polio, fue k schools, parlor, etc. f' • A large portion of northeastern Lakeville is actually subsidizing Apple Valley commercial arras despiu the presence of fiscal disparities. • Aa internat. audit should be oonsideted to determine what proportion of costs is spent oa new development versus existing. This would aid in devdopiog impact fees to address the added cost of development. Dakota Couary should undertake similar fiscal impact analysis because of effects of growth on County services. 3 F1 PRINCIP'AL FINDINGS PlsaningaadMaoageraent Scattered development puts an enormous strain on the City's operating and capital budgets ` and negativdY impact4 commercial areas dependent on concentrated seivia areas. [t~~ '1'herc arc serious questions of design W be addressed in addition to maiag categories. Sow of the higher density townhomea were actually more attractive: and Bscaliy sound. than s;ngie faintly homes, such as Oak Shores 3rd Addit~n where the average market value of both uuiiais approxiotately 5112,500. Housing development is a patticalarly sensitive and twin ~ 9~ioa iv Lakeville which wtil uire cxrdul ai analysis te-apac~fic m a camrprevenaive spatial meaner. • The comprehensive plan calls for msintainiag s balance is housing types. The should ~o`~ study l~~ guidelines on what constitutes a balance. • Both police and parks are conceived about the magnitude of clnldren coming into Lakeville. Lakeville needs to have better estimates of popuhttion distriibution and in-migration. • Economic development efforts will change as the City ages. Redevelopment, with xmitivity to historic preservation and community character, should be a higher priority for the City. • Aged or rental housing and commensal motel/hotels appear synonymous with more crime F problems. Efforts need to be undertaken to prevent deusioration in order to curb crime. • The growth in Lakeville is actually a county-wide or regions! problem in that school bond issaes may drive businesses away. • It may 6e advantageous for Lakeville to hire a lobbyist to solely represent its interests. • The City will nxd to develop a more comprehensive infomration database system and train employees in its use and management. The City will also have to train staff to deal with the large anrouat of information coming from such a system. I The City should develop a n~earch guide for local and neighborhood redevelopmptt, in MI order to get an early start on preventing deterioration and its associated problems. { i 4 i PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Community • Upkexp of propetKies is an important elemevt in terms of property value, thus influencing net tax return. A seriex of community outreach meetings should be hdd to determine what ' makes people invest in their homes and maintain them. • Police service cads are significantly different between developments. The higher value homms have more crimes against property whereas lower valve homes have more crimes against person. . Utt7tty providers such as water, sewer, ettxtric and cable TV nexd organized gmwth, as today'spattern is Nighty iset~t and reflects itthigher costs to provide setvicea. • The City should seek ways to encourage a divexse age mix to avoid over or under use of public facilities and services, such as schools. • Bxamples include promoting senior housing development and educating r~ealtors regarding City goals. f 5 Springsted ~~~.r City of Lakeville, Minnesota Economic Benefits Study Work Pian Nerd 2003 Objective(s) The purpose of this study is to assist the City of Lakeville in developing an economic benefits system that will enable the City to estimate both the costs and the taeneflts that are likely to result from the development of residential and commercial !industrial projects within the City. Cost will include both operational and capital expenditures directly related to the. type of development anticipated. Residential development will include single family unks, medium density units (duplexes up to quads) and multifamily unRs and wlll be further delineated into conventional and age-restricted units to reflect the different costs and benefits associated with each. Task I -Review Background information and Assumptions ? Review historical data related to economic growth and the growth in housing and population, and their impacts on the City they relate to revenues, operating expenditures and capital expenditures ? Review the current fiscal year's budget ? Review historical capital improvements and the funding sources used for the improvements ? .Review historical trends in housing unit development and commerciaUindustrial development - ? Review histoncal information related to the growth`in the City's tax base ? Review the City's Comprehensive Plan ? Review current funding practices, funding sources and other policies for financing capital improvements ? Review the City's current subdivision requirements and required fees ? Review factors relative to impacts of development ? Review any existing allocation of revenues and expenditures to employment and residents City of Lakeville, Minnesota Economic Benefits Study April 2005 Page 2 Task II -Develop the Preliminary Economic Benefits System ? Develop the preliminary economic benefits system computer model, based in Microsoft® Excel, that will enable the City to project economic benefits of development in the City including, but not limited to, the following: - Analysis of City revenues by source to determine the amount likely to be generated by new employment and new residents - Analysls of City expenditures by major category to determine the likely cost of providing services to support new employment and new residents resulting from development - Allocating both•revenues and expenditures for economicdevelopment recogniz~g the differences that will occur depending on the type of developmeht - Project the likely cost of capital improvements needed to support development ~ - Maintain the system on a current basis going forward Task III - Present and Review Preliminary Economic Benefits System and Computer Model ? Springsted will prepare a Draft Report of Findings that will contain our preliminary economic benefits system. findings and recommendations. This review document will form the core of our final report ? Springsted will meet with the City staff in a workshop. session to present and review the Draft Report of economic benefits and the preliminary computer model ? Following a discussion and review of the system, Springsted will modify or change the system and computer model incorporating the City's comments into the final system as appropriate Task IV - Presentand Review Final Economic Benefits System and Computer Model ? Springsted will meet with the City in a workshop session to present the final rwmputer model, provide training in its use and present Ehe Final Report of Findings. ? Springsted's training package for the model wilt inGude: 1. On-site training by Springsted personnel to enable key staff to become proficient in the operation of the model 2. A written training manual provided by Springsted 3. For the first 12 months following the delivery of the final computer model, toll-free phone inquiry service during normal business hours with response by Springsted staff within two hours of an initial inquiry, and repairs or corrections within two business days of initial notification The project deliverable will be a written Report of Findings and a computer model that will enable the City to estimate both. the costs and the benefits that are likely to result from the development of residential and commercial/industrial projects within the City. ...tea>r _ASr, City of Lakeville, Minnesota Economic Benefits Study - April 2005 Page 3 Expectations In order to conduct this study, the City will need to designate a staff member to serve as a project manager. This person will be responsible for assisting Springsted with gathering accurate and timely data needed to complete the project and to assist in arranging for required meetings. At a minimum the following information will be needed to complete the study: Financia Feasibility Studv Required Information Copies of the City's. most recent and prior three years Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (iT not already provided to Springsted} ? Copy of the City's 2005 budget including revenues and expenditures for all funds ? A copy of the current capital improvement plan. ? Copies of any currentCity policies related to capital expenditures and/or funding for them including special assessments; development fees, and other sources ? Information related the estimated costs. of growth driven improvements (roads, parks, libraries, administrative facilities, and other public improvements} ? Copies of any service level standards adopted by the City ? Copies of City studies related to projected growth in general and school age population ? Copies of any current City policies related to capital expenditures and/or funding for them ? Copies of any previous related studies Compensation We propose to complete this study as described in this proposal for the lump sum fee of exclusive of any out-of-pocket expenaes such as travel and copying. This amount would include up to three on-site meetings. - We will proceed within tart days of receiving the notice to proceed and will complete the study within 10 to 12 weeks from the time ail the necessary information is made available to Springsted. 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 60 professionals to keep the project on schedule to the greatest extent possible. City of Lakeville, Minnesota Economic Benefits Study April 2005 Page 4 Springsted would invoice the City for work completed based on the following schedule: Cumulative Percentage Percentage Time of Invoice Invoiced Invoiced Com letion of Task II 50°k 50% Com letion of Task 1111 40% 90°k Completion of Task IV 10% 100% Shoutd the City request and authorize additional work outside the scope of services described in this proposal or additionat revisiohs beyond those agreed Upomat the discussion and = review of the draft report and preliminary model, we would invoice the City at our standard hourly fees. I` Title Rate, Principal & Senior Officer $195 Officer & Pro}ect Manager $165 Senior Associate $140 Associate $125 Support Staff $ 50 S1WORKING PROJECT FILEBVAINNESOTAILLLNCEVp1E - CfrY OF- L61831PRELWINARY-PROMO FILEBIECONOMIC BENEFIT WORN PLAN 80-0&85.DOC City of Lakeville Community and Economic Development Memorandum To: Economic Development Commission From: David L. Olson, Community and Ewnomic Development Director Copy: Steve Mielke, City Administrator Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist Da>5e: Tune 27, 2006'. Subject: Proposal from Maxfield Research for Additional Housing Needs Analysis Attached is a draft proposal from Maxfield Research Inc. to provide research and consulting services to assess the potential demand for senior housing and workforce fiousing in the City of Lakeville. The scope of work identified in this proposal is intended to address the recommendations. made by the EDC at the April 25"' meeting after a review of the Housing Needs Assessment for Dakota County completed by Maxfield Research in November of 2005. Additional clamcation on the desire to address further life cycle housing needs in conjunction with the senior housing and the transportation element of work force housing may be needed based on the recommendation of EDC from the April meeting. This draft proposal is intended to result in feedback and suggestions regarding the proposed scope of services. When the EDG and staff are comfortable with the scope of work for the proposed additional housing analysis, the Maxfield proposal along with a recommendation of a CDBG program amendment will be brought to the City Council for consideration. June 20, 2006 Mr. David Olson Community and Economic Development Direr City of Lakeville 20i9S Holyoke Avenue Lakeville; MN SSO44 CONTRACT FOIL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Maxfield Research] Inc. ("Maxfield' proposes to provide researc3i a~?d consulting services to the t~ty of Lakeville (the `tilient'~ Li assess the potential demand for senior housing as well as for wcnkfcrce housing in Lakeville. The analysis of workfcxce housing would include examining the demand generated by various market segments seakireg housing and determine the laude of affordability required to meet their identified needs. This study would provide recommendations regarding the types of hor~irtg products appropriate in meet the warkfoalce and aerrior demand. This proposal outlines our scope ofaeavices for this analysis. SCOPE AND COST OF SERVICES Bastian Ilousiag 1. Identify an appropriate draw ("Market's area far senior hotxing in Lakeville. 2. Examine senior (age 65+) household incemeB in the Madcet Area in 20(~ and 2011. 3. Examine hom~vvnerahip rates of seniors (age 6S+) in the Market Area in 2000. 4. Examine home values in the Madcet Area, and c`aicvtste the amount ofino~ne that sea- la's would derive upon the sale of their home that ceuld be utilized for senior housing. S. Define the various types of senior housing. 6. Inventory existing and pending saloon housing products within the Market Area, with a brief deacsiption of project highlighb: age of building, number of uriib, project type (rental/coopemtive/candor ard:ervice level. 7. Calwlale demand for market isle independent (without service), caatgregate, aswsted living and memory care housing in the Market Area. 8. Provide a brief discussion of need for additional market rate senior housing unite by ser- vicelevel in Lakeville based on the initial demand calculatiana. Cost for Sgtff Tlme: 612-33fl-0012 (fee) 612-904-7979 615 First pvmue NE, Suite 400, t~rimeapoli s, IdN 55413 Mr. David Olson June 20, 2006 City of Lakeville page 2 Workforce Housine A. Demographic Review 1. Identify an appropriam draw ("MarkeY~ area for general-occupancy housing in Lakeville. 2. Compile and analyze information on overall population and household growth trends (1990 to 2020) in the Market Area. 3. Analyze population age dishbuton tratds in the Market Area from 1990 to 2010. 4. Analyze household incomes by age of householder in the Market Area in 2006 and 2011. S. Analyze household tenure by age of householder in the Market Area in 1990 and 2000. 6. Summarize demographic trarda as they relate to the demand for workforce housing in Lakeville. B. Employment Trends 1. Examine employment growth in Lakeville and the Market Area from 1990 to Za20. 2. F,xamine growth trends of buaisu~sses types by size in the zip codes comprising Lakeville from 1998 to 2003 (or most can ant year availablej, inducting information on wages. 3. Interview up to eight major local employers regarding growN? plans, wages, where em- ployees live, housing needs of employees, and traneportatiion/trraisit needs of employees. 4. Examine commuting patterns of Lakeville residents to jobs as well as people to jobs lo- catedin Lakeville. 5: Interview economic development specialists with the City/County, Mimusota Worl[fa~se Center, Chamber of Ceanmenx, regarding bum gown trerr~, economic eoZdtians, housing issues as they pertain to business growth and needs of employees, and transporta- tiort/hansitneeds of employees. 6. Discuss the implications of the findings on workforce housing demand in Lakeville. C. Housing Market Analysis 1. Collect data on single-Stmily and multifamily haucing resale values in the Market Area: examine price distribution and median sale price of home resales in the Market Area. 2. Collect information on actively marketing for-sale multifamily homes in the Marital Area, inducting general pricing, buyer profile, and development trends. 3. Inventory subsidized and affordable renffit housing develogmerds, as well ss a sampling of ra~+er market rate apartrnenb, in the Market Area with information on number of units, age of property, u>7it mix, rent, vacancies, and renter profiles. 4. Examine secondary dais on vacancy and raft trends of market rate aparhnenffi in the Market Area. S. Identify pending for-sale multifamily and rerrtal develaprnentr in the Market Area. 6. Interview real estate agent, property managers, developers, and others familiar with the local market regarding overall mends in the housing market, inchrdittg the depth of tha market for workforce housing and trnnspo~tionftrm>sit needs among tenants. 7. Discuss the implications of the Endings on the danand for workforce housing in Lake- villa. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. David Olson June 20, 2005 City of Lakeville pass 3 D. Conclusions and Recommendations 1. Calciilate demand for workforce housing by affordability levels and tenure (ownerhenber) fiom 2003 to 201 S. 2. Discuss the target markets for various housing product types. 3. Recommend harsang product types, including recommendations on mix and pricing to mead the identified danand. 4. Discuss marketing considerations. E. Meetings and Report Preparation I . By phor~, discuss the.draft v~ian of the report with the t~ient 2. In persast, oae piuattezion of the fiend to the Client. 3. Preparation of report in Market Feasibility Study format Coat fnr Staff Tlm~ COST OF SERVICES The work outlined above under the Scope of Services far senior aril workforce housing will be perfornied for Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars (51 1,900.00}, including autrof-pocket expenses for printing, mileage, pastage,bng-distance telegl>aie, data purchases and five (S) roF' ies of the final i+epcat. An executed copy of this will be required prior to us begamtang our wotk. Billings wil! be made monthly in the amonrtt equal fb the porfion ofthe work that has been completed. Arty meeting time requested by the Client beyond that outlined in the above Snipe of Services wt71 be balled in addition at our standard hourly rates far staff time whiclt range from 533.00 to $130.00 per hour. Arty additiosml copies ofthe report beyond the five {3) inducted in the can- tract amotmt would be billed at air direct coat. WQRbC PRODUCT Findings will be presented in a bound report format COMPLETION TIME The work outlined under Scope of Services will be completed in draft fotm within Sixty 1p Sev- enty-Five days {60 - 75) days of the execution of this agreement unless delayed by unexpeckect emergencies, faces beyond the aontral of Hie patties, ~ by written agreement of the parties. MAXFIELD 1RESEABCH INC. Mr. David Olson Lune 20, 2006 City of Lakeville ~ 4 PAYMENT All costs including staff time and outwf-pocket expetrses billed on a monthly basis shall be pay able to Maxfield Reseadr Inc. within fifteen (15) days of receipt of ~ invoice showing the wmk completed and the cost of the work. A fir~arrce charge of one aril one-haifperecet (1.55b) pcu mordh will be added to the unpaid balance of each invoice not paid within thirty (30) days. DISCLAIMER The ob9ee~ive of this research anent is to gather and arsrlyze ~ maay raarket ooznponerr~ as is reasonable within the time limits an8 projected staffhours forth in this sgreeanent We assume rro responsibility for matters in character. The prop!erty/land is asnnned to be free and clear of any indebtednesre, liens or ,and good and rrurdcetable title sad competent management are saaUICted, unless otherwise stated. If building plena or site pLtr» are included in the report, they are to be cotsridered only appraod- mate and are submitted to assist the reader in visuslizurg the properly. We assume rro respon- sibility foz the accruacy of any building or aiffi plans. Certain infomratiorr and statisticr contained in the report, which are the basis far ocu~lus~ae contained in the report, wilt be frrarished by other ittdeperedent sourer. While we believe this infazmation is reliable, it has rat bece independently verified by us and we assume rro respon- sibility fez itr aocru'acy. The conclusions in the report are based on our best judgments as market research consarltmrte. Maxfield Research bro. disdaisna say express or implied warranty of~sru~arree az 'car that the projections ~ conclusions will be realized as stated. The result of the proposed project may be achieved, but also racy vary duo to changing market conditions dratac~taristic of the real estate industry, caranges in facts that was the basis of conclusions in this report, or otha unfore- seancircumstances. This agreement will be construed according to the laws of the Smte of Minne~ffi. TERMINATION This agreement may be temrinated upon written notification of either patty to the other. In the event of termination, the Clierrt will pay Maxfield Research Inc. for staff hours performed at the tom's normal hourly rates, plus all expenses incrured through the date oftermination. If this proposal meets with your approval, please sign and return one copy to the offices of Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIEL.D RESEARCH INC. Mr. David Olson hate 20, 2006 City ofLakeville p~ S The costs outlined in the S cope of Services shall remain in effect fair a peaiod of 90 days from the date listed at the top ofthis cantcact. Agreed to this day of 2006. MAI~CFIELD RESEARCH INC. CITY C3F' LAKEVILLE Mary C. Bujoki David Ohron Presiderd Community and Econanic Dtv¢lapme~ Director MAXFIE21.1 RESEARCH INC. City of Lakeville Community and Economic Development Memorandum To: Economic Development Commission From: Adam ~enberger, Economic Development Specialist Copy: Steve Mielke, City Administrator .David L. meson, Community and Economic Development Director Date: June 21, 2006 Subject: High-Tech Subcommittee As a part of the 2006 Economic Development Work. Program, the High-Tech Subcommittee is tasked with conducting a survey of existing businesses to determine current and future Internet/information and telephone/voice service needs and how these needs are being met by the current service providers. In the summer of 2001 a Telecommunications Needs Assessment Survey was distributed to 157 businesses located in Airlake Industrial Park, .Fairfield Business Campus and the McStop area. The survey was intended to gather data on the telecommunications uses and needs of businesses in Lakeville. A new survey is currently being updated and finalized by the High-Tech Subcommittee. The planned method of distribution will be to send a letter signed by the Mayor asking the businesses to complete a survey located on the City of Lakeville`s website. This method will hopefully generate a higher response rate than the previous survey was able to obtain. The reconvened High-Tech Subcommittee met for' the first time on May 23, 2006 to discuss the distribution of a new survey using the web-based survey company www.surveymonkev.com. The High-Tech Subcommittee is moving forward with finalizing a revamped survey and posting it to the City of Lakeville`s website. The High-Tech subcommittee will be meeting at 5:30 p.m. on June 27 just prior to the EDC meeting to finalize the survey and letter from the Mayor. City of i..ak~vill+r Community and Economic Development Mema~andum To: C-conomi~ Development Commission Erom: David L.'Clson, Community and F~onomic Development Director Cepy: Sty Mike, City Administrator Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist 1: _ _ 3tir~e ~7, Suf>Ct; 7ur~e Dir~ec6cr`s iteport The following fs t~ Director`s itEport for.)une of 20th. Fc`+~a~ t"~1.~f t.~'' ~,a"~f ~dr~f iAlu 1&~ CM June 28, 2o0B the City of LakeviNe enct the Lakeville Chamteer of Co are ca-spcrn~ortr~ ~ b meetrr~g for manuureES #hat ~re in d wkh workforce challenges. Dakota Future is coordinating the event which wiN also be he[d In canjuncGon with the City of Bum~ville arad the Elumsvitte Ghamher of Commerce. At the 2006 Daiwta~ County Economic Summit, a number of companies outlined ti~eir workfores chaNenges. The bottom .firm is that skilled and reliable workers make the difference in the global competkion. Companies face the chaliesrtge of oontinuciy upgrading the ~kiUs of their exis8ng employees while finding skfllad new employees to enable growth and to replace retiring workers. To ensure that Dakota County can.remain ~arn~.to successful companies, we know that ws must jcinwifh our ocrmpanies ~ adclrese this chal6enge. Agee eoariomic developers, chambers of commerce, colleges and workfonce speeleli~ are partnering to coordinate our workforce development system so that it meets the needs of our companies and residents. The meeting is being held at the newly opened Bumsvifle Work Force Center June 28 from 8:00 - 8:00 a.m. for a breakfast discussion. -Joint City Gity Gouncil 1 EDG / Plannins~ Gommission Work Session The second Joint Work Session on the Downtown Plan has been scheduled for Monday, July 10°i at 5:30 p.m. in the pAarion Conferrsnce Room of City Hall. Econpmi~ elQpment AssocJation of Minnesota ARnu~i~Gonference Adam IGenberger and I will be attending the annual Economic b~nelopment Association of Minnesota (EDAM) Conference June 21~-23`x. 'The topics for-the Conference will include Ethics fnr ixonomiC Developers and an overview of the recently enacted Eminent Domain reforms.' An overview of the Eminent Domain reforms will be provided at the June 27"' Meeting. May Buifdina,~rmlt R~e~ort The City issued building permits through May with a tots! valuation of $61,032;665. This compares tca permits staling $83,373,751 during the same period in 2405. Included in this valuation were commercial and industrial permits with a totlit valuation oaf iita $19~141~;! ~ d~'1. - also Issued perms fear 124 sli^ faani~ Mmes argil >~S tcree crud ta~ndca`urilts through May. This compares to 112 sings family and 166 townhomQ and eondo unit permits during the same period in 2005. While the commercial and lndustr~l permit totals appear bo be law ttuough May as cornpared Lo last year, there are a • number of~proposed commercial pro~Cts in the planning stage for which permits will be issued in the seccand half of the year. i)esastch IrKit Irna~ti~ ~rri AtEacfied is an artlcle regarding.. Despatch Industries receiving the Cvvemor`s Internattonai Trade Association Award for smolt-mid- bull in IH~rnesate in 2006. This is a weN-deserved recognition of a long-time Laiceviile business. During a recent meeting with Despatch representatives, they indiceteci that. the Company was kaoking to add possi(aly 50 mare jobs wid~ain the coming year. Staff prepared a letter of congratulations to Despatch from the City for tl7e Mayor's signature. Suotiiaht on Business Lakeville SuperTarget was featured during tJie Spotlight on Business at the June 19a' Cdy Council meting. El]C member Barry Pogatci~nik made the and a copy of the presentation is attached. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING QF THE EDC WILL BE kUGUST 22"d. June 16, 2006 Item No. Spotlight on Business Lakeville SuperTarget Overview The Spotlight on Business Program is an outgrowth of the Economic Development Commission's Economic Development Strategic Work Plan that includes efforts "to inform and educate residents on benefits of commercial .and industrial businesses in order to gain community. support and appreciation for business growth." Lakeville SuperTarget will be featured at the June 19, 2006 City Council meeting. EDC Member Barry Pogatchnik will present the information on SuperTarget. Store Team Leader David Klein will be present to accept the award. Lakeville SuperTarget, located at 18275 Kenrick Ave, is a general merchandise retailer with a full service grocery store. They will have been open in Lakeville for 4 years in October. Built on the motto of "Expect More. Pay Less°, SuperTarget is an upscale discount store that offers designer merchandise at affordable prices and prides itself on Gean, attractive stores. A large part of Target revolves around community involvement and community giving. Involved in activities like Pan O' Prog and Taste of Lakeville, the Lakeville SuperTarget has its own Community Relations Board and participates in monthly community events. As part of the Take Charge of Education Program, Target donates 1°~ of all Target Card purchases made at Target and of all purchases made elsewhere with the Target Card to the school of the cardholder's choice. Target gives approximately $3,000 - $5,000 per year in scholarships to area students, and according to Target's website, Target Corp. gives back over $2 million/week to the communities It S8Ne5. As a member in the Lakeville Chamber of Commerce, SuperTarget is a regular contributor to the community and also has national partnerships with many groups ranging from the United Way to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. SuperTarget employs approximately 360 part-time and full-time area residents. In addition to employment, SuperTarget provides a substantial tax benefit to the community. The Dakota County Assessor has assigned an estimated market value of over $14.9 million to the SuperTarget building and property. Based on current tax capacity rates, this market value will result in an estimated contribution of $449,427 in local property taxes going to support the City, Dakota Co ty, and Independent School District 194 in 2006. _ Adam Kienberger Economic Developm nt Specialist Financial Impact: $ 0 Budgeted: Y/N _ Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: Repen'. Pennitslssued PERMIT ISSUED REPORT PAGE: I ' Date Printed: OSRI@006 City of Lakeville Pamir Catcgwy: An Pennin f CURRENT RANCE PREVIOUS RANGE - 05IO1I2006 - 05(31!2006 05!01!2005 - 05/31(2005 PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUAT7ON PLAN RE5'IEW QTY' BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIE55' BuiNling Single Family-All Inclusive 24 55,454.80 6,608,000.00 30,819.68 23 49,138.85 5,946,000.00 28,128.06 Duplex-All Inclusive 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 4,457.50 550,000.00 2,565.88 Twnhse Unit-All Inclusive IS 24,873.05 2,428,000.00 5,025.80 42 62,403.70 6,327,000.00 16,255.46 Detached Townhouse -All Inclusit 0 0.00 O.OU 0.00 2 3,701.50 415,000.00 2,074.48 Condo U 0.00 0.00 0.00 12 15,040.20 1,392,000.00 3,250.08 Mobile Hume Install 1 59.50 0.00 0.00 I 59.50 0.00 0.00 Driveway 1 50.00 0.00 0.00 4 2110.00 0.00 0.00 Egress Window l 54.00 1,500.00 0.00 I 38.75 1,000.00 0.00 Stucco Siding l 24.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Garages 2 320.50 17,000.00 145.11 2 362.50 2Q000.00 O.OU Accessory Bldgs 2 194.50 8,000.00 0.00 4 339.65 13,300.00 0.00 Reside 17 416.50 0.00 U.OU 12 308.25 49,329.00 0.00 Reroof 38 931.00 34,283.00 0.00 21 514.50 7,000.00 0.00 Res AddtdRepairlRmdl 5 384.50 14,500.00 0.00 9 1,938.50 141,500.00 618.64 Deck-Residential 6l 4,890.80 171,100.00 0.00 6l 4,861.40 188,300.00 0.00 Porch -Residential 5 626.25 30,000.00 0.00 3 445.75 23,000.00 0.00 Lower Level -Residential 21 3,166.40 254,300.00 172.41 21 3,285.75 174,000.00 126.91 Addition -Residential 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 461.93 32,000.00 300.27 Commercial -New 4 7,443.50 1,344,000.00 4,747.76 2 9,425.50 1,972,000.00 6,126.57 Commercial Addn/Rmdl 2 558.50 34,000.00 163.31 9 22,139.40 4,526,000.00 14,264.18 Commercial Re-Roof U 0.00 0.00 O.OU 3 445.50 0.00 0.00 Industrial-New 1 2,645.75 395,000.00 1,719.74 0 0.00 O.OU 0.00 Industrial Addn/Rmdl 2 362.50 20,000.00 O.OU 0 U.DO 0.00 0.00 Taz Exempt Addn/Rmdl I 38.75 1,000.00 0.00 0 0.00 O.UO 0.00 Tax Exempt -New U 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Swimming Pools 7 646.50 0.00 0.00 8 996.00 0.00 D.OU Buildings Moved 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 O.OU O.OU Buildings Demolished l 50.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 Repot. Pe~milslssued PERMl7' ISSUED REPORT PACE: Date PrinleJ. 05!7172006 City of Laknville Pemiil Category . All Pemuro CURRENT RANGE PREVIOUS RANGE 05/0112006 - 05131/2006 05/01/2005 - 05/31/2005 PERMIT TYPE QTY RASE FEE VALUATION PIdN REVIEW QTY' BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW Sign 7 25.00 O.W D.OD 3 60.00 0.00 0.00 Hol Tub 1 20.00 0.00 0.00 4 80.00 0.00 O.UO Heat Pump 0 0.00 0.0(1 0.00 D 0.00 0.00 D.OU Undef-med 14 280.00 0.00 0.00 3 70.00 0.00 O.OD Subtotal 116 4,1211.00 28,465.00 0.00 237 13,824.50 13,993.50 0.00 Fire Fuel Tank 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Automatic Fire-Extinguishing Syst 4 284.20 13,680.00 0.00 3 508.15 4,150.00 0.00 Industrial Ovens 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.P Gas 0 0.00 O.DD 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 O.OD Paint booth 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal 4 284.20 13,580.W 0.00 4 508.15 4,150.00 OAO Mechanical Heating 2 79.00 0.00 0.00 8 316.00 0.00 O.UO Heating/Air Cond 9 355.80 36,637.00 0.00 8 316.00 ]7,440.00 0.00 Air Conditioning 8 316.00 0.00 0.00 6 237.00 0.00 0.00 Commercial Mechanical 3 242.00 13,500.00 O.W 3 1,881.03 167,353.00 0.00 Gas Piping 4 158.011 0.00 0.00 8 646.50 32,100.00 OAO Ventilation 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 449.00 34,850.00 0.00 Refrigeration D 0.00 0.00 0.00 U 0.00 0.00 O.UO Garage Heater 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 D O.OU 0.00 O.OU Add/RpldRepairs 7 276.50 21,400.00 0.00 2 79.00 2,350.00 0.00 In Floor Water Heat 0 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0 0.60 0.00 0.00 Mis~llanenus 0 0.00 OAO 0.00 1 39.30 0.00 O.UO Fireplace 5 197.50 1,900.00 0.00 14 553.00 11,671.00 0.00 Subtotal 38 1,624.50 73,437.00 0.00 55 4,517.03 265,764.00 0.110 Report. Pmm~tslaaaaJ PERMIT ISSUED REPORT PAGE: 5 Date Printed: gs/JIJI006 City of Lakeville Pmmit Category: All Pemub ~ CURRENT RANGE PREVIOUS RANCE 05701!2006 - 05131/2006 05/01/2005 - 05131Y2005 PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION P44N REVIEW QTY' BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW' sub-taro! 5 528.SU 32,000.00 O.OU 5 674.00 36,000.00 0.00 Llser Defined Re-inspection Fee 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 141.00 0.00 O.OU Plan Review 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 U.00 0.00 0.00 Security Escrtrw 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 U 0.00 0.00 O.OU Miscellaneous 0 O.UO 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 U.00 Sub-total 0 0.(10 - 0.00 0.00 6 141.00 ~ 0.00 O.OU 'Coning Accessory Buildings 10 200.00 0.00 0.00 6 120.00 0.00 O.UO Above Ground Pool 0 O.OU O.OD 0.00 0 0.00 O.OU 0.00 Fenu~es 33 660.00 0.00 0.00 35 700.00 0.00 D.OU Sub-toms 43 86Q00 U.00 O.W 41 82U.OU 0.00 U.DD Taml 509 115,778.83 11,741,284.00 43,094.08 677 206,118.00 24,371,963.00 73,710.53 Repon'. PennitslnueJ - PERMIT ISSUED REPORT PAGE: 2 Date PnsueJ: osntnooe City of Lakeville Pemtit CWegory. All Pe~roiN CURRENT RANCE PREVIOUS RANGE 01101/2006 -05131/2006 01/01/2005 - 0813112005 PERMff'CYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEN' Buildings Demolished 7 347.00 ~ D.(NI 0.00 9 297.00 0.00 0.00 Foundation Only Z 1,147.42 88,000.00 744.01 2 4,087.50 575,000.00 2,656.88 Grading 2 ISD.DO 0.00 0.00 1 75.00. -0.00 O.W Miscellaneous 6 1,555.00 16,000.00 0.00 2 421.55 2,022,985.00 274.01 Subtotal 7W 525,950.93 58,404,799.00 231,150.09 795 646,881.82 79,881,984.00 290,626.56 Paectrical - SinglcFamily 43 3,145.00 OAU O.OU 284 2Q,32D.00 13,000.00 0.00 Duplex U O.DO 0.00 0.00 L 80.00 0.00 000 Townhouse 75 5,880.00 0.00 0.00 25 2,002.00 0.00 0.00 Service Lateral 84 1,680.00 400.00 0.00 27 540.00 O.OU O.DO Furnace/Air Conditioning 52 1,095.00 23,466.00 0.00 44 960.00 850.00 0.00 In Floor Heat 4 120.00 500.00 0.00 7 160.00 6,425.78 0.00 Manufactured Hume 9 225.00 0.00 0.00 3 70.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-Panel 4 165.00 IOO.DD O.OD 7 149.50 450.00 0.00 "temporary Service 2 40.00 100.00 0.00 4 120.00 0.00 0.00 Saver Switch 91 1,820.00 5.475.00 0.00 75 1,500.00 0.110 0.00 Lawn Sprinkler Controller 1 20.00 2,500.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cable Box1DSL I 30.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 O.UO Fireplace Blower/Igniter 10 360.25 3,020.00 0.00 7 280.00 4,650.00 0.00 Res Addition7Remotkl 28 995.00 4,877.00 0.00 G3 2,545.00 22,435.50 0.00 Lower Level -Residential 15 580.00 1,602.00 0.00 134 5,439.50 39,925.00 0.00 Additional Inspections 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 40.W 0.00 0.00 Commercial/huiusttial 23 1,603.50 0.00 0.00 42 5,8$0.75 0.00 0.00 CommerciaUhtdustrial AdddRtnd 90 5,410.00 0.00 0.00 64 2,779.00 0.00 0.00 TratTic Signal Standard 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 80.00 0.00 0.00 Street Lighting l 20.00 0.00 0,00 0 0.00 0.00 0.110 Sprinkler/Alarm 7 167.50 0.00 0,00 l5 584.50 0.00 0.00 Outlets l3 360.00 1,030.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 lnstitutional/Tax Exempt ~ .290.00 0.00 0.00 11 328.00 0.00 11.00 ~ Report: Pemritvlvvm:a PERMIT LSSUED REPORT PAGE: 4 Dale PriateJ: 95l31rSaa6 Clly o(Lakevilk Permit Category: All Permits CURRENT R4NCE PREVIOUS RANGE U1l01/2006 - 05!31/2006 0/10112005 - OSl31f 2005 PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW' Plumbing Commercial Ylum6ing System 21 4,865.63 382,425.00 0.00 36 8,116.69 687,829A0 0.00 Plumbing System 0 0:00 D.DO 0.00 I 228.00 17,500.00 0.00 Water Sotlener 145 2,074.00 12,577.00 0.00 143 2,075.00 27,617.50 0.00 Water Meter 8 0.00 0.00 O.DO _ 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lawn Sprinklers 25 987.50 2,223.00 0.00 39 1,540.50 6,430.00 0.00 Inside Plumbing Conversion 6 321.50 0.00 0.00 1 39.50 0.00 0.00 Addn/RepairlRmdl 5 197.50 0.00 0.00 li 592.50 0.00 O.OU Water Heater 86 1,223.00 4,400.00 0.00 50 726.00 1,900.00 0.00 RPI. II 435.00 IOU.UO 0.00 5 198.00 0.00 0.00 Miscellaneous 2 3950 D.00 0.00 2 79.00 0.00 0.00 Comm/Muti-Family Lawn Sprinklt 3 118.50 0.00 D.00 7 276.50 0.00 0.00 Sub-tool 312 10,262.13 401,727.00 0.00 3DI 13,871.69 741,576.50 0.00 Sign Permanent Sign 35 1,900.00 0.00 0.00 44 2,400:00 0.00 0.00 'Temporary Sign 23 550.00 0.00 0.00 22 550.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 58 2,450:00 0.00 0.00 66 2,950.00 0.00 OAO Sewer/Water Water lnslall Only 2 294.50 21,000.00 0.00 0 0.110 0.00 0.00 Private Sewer-New 1 74.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 D.OD Private Sewer-Replace/Repair 0 0.011 0.00 0.00 l 74:50 0.00 0.00 S/W Conversion 5 422.50 0.00 0.00 1 84.50 O.OU 0.00 Sewer Conversion Only 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 W ater Conversion Only 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Commercial 6 3,509.07 350,907.00 O.W 4 1,955.50 172,600.00 0.00 Draintile Connection 0 O.UO 0.00 D.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Miscellaneous 3 1I8.5D 0.00 0.00 2 39.50 0.00 0.00 ,~+?iV~119lWEEtC~altt~fi~~~~PODU?d1'A t ~ww Mk D ' . 2 ~nt~ ~ ' t3espatc~ ~lusrrres, a wand the ~ lo~..sevea~ae Leader in `thctmal processing stemtun . mteraadtt~Aal . snit mvin>ntnental simvlativa sales based, is ~ was'•hoa- . "Lytef[td~po 1 ored a1 'the ant ~ • the awatsl 20116 C:overnrn''s htternattoaal - Iad~" satd.;;; ` Trade Asstiaatian Award is the ~ r:v>~. category of small or nrid--sized are crfttcat' to the of firm. our bttatn~s slid we:gtt tit Meat DerCh Cltairtnan; and kngtGst#t build ~rotal;~ - CEO trick Peyturr accepted s41i~ m.the. iaternatiortal ~aar- tha avian{ from Lt: Gdv: Caryl ketphta."~ Malnau atthe anneal Minnesb- ~n 2005 Peytoq was e to World Trade Week [nucheon to a~ompany Gcnrerno Tim on Friday,.May l9. Pawlwty pn a trade mission to Theaward-is presented annu China,ia an elfo~t to stt~e;tea akly and foutt§es on recognizipg ezonomic Pies attil id~tify andhottori~~ Mittnesota-based business appartnnities.. ' ccmipanies, ruganizations or rn-. h Tndria=r~ is a dividna~ that. excel in conduct- ,leading worldwide l~'. of, ng business ip the international thermalprocessingand•envtraa- marketplace, ; menta} simulation satutiSUfs ':Despatch Industries hour- ; Fouruied in 19t12,.Hespatch es its „$bobal headgrwrters Iq~tlustries, thrort$h its two pti- aad rt~tw(acwring facility in matt' pcodr~E ttttes, •+rtt Laltevi(fe, and has been a Min .and Rassco, :sefYpS, nesota-6esed "business fat more in a number of ittdustr~ ia- than 100 years eluding semiconductors, etec- For more than 20 years, Ironic components, photovokta- .Despatch has been doing bust- ics, pharmaceuticals, aerospace,: ness internationally. 3t now has automotive and industrial ma- eyurpmentlocatediamoreFhan teriala GO countries with 40 percent of OA May 20, 2006 iHISWEEK F~ Eminent domain bill passed F Governments are expected to pay more to litigate proceedings by T.W. Budig Another provision could Rep. Barb Goodwin, DFL- ec~wc.~r~rocaeeonrea have them paid for the loss of Columbia Heights, argued Less than a year after aeon- driveway access. passage of the bill will leave troversial U.S. Supreme Court In one of [he more contro- her city stuck with a redevel- F4 decision affecting the taking versial provisions, the attorney opment project already cost- who! of private property, eminent fees and cost of lighting an ing $1 million and likely [o p domain reform legislation eminent domain action must cost more. a whisked through [he Minne- be picked up by the condemn- "I'm disappointed,, obvi- n rota Legislature on Monday, ing authority when the final ously. My city is disappointed. May 15. cost of damages is judged at My taxpayers are disappoint- "It (the legislation) takes least 40 percent greater than ed," she satd. away the unfair advantage the last offer. But Rep. Jeff 7ohnson, R- and government has when negoti- Courts may awazd attorney Plymouth, House eminent a sting to take private property," fees when final judgement is domain bill author, countered said Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL- determined to be from 20 per- that it was "a bit of a stretch" forn~j Cook, Senate eminent domain cent to 40 percent higher than to believe the reform would of ~ ' bill author. last offer result in Columbia Heights aslce~ The U.S. Supreme Court's "The attorney fee provision being stuck with. a untenable to q KeIo vs. Cit of New London was a bi victo for small lice .s y g ty Proj~t- decision last summer - a de- business and any other land- The eminent domain bill cision affirming a city's right owner and it will help a lot passed the Senate on a 56 to 9 the ; to take private property and of people," said Mike Hickey, vote. transfer ownership to a pri- state director of the National It passed the House 115 to ~ti~ vale developer -amplified ~ Federation of Independent 17. the previously quiet eminent Business. Other bill provisions: f domain reform debate at the In another business-related • The "right of eminent do- neut."_`, Capitol. provision, condemning au- main" wiB be changed to the reasa Republicans and DFLers thorities must reimburse bust- "power of eminent .domain" st rallied around the }ssue - ness owners up to $50,000 to in state7aw House and Senate quickly.. help reestablish their displaced Prior to the start of an Ci passed bills-andtheeminent business eminent domain proceedings, of A!g ; > domain conference committee Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R- the condemning authority Lazy conferees speedtty sent a final La)ceville, said the refortn leg- must hold a public hearing at tts bill to their respective floors. islation could increase the cost which interested parties must con ` Several provisions in the of highway projects. be given time to testify. wrdli reform legislation affect bust- But she believes the public When a condemning au- Ltt ness. will aceept the additional cost thority is taking property for con ' For example, if a business as long as people are being blight mitigation, to address cool is destroyed by an eminent treated fairly. a public nuisance, or for con<' domain action -something House Minority Leader lamination remediation, it the owner must claim within Matt Entenza, DFLrSt. Paul, must identify the public costs 60 days of (heir lust court called the legislation a "good and benefits -how the action `.r hearing -the owner could be accomplishment," acredit to serves the public good: compensated beyond the loss bipartisanship. P of buildings but for the entire Not all lawmakers were T.W. Budig rs ar rim. lion Q business. pleased. budigQecm-inecom. day,.- 4 ~ LL s ~ ; - - Lib., ~ ~ axio': Some banks home equity rates mod are so hi h on d 51np • 9 ~ h/ cgs can .hear them. in> Competitive rates. Part of our Five Star Service.. ~R Zk , 4`° 4 nn3 ~~.Y ly ~ ~~~LiJ'Jl.T 117111 Gf7171 Last update: June 18, 2006 - 12:19 AM Minneapolis wireless Internet could become metrowide Several suburban cities are attracted to the idea of covering the Twin Cities area with low-cost, high-speed service. Steve Alexander, Star Tribune When Minneapolis votes on a citywide wireless network in August, it could lead to something much bigger: A metrowide network that could bring low-cast, high- speed Internet service to nearly everyone in the Twin Cities. While that goes far beyond the current plan, in which a laptop owner could get wireless Internet access anywhere in Minneapolis, some suburban officials are already wondering if they might join Minneapolis in a greatly expanded Twin Cities-wide network. Behind the idea of a metropolitan network are some of the same goals Minneapolis has: Lowering city telecommunications costs, making $20-a-month broadband widely available and helping close the "digital divide" between society's technological haves and have-Hots. But a metrowide network would have other advantages: A laptop owner would be able to connect to the Internet with a single log-on anywhere in the metro area. And roaming agreements would allow customers to move seamlessly from one network to another. In addition, some say, such a network just makes sense because ubiquitous wireless Internet access will, like cell phone service, be something that people simply expect. Cities also would benefit. Ahmed Tewfik, a Wi-Fi expert and an electrical engineering professor at the University of Minnesota, said a metrowide Wi-Fi network would guarantee more seamless police and fire emergency communications between cities because all would be sharing the same communications system. Ads on the Treo There would be other benefits to consumers accessing the network through Wi- Fi-enabled laptops or personal digital assistants. The network could, for those that want it, provide walk-by advertising so people near Target Center might receive offers for discount event tickets on their Treos. Or it could offer "find-me" tracking services so friends can locate each other in the city and agree on a place to meet. Cities could improve the efficiency of routine tasks by providing fast wireless service to city health and building 4 inspectors, road construction crews and policemen writing traffic tickets, said James Farstad, a computer industry consultant advising Minneapolis on its network. Even those who don't use the network might feel its effects. Tewfik predicted that its very existence, at $20 a month, could force existing telephone, cable TV and cell-phone broadband providers to cut prices. The Minneapolis City Council is evaluating mini-networks of the two finalists that would build and own the network. In August, the council will choose either US Internet of Minnetonka or EarthLink of Atlanta. Construction would begin in mid- Septemberand the network would be finished in nine to 12 months, although parts might work sooner, Farstad said. Everyone has to agree Already, Chaska, which built a citywide Wi-Fi network two years ago; St. Louis Park, which will soon vote on building one, and Minneapolis are receptive to connecting their networks with those of other cities. St. Paul, which is studying whether to create a network, is non-commital. "To reach the full value of these wireless networks, they have to be interconnected, like cell-phone networks;' said Dave Pokorney, Chaska city administrator. Farstad thinks all the suburbs will follow Minneapolis' lead. "It's already being discussed in about 30 surrounding communities." Minneapolis is one of about 200 U.S. cities considering or planning Wi-Fi networks, although no city as large as Minneapolis has completed one yet, said Michael Walkley, a wireless analyst at Piper Jaffray in Minneapolis. Other cities working on networks include San Francisco, Chicago, Phoenix, Portland, Ore., Houston, and Dayton, Ohio. "City Wi-Fi networks are a wave that can't be stopped," Walkley said. The Minneapolis network will cost $11 million to $20 million, but that is to be paid by the system provider. That's different from the plan in 5t. Louis Park, where the city would own a $4.4 million network but hire an outsourcing firm to manage it. Chaska also paid $1.3 million to build its own network, and outsourced the management to a third-party firm after running the network day- to-day became too time-consuming for the city's technical staff. Will it work? There are, of course, many questions to be answered before the Minneapolis Wi-Fi network could become the model for a much larger one serving the metro area. Speed: It remains unclear how fast a citywide service will be in practice. Chaska r , needed a year of adjustments before all subscribers got the Internet speeds they were promised. Security: Some consumers may be concerned about security of accessing the Internet over the airwaves, although experts say there is little reason for worry. Kurt Lange, vice president of operations and customer service at US Intemet, said that while Wi-Fi networks once were rightly criticized as lax on security, they have been upgraded so they're as secure as wired networks. Dead zones: In Minneapolis, signals will be strong outdoors and close to ground level, but probably won't work in the center of office buildings or in offices more than about three stories above ground, Farstad said. to Chaska, the city had trouble providing service in stucco homes, which have wire-mesh frameworks that interfere with radio waves, and to computers in basements, Pokorney said. Competition: Minneapolis is served by faster but more expensive high-speed Internet service from Qwest and Time Warner Cable. It's unclear how many people will switch for a slower but cheaper service. Minneapolis expects $20 a month fees for download speeds of about 1 million bits per second. The sign-up in Chaska has grown steadily to about one-third of the city's 8,000 households, or 2,344 subscribers in May. They pay $17 a month to the city for Internet access at speeds up to 1.5 million bits per second, a price that has risen only $1 a month in a year and a half. US Intemet calls that subscription rate enviable. Farstad agreed, noting that signing up one-third of households is a strong showing because only about 55 percent of all households subscribe to broadband Intemet service of any kind. And, perhaps in a sign that Minneapolis' goal of closing the digital divide is possible, Pokorney said most of the Chaska's subscribers didn't have home Internet access before or they had slower dial-up service. Sheldon Streed, who lives in the southwest corner of Chaska, knows all about Wi-Fi coverage problems. He signed up for Chaska.net when it started in the summer of 2004 but found the service slow and unreliable until the next summer, when the city relocated antennas and upgraded its equipment. Despite the problems, he's a satisfied customer today. "1 love the service now," Streed said. "It costs only $17 a month, and when I call about a problem they call back to make sure I'm getting good reception." Steve Alexander • 612-673-4553 ©2006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.