HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-06 City of Lakeville
Economic Development Commission
Regular Meeting
Agenda
Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 5:00 p.m.
City Hall, 20195 Holyoke Avenue
Lakeville, MN
1. Call meeting to order.
2. Approve August 29, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes
3. Update on the Proposed Dakota County Bio-Science Zone
4. Presentation on Dakota County Economic Development Strategy -Draft
Report
5. Proposed Business Telecommunications Technology Task Force
6. Director's Report
7. Adjourn
Attachments:
? August Building Permit Report
? Agenda from the Dakota County Manufacturers Breakfast
item Noe ~
City of Lakeville DRAFT
Economic Development Commission
Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2006
Marion Conference Room, City Hall
Members Present: Comms. Matasosky, Brantly, Emond, Tushie, Pogatchnik, Schubert,
Ex-officio member Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Todd Bomhauser, Ex-
officio member City Administrator Steve Mielke.
Members Absent: Comms. Miller, Smith, Gehrke, Erickson.
Others Present: Doug Thompson, Telecommunications Commission Chair; Robin
Selvig, Telecommunications Commission; Staff present: David Olson, Community &
Economic Development Director; Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist;
Jeff Lueders, Cable Coordinator.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
Chair Matasosky called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Marion Conference
Room of City Hall, 20195 Holyoke Avenue, Lakeville, Minnesota.
2. Approve June 27, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Motion 06.09 Comms. Pogatchnik/Emond moved to approve the minutes of the
June 27, 2006 meeting as presented. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. Update on High-Tech Subcommittee Survey
Mr. Kienberger gave a summary of the results of the High-Tech Subcommittee
Telecommunications Needs Assessment Survey.
Chair Matasosky asked about informing businesses of other options for service.
Mr. Thompson added that some businesses have 8-9 regular lines and probably
don't know that it would be cheaper for them to utilize a T-1 connection. The
Chamber and/or the City could help bridge the knowledge barrier to the business
community.
Mr. Lueders commented that Charter will likely be adding voice service in the near
future. This will provide additional options for both businesses and residents in
Lakeville.
Econwnic Development Commission
Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2006
Chair Matasosky noted that the problem appears to be that a lot of businesses don't
understand what they currently have or what they need, and what options are
available.
Mr. Thompson added that technology has changed a lot in the past 5 years and
technologies such as VOIP and DSL are becoming more dependable.
Mr. Kienberger discussed the next steps in the process would involve contacting the
current providers as well as other potential providers and gathering information on
what is currently offered and what is being planned for the future.
The EDC discussed how new providers could be encouraged to service Lakeville
and what options should be explored. The survey could be used as a tool to show
support for new or additional services in Lakeville:
Chair Matasosky added that this is important because businesses may not be
coming to Lakeville because of our lack of options and service quality.
Comm. Pogatchnik asked if the City was installing conduit (for future
telecommunications infrastructure) during street reconstruction projects.
Staff responded that options are currently being explored and meetings are being
held to discuss the issue of providing additional infrastructure for fiber optic networks
in the City.
4. Update Status of Strategic Plan Work Program for 2006
Mr. Olson reviewed the status and updated the EDC on the progress of the goals
from the 2005-2007 Strategic Plan for the 2006 Work Program.
1. Completion of a study to determine the minimum market value of a residential
housing unit that generated sufficient City taxes to pay for the City services
required by that unit:
An RFP is being developed to complete an economic benefit study for different
development types using this cost analysis approach.
2. Facilitate a process to establish affordable housing goals.
Staff has begun processing a CDBG program amendment to obtain funds to
complete a housing study through Maxfield Research.
3. Improve communication and coordination with other units of government on
important community and economic development issues facing Lakeville.
No changes.
2
• Economic Development Commission D ¦ _ A
Meeting Minutes H
August 29, 2006
4. Create partnerships with Lakeville Chamber of Commerce, DLBA and other
businesses and .other development associations on mutual development
objectives.
This goal has progressed through the activities of the High-Tech Subcommittee
as well as collaboration between the City of Lakeville, City of Bumsville, Lakeville
Chamber of Commerce, Bumsville Chamber of Commerce, and Dakota Future to
host meetings with manufacturers addressing workforce issues.
5. Advocate for and on behalf of business interesfs with airport and rail planners.
Aircraft Resource Center was recently granted approval to construct an 18,000
square-foot commercial hangar at Airlake Airport.. City Staff is also working with
MAC staff and consultants as they update their Comprehensive Plan for Airlake
Airport.
Chair Matasosky mentioned that he is working with Dakota County on their
comprehensive planning process and that a specific agenda from the City would
help bring Lakevitle's requests and issues to the table in formalized manner.
Mr. Mielke responded that transportation continues to be a big issue and that
information should be gathered from all City departments to be brought to the
County.
5. Director's Report
Mr. Olson reviewed his Director's Report and gave updates on current development
projects, the Downtown Planning Project, Spotlight on Business, the 2006
Manufacturers Recognition Event and the July Building Permit Report.
6. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by: Attested to:
Adam Kienberger R. T. Brantly, Secretary
Economic Development Specialist
3
item_No. ~
City of Lakeville
Community and Economic Development
Memorandum
To: Economic Development Commission
From: Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist
Copy: Steven Mielke, City Administrator
David L. Olson, Community and Economic Development Director
Date: September 22, 2006
Subject: County-wide Bio-Zone Application
In 2006, the Minnesota State Legislature approved legislation that re-opened the
process for additional communities to apply do have properties designated as a
Bioscience Zone. This program, administered by the Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED), is a tool for communities to attract
bioscience businesses by offering them state tax exemptions over a limited time
period. Currently the cities of St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Rochester have actlve bio-
-zones in this program.-
Through Dakota Future, cities in Dakota County are preparing a joint application to
participate in this program to bring bioscience businesses to Dakota County. The
City of Rosemount has volunteered to be the legal applicant and will coordinate with
the Dakota County CDA to administer this program in Dakota County.
Lakeville is able to include up to 500 acres in the application, and the proposed
parcels are shown on the attached map. These parcels can be modified in the
future through a City Council resolution if needed.
Please see the attached information from DEED regarding the details of this
program and application deadlines. Lakeville's property information to be included
in the application is due to Dakota Future by September 28 so that the Dakota
County Board can approve a resolution at their October 3 meeting.
Staff is recommending that the EDC recommend approval of the attached resolution
to the City Council
RESOLUTION # 1 Subzone Resolution
WHEREAS The Minnesota Legislature found in Minnesota Session Laws 2003, 1~`
Special Session, Chapter 21, Article 2, as a matter of public policy, that biotechnology
and the health sciences hold immense promise in improving the quality of our lives,
including curing diseases, making our foods safer and more abundant, reducing our
dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil, making better use of Minnesota agriculture
products, and growing tens of thousands of new, high-paying jobs.
WHEREAS The Minnesota Legislature Minnesota Session Laws 200fi Regular Session
Chapter 276 (S.F. No. 3260) granted to the Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development the authority, in collaboration with the Minnesota Department of
Revenue and the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning, to designate one or more
Biotechnology and Health Sciences Industry Zones.
WHEREAS the legislature further found that there are hundreds of discoveries made each
year at the University of Minnesota, the Mayo Clinic, and other research institutions that,
if properly commercialized, could help provide these benefits.
WHEREAS the Bioscience Program created in Minnesota Session Laws 2003, l~` Special
Session, Chapter 21, Article 2 allows for the formation of a Bioscience Zone;
WHEREAS an application for Bioscience zone designation in (city} is being prepared for
submission to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Econonc Deveiopmeirt via
the Dakota County CDA; therefore, _
BE IT RESOLVED that the (city), at its meeting held on DAY day of MONTH 2003,
upon careful consideration and review, approves the specific areas proposed in the
application for a Bioseience zone, approves of the use of tax exemptions and tax credits
within the proposed zone (subject to proper review and approval by the other appropriate
taxing authorities within the zones), and encourages the Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development to approve the Bioscience Zone Application
being submitted by the City of Rosemount as applicant with the Dakota County CDA as
zone administrator.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (city) agrees to provide all of the local sales and use
tax exemptions provided for under the Bioseience Zone .
Signed this DAY day of MONTH 2006.
. .
s E .
~ a r
c.`
1~` NAiIOxAL BANK BUILDING, SUITE E200 ~ 332 MINNESOTA SI'REET~ SAINT PAUL, MiNxE$OiA 55101-1351 USA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 3Q, 2006
TO: Robin Panlener
MN State Register
FROM: Eugene E. Goddard
Bioscience Industry Specialist
(651-296-7102)
RE: $iotechnology and Health Science Industry Zone (Bioscience Zone)
Please put the following information regarding a new DEED program announcement in the next
issue of the State Register.
Biotechnology and Health Science Industry Zone (Bioscience Zone)
The MN Department of Employment and Economic Development will be
accepting applications for the Biotechnology and Health Science Industry Zone
(Bioscience Zone) Program beginning Tuesday, September 1, 2006 and must be
received by close of business on Monday, October 15, 2006. Zone designation
will be made prior to December 31, 2006.
2006 MN Legislative Session Chapter 276 authorized DEED to re-open the
process for additional communities to apply to have development properties
designated as a Bioscience Zone and therefore becoming eligible for any future
funding provided by the Legislature for the program. DEED will work in
collaboration with the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the Office of
Strategic and Long Range Planning, to designate one or more Biotechnology and
Health Sciences Industry Zones (Bioscience Zones). Each Zone may not exceed
5,000 acres but may include one or more non-contiguous Sub-zones and
multiple properties.
The purpose of the Biotechnology and Health Science Industry Zone (Bioscience
Zone) Program is to keep or enhance jobs in the area, increase the future tax
base, or to expand or create new economic development through the growth of
new Bioscience businesses and organizations. At this time, the program is not
funded and no tax credits are available for distribution to companies. If at some
future date the MN Legislature appropriates funds for Bioscience Zone tax
credits, newly designated zones and zones designated in 2004 would be eligible
to access the tax credits for business development activities.
Eligible applicants include statutory or home rule charter cities, counties, towns,
school districts, or joint powers boards established under Minnesota Statutes
§471.59. Local units of government are strongly encouraged to work together to
submit a joint application that links one or more higher education research
institution(s) with one or more biotechnology and health sciences industry
facility(ies) and that demonstrates the need and likelihood success of the
proposed Zone.
Application process:
One or more Bioscience Zone may be designated in a competitive review
process based on statutory criteria demonstrating the need for the zone and
likely success of the zone.
A. Zon® Need Criteria:
1. The extent to which land in proximity to a significant scientific research
institution could be developed as a higher and better use for biotechnology
and health sciences industry facilities;
2. The amount of property in or near the proposed Zone that is deteriorated or
underutilized; and
3. The extent to which property in the area would remain underdeveloped or
non-performing due to physical characteristics;
B. Zone Success Criteria:
1. A viable link between a higher education/research institution, the
biotechnology and/or medical devices business sectors, and one or more
units of local government with a development plan;
2. The extent to which the area has substantial real property with adequate
infrastructure and energy to support new or expanded development;
3. The strength and viability of the proposed development plan's goals,
objectives, and strategies;
4. Whether the development plan is creative and innovative in comparison to
other applications,
5. Local public and private commitment to development of a biotechnology and
health sciences industry facility or facilities in the proposed zone and the
potential cooperation of surrounding communities;
6. Existing resources available to the proposed zone;
7. How the designation of the zone will relate to other economic and community
development projects and to regional initiatives or programs;
8. How the regulatory burden will be eased for biotechnology and health
sciences industry facilities located in the proposed zone;
9. Proposals to establish and link job creation and job training in the
biotechnology and health sciences industry with research/educational institutions;
and
10.The extent to which the development is directed at encouraging, and that
designation of the zone is likely to result in, the creation ofhigh-paying jobs.
C. The Development Plan:
Minnesota Statute, 469.331 requires that an application for zone designation
contain a development plan. The development plan must include both need and
success indicators listed above as well as the following materials:
1. A map(s) of the proposed Zone that indicates:
a. The geographic boundaries of the Zone,
b. The total area, and
c. The present use and conditions generally of the land and structures
within those boundaries;
d. Property Identification Numbers (PIN) for each parcel within the zone.
2. Evidence of local public and private commitment and support;
3. A description of the methods proposed to increase economic opportunity and
expansion, facilitate infrastructure improvement, reduce the local regulatory
burden, and identifyjob-training opportunities;
4. Current social, economic, and demographic characteristics of the proposed
Zone and anticipated improvements in education, health, human services,
and employment if the Zone is created;
5. A description of anticipated activity in the Zone and each Sub-zone, including,
but not limited to, industrial use and industrial site reuse; and
6. A description of the tax exemptions under Minnesota Statutes, 469.336 to be
provided to each qualifying business based on a development agreement
between the applicant and each qualified business. The development
agreement must also state any obligations the qualified business must fulfill in
order to be eligible for tax benefits
For more information please contact: Gene Goddard at 651-296-7102 or at
oene.coddardna state.mn.us. Completed applications must be submitted by
the close of business on Monday, October 15, 2006 to MN Dept. of
Employment and Economic Development, 151 National Bank Building, Suite
E200, 332 Minnesota Street, St: Paul, MN 55101-1351.
i
y
f ~
~
~J ~i
S\ x' Y ~ P131'S ~ : .o-~ i
~ . ~?a ~W. T ~ 4~,f ~Y~ I ~ C i ~ ~
i
p4 ie f k Z f ~ ~ f
~~~u
~t~ -.;h.o- y~e{t- - ~ ~ t~
l ~ * it
' a Wga~ti a'~.ff t It }~~'~4 e V
C~a'''st'1~'•A ay. 5~,, e x _ i Y~~
f~ fw,,
- - ~i'"*~4gn ~ Sys' I ~ a r~r•"»~ef a•r~ :v ~ '
'k''a~ft "r' i~ ~~..x't ?a,Ya•e
~dora:.a~ 5' '~,i
y y, "4 e x ~~yw .i ,
y~ y`ni % ;®y ~ B 'xo
~I rg'ex~y it
C0. ~ .0.1 ¦Or! ~t®,r
~S~Fh i®gr~+iv w va w COI
v
a ' 'qx ! ia~1s~i p `1b 'vim' c`ti'ti ~s.
I nlsi r.?i ~ rbs : y~
1 ar 1' ~lPd a" e ? l~ aai +lrl
e~~~'etr R+iiear~b ^a Ali 61~~f0
'19/fya• i it C '49° s~ .'ea ti
~lb ~ i~fryrJyR~~/~'le > y"
I i ®JaMtfa e~rfA WI1't~'.^'1D 1f1° r R 01„re~i 1 aai3'.'a~i ~~"v'®.al/a
~ v (is s aq* % ei/®w ~ 1Ix' f x•f ` nr "1ev
.rio~i~r~~+ro~ Rirav tl4. r y ~%d p~f~ry~~ ~ ~i~. ~,y
r3'i 9T°< 4
ar ~r ~ P(~" ear ~s'~9'99~ e' • . e'Ea
II _ 'i ~hunllnu, s 1 4 a,.°..°~' .fie. ~ et' ~I111) +."',e
1~ ~ ~ 11l111g~oe 1i1d1~I ¦1 n1..-' 111 ®il .T 'vo~"~ -,~`~°°y±`~a+',
' r lmee + yr . ~ ¦ i CIaTlI11 I Yr - r~ ~y t~' i~11~ ~!!I TM afy~Aw°
roe °oa. yrr ai' ¦111/11/O11 ,..ev ~ . ti:+ / ~~~j~ ~
>o J sew ~ ¦IT /^r11111 'vl ` r - ~ ~`a4 tltDaa •`'~1 ~
'9r °P..rrr r"vv ~ ~ 1gi111111111 = u 6`i s~~ ~ g1~~~1
d~r rr*+e~•:II1IL+JL X1611 su in4 a r111~R~~~~~ ~'f~Ir .
°ifleat rr t e [ir, y
r 11ir a'r to ~ ¦1111l1/1O1 •~i1ef..o~,yf lir'IA0 p ~~~~~~~~~/j® ~d`
~ s+.p east»r i° ¦Rn~MS~lll® eiy\'•q ` ,ti9i°, ~ Z ~vxyr ~ .D 'f'~~y ®'E®® wI®M~ 1e~ 4
a..'° w ¦eulue6111 nr'•e = mill 1 x®® ?i~ a\¦~ aia,`r?
s~~~ 1i3i01 ~i~ii~4,. ra ad yY ~a
I1o110fuuuel L rI „ + J •1tv 1 ..~{a /tee ~ •~gtr~illl 1rSl~. .x11f
~II~E•~ir~ r r~~^$rae rV1 n P~ 1{~ LM'~~r~~~ xxx
®III®11a + v w 1aA ~ ° ills ~z i t• i +c
~lin1 a 'i 1? °1r =11SSla~4a~e 4Rlrra'f .:.~~ra~l'
~~~.~~i~ ~ sr rf ea7e~ onr n . ~r11 ,a,. ,
~"'1 ( ~ ~ ` slyer er
~ : ~.~~r11 ~ ~r
of ~~I:.a i~ij .`e`er^Da? err i/1 ~-ar
\r> a+f;p ° d,, ee re ?p3v ..~4'I ,++tt
~ rr, n~ae •epui~ r ~ 1r1~ y as aax _ .
' ~~tliA. S~ !^~OYaar~~ a, d ~ a Fr t0rr n r
~ = 111"901/ c ~a.eunr;/[ .~u..r r. - ~ 'x`^~^'.~° pf' s~fti4~~mx
en ~z
1urclr~ auu.e[ [[f ~~x,,,_ ~ 1 ~
II r ~u` -_"'9id1
rr 'lli • rep ii i nne~~ ue I ,
C~1"Ihr 111f~'°~,v41 tii[[eenun. iJ III 3
.
ri"~`\~~ ' MI. ~w ~lel. fl! ilt~rl "PI `ems ~ jl y se5xfaafW
. ~ -t : r r w f1~1 ri0a9 roar![ aya ga~lrl_y I •§eaea
a Xf` a' ~ I~ i( g~y~ i0 r..v ° 3r a ''J[ 1 _.._e_ aftr~
S-. Pvt. I1 M~ ` 1?rv a ~L:, naes iii ~ ' yx
~a ^ a ~-.rr I'es ~p. ,at of ®~I ba"°. ~ c_..~ < + ~ w ~
v .n ~ r a ]ax ~ f~ aN
v
~x ~ .fur •t+ . & xi:m'uw. Llif
..h ~ x V - _ a C° ,e911 ;sgo 1a1'}'~
e__
a -
~s .1 i 1111 iY~WI ~ r _
Y I ni Q" i
? i
~Al~~1~~1 ®®~¦111~~ ( 6
I~
+,a ° + t k 9a'.iti'i.~~t4tll~D~~f ~ e sltW' I :Al .~Si tl ¦ .
,~j w~,' a saki f f y ' "
qt r ~ ~°'teat nxN?~rp
i XI' d k F /f r~Lti• e
1 e-k =.ti ~ iy,~wnr l~ Isar +Il ltte Vl•°. '
i s~f
item fib.
City of Lakeville
Community and Economic Development
Memorandum
To: Economic Development Commission
From: David ENson, Community and Economic Development Director
Copy: Steve Mielke, Gty Administrator
Adam Klenberger, Economic Development Specialist
Date: Sept~emher 22,.2006 ,
Subjet~ Economic Development Strategy for Dakota County -Draft lteporE
Attached please find a Draft of the Dakota County Economic Development Strategy
dated September 5, 2006. This process ~nras undertaken by a steering committee
comprised of staff from the Dakota County CDA, Dakota County Administrator's
OfFce, Department of Physl~l Developmerrt, Workforce Investment Hoard and
Dakota Future to help define the aunty's role in economic developmeni~ As parC of
the research of existing .economic development serviors and providers irr Dakota
County, the .consultant retained by the CDA for this process interviewed 35
stakeholders throughout Dakota County including myself, Steve Mielke and ECD
memt?er Matasosky. In addition, two planning sessions with a smaller group of
stakeholders were facilitated to define an economic development vision, guiding
principles and six strategic initiatives..
The Vision as proposed in the Draft Economic Development Strategy is as follows:
We envision Dakota County as a globally competitive economy that ~
vigorous, diparsified and.ntwvatir?e, providing opportunity and property
for buainess snd residents alike, while sustaining a healthy envlronmerrt
and a superior quality of life.
The Guiding Principles identified in the Economic Development Strategy include the
following:
Dakota County will take a collaborative approach to economic development
intemalry and externalry, working among county departments and agencies,
as well as with cities and other partners. Care will be taken th avoid
duplication.
• The County will plan for and invest in critical infrastructure (e.g.
transportation, telecommunications) and other .competitive advantages that
support economic growth and vitality.
• The County may choose to participate in economic development projects that
? are highly visible and regionally significant in the Twin Cities metro
area;
are physically located in more than one community;
involve county and state roads;
create a significant infrastructure or tax base impact;
demonstrate a positive return on investment, or
? preserve, enhance or remediate environmental quality.
• The County may develop economic development initiatives at the county level
to respond to the. need for specialized expertise and etonomies of scale (i.e.
workforce housing, Brownfield remediation, workforce development).
• The County. will use research and policy development as a framework to
guide and evaluate economic development strategies and actions.
• The County will consider workforce, employment, and tax base development
to enhance long-term plans and investment decisions.
The following six strategies regarding he county role in economic development have
been identified in the Draft document:
Strategic Initiative #1: Invest in transportation and transit.
Strategic Initiative #2: Coordinate strategic infrastructure and land development.
Strategic Initiative #3: Unk workforce development and economic development.
Strategicc Initiative #4: Create prospect response capacity; Enhance image,
marketing and brahding.
Strategic Initiative #5: Provide quality workforce housing.
Strategic initiative #6: Strengthen development-related research and policy
capacity.
The attached Draft Economic Development Strategy was reviewed by City
representatives at meetings held on September 20"' and 21~. Economic
Development Specialist Adam Kienberger and EDC Member Matasosky attended one
of the meetings on behalf. of Lakeville. Comments provided by City representatives
will be incorporated into the next draft that will be presented to the County Board.
In summary, while signiftcant change regarding the County's role in economic
development in the short term are not likely, this processmay result in the County
organization having an increased awareness of the importance and .benefits of
economic development.
Draft 9-5-06
Dakota County Economic Development
Strategy
Vision
:Guiding Principles
Strategic Initiatives - 2007 & 2008
Draft September 5, 2006
Prepared for the
Dakota County Community Development Agency
Prepared by
Janna King, CEcD, EDFP
Economic Development Services
3109 W. 50t St. #204
Minneapolis, MN 55410
i
Draft 9-5-06
Table of Contents
Pane
Background & Policy Context 1
Approach 2
Vision & Guiding Principles 4
Economic Characteristics of Dakota County 5
Strategic Initiatives 7
ii
Draft 9-5-06
Background
The Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) retained Janna King,
CEcD, EDFP, with Economic Development Services of Minneapolis, in January 2006 to
prepare an economic development strategy for Dakota County. The overall project
goals included:
¦ Define the County, CDA and WIB roles in economic development in the context
of an array of economic development services provided by cities, colleges,
chambers, businesses, utilities, non-profits and other organizations active in
Dakota County.
• Engage stakeholders in developing an economic development vision and
strategy for Dakota County...
¦ Develop options for county participation in economic development in a manner
that aligns and coordinates County, CDA and WIB resources in support of the
strategy to achieve the greatest efficiency, effectiveness and impact.
The planning process included a review of economic and demographic data and
interviews with more than 30 economic development stakeholders, including city
administrators, community development directors, college presidents, workforce
development staff, utility ofFcials, chambers and economic development groups.
Additional small group sessions involved community and economic development staff,
city and county administrators, and the Dakota Future Board of Directors. On-line (or
fax) surveys were used to collect more information from elected city officials and county
commissioners.
The role of the county in economic development and high quality economic
development programs in other counties around the nation were reviewed to gather
insights and examples. This information will be included in the final report to include:
Appendix B (part of the PowerPoint presentations from facilitated sessions in May) -
and Appendix C (summary of three county approaches in economic development).
Two facilitated sessions were held, May 11 and May 24, 2006, with 15-20 participants at
each session. Participants reviewed a summary of the research prepared by Economic
Development Services and participated in developing the vision, guiding principles and
strategic initiatives described in this document.
The planning process and preparation of the final document was guided by a six-
member Steering Committee:
Mark Ulfers and Dan Rogness, Dakota County Community Development Agency
Greg Konat and Taud Hoopingamer, Dakota County
Mark Jacobs, Dakota County Workforce Investment Board
Bill Coleman, Dakota Future
1
Draft 9-5-06 "
Policy Context
The Vision and Mission Statements of Dakota County informed the study process and
this final report.
Vision: We envision a future in which Dakota County is recognized as a premier place
in which to live and work. Dakota County residents will enjoy a vigorous, sustainable
economy; safe, healthy, vital communities; and a quality physical environment in which
to live and play, served by an efficient, effective, responsive government.
Mission: The mission of Dakota County is to provide efficient, effective and responsive
govemment.
Approach
The underlying premise of this document is the concept that economic development,
community development and workforce development are inter-dependent,
mutually supportive and essential for sustainable economic vitality.
Economic development focuses on those business sectors that provide high quality
employment opportunities in the community, bring wealth to the region, and strengthen
the tax base of the county. Businesses depend upon a skilled, productive workforce in
order to compete successfully. Workforce development enables workers to engage
successfully in the changing economy and enables companies to be productive and
competitive in a dynamic economic environment. Community development focuses on
the infrastructure -transportation, telecommunications, workforce housing, utility
services - necessary to support competitive businesses and the recreational, cultural
and quality of life amenities essential to attracting a broad spectrum of skilled, creative,
and productive people.
Community
Economic Development
Development
Workforce
Development
.,,-a'ta...
This approach can serve as a model for Dakota County, bringing together county
resources -community development, economic development and workforce
development-to support a healthy, dynamic, sustainable economy.
2
Draft 9-5-06
Team Approach to Implementation
The interviews and facilitated sessions revealed a clear consensus in favor of a
collaborative, yet organized and accountable, approach to economic development in
Dakota County. The strategic initiatives identified in the planning process can be
implemented by existing county agencies and departments or interagency/
interdepartmental teams together with other partners (e.g. cities, chambers, Dakota
Future). To ensure accountability, alead organization is identified for each of the
strategic initiatives. It is the responsibility of the lead organization to convene the
appropriate team members, initiate and focus work activity, and document results.
For example, brownfield redevelopment has potential to strengthen tax base; provide
quality employment opportunities; make use of existing, underutilized infrastructure; and
leverage state/federal resources. Dakota County cities indicated that it could be more
efficient to develop brownfield revitalization capacity at the county level, rather than
build such capacity in nearly every municipality. An interdepartmental county team
could be identified to address brownfield redevelopment and a lead (convening)
organization identified. The interdepartmental team, working with city representatives,
could identify policy priorities to guide investment in brownfield redevelopment. The
technical capacities of the Environmental Services Division could be coupled with the
redevelopment, grant-writing and financing capacities of the Community Development
Agency to clean up and redevelop priority sites. Team members would be responsible
for documenting costs and benefits, including tax base, employment, environment and
other performance measures.
County Board
Economic Development Steering Committee
(county staff convened by Dakota County CDA -includes
WIB. Physical Develooment. OMB. OPED. others)
Strategic Initiatives
1. Transportation & Transit 4. Prospect response/marketing
2. Land Use & Infrastructure 5. Workforce housing
3. Workforce 6.Research & Policy
Cities
Utilities
Townships Chambers Colleges Dakota
Future
3
Draft 9-5-06
Vision
We envision Dakota County as a globally competitive economy that is
vigorous, diversified and innovative, providing opportunity and
prosperity for businesses and residents alike, while sustaining a
healthy environment and a superior quality of life.
Guiding Principles
¦ Dakota County will take a collaborative approach to economic development
internally and externally, working among county departments and agencies, as well
as with cities and other partners. Care will be taken to avoid duplication.
¦ The County will plan for and invest in critical infrastructure (e.g. transportation,
telecommunications) and other competitive advantages that support economic
growth and vitality.
¦ The County may choose to participate in economic development projects that
o are highly visible and regionally significant in the Twin Cities metro area;
o are physically located in more than one community;
o involve county and state roads;
o create a significant infrastructure or tax base impact;
o demonstrate a positive return on investment, or
o preserve, enhance or remediate environmental quality.
¦ The County may develop economic development initiatives at the county level to
respond to the need for specialized expertise and economies of scale (i.e.
workforce housing, Brownfield remediation, workforce development).
¦ The County will use research and policy development as a framework to guide
and evaluate economic development strategies and actions.
¦ The County will consider workforce, employment, and tax base development to
enhance long-term plans and investment decisions.
4
Draft 9-5-06
Economic Characteristics of Dakota County
The following key characteristics help define the economy of Dakota County, now and in
the future. To further as the County's vision of being a "premier place in which to live
and work," county government can use this information to help evaluate its role in
addressing current conditions and expected changes.
Demograahic Changes. The key demographic changes that impact the future
economy of Dakota County relate to population aging and race/ethnicity. Over the next
three decades, the nonwhite population is forecasted to grow nearly 176%, from 23,934
in 2000 to 66,000 in 2030. Using the 2000 census as a starting point, the county can
expect a 171 % increase of residents aged 55 and older by 2030. In comparison, the
population aged 18-34 will only increase 18%.
Wages and Household Income. Average weekly wages for jobs in Dakota County
rose 16% from 2000 ($656) to 2004 ($763), although this remains below the average in
Ramsey ($868) and Hennepin ($987) counties. The 2005 median household income is
estimated at $69,900 for Dakota County. However, the median varies between
communities in the county, with the lowest in South St. Paul and West St. Paul and the
highest in Lakeville and Mendota Heights.
Job Growth/Loss. Between 2000-2005, Dakota County added 16,493 jobs, or nearly
11 This compares to a 1 % loss of jobs for the 13-county metro area. Virtually all of
those jobs were added in the cities of Apple Valley, Bumsville, Eagan, Inver Grove
Heights, Lakeville and Rosemount (+16,470). Job losses occurred primarily in the
county's rural area.
By industry, the largest employment growth occurred in health care and social
assistance (+3,584), finance and insurance (+2,259), and construction (+2,195). Health
care showed average weekly wages that are below the county's average in 2005, while
the other two were above. However, none of them were within the top five industries by
wage for Dakota County.
Emplovment Distribution. In 2000, 70% of all jobs in Dakota County were located
within the developed communities of Burnsville, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota
Heights, South St. Paul and West. St. Paul. However, employment projections show
that the percentage of jobs within those same cities drops to 55% by 2030, while more
jobs (43%) shift to the developing communities of Apple Valley, Farmington, Lakeville
and Rosemount.
In 2003, only five of the county's 11 major cities had more than one job per household,
including Bumsville, Eagan, Hastings, Mendota Heights and Rosemount. The average
in the Twin Cities was 1.7 for developed suburbs and 1.2 for developing suburbs.
5
Draft 9-5-06 "
Labor Force Participation. Travel and Transportation. In 2002, approximately 62%
of the county's total population was in the labor force. The number of jobs in Dakota
County(161,177}ryas less than labor force (227,437), reflecting a pattern of commuting
out of the county for employment. The 2000 Census showed that 61 % of the county's
workforce was employed within Dakota County, followed by 12% in Hennepin County
and 10 % in Ramsey County.
At the same time, 440 miles of county highways in Dakota County are expected to fall
short of funds for transportation improvements ($30 million shortfall per year through
2025). However, transit improvements are currently being planned or evaluated on
Cedar Avenue, 35W and Robert Street.
Industrial Mix. In Dakota County, there is no single dominant industry. The top five
industries by wages in 2005 were Mining, Utilities, Management of Companies,
Information, and Professional and Technical Services. The largest industries in terms of
number of establishments include construction, professional and technical services,
retail trade, health care, and finance and insurance. Average weekly wages for these
five industries show that only "professional and technical services" was within the top
five industries based on average weekly wage in the county.
Between 2000-2004, the largest increases in business establishments occurred in the
construction industry. Construction has weekly wages above the average ($978 vs.
$773), while retail trade has weekly wages well below the average ($467 vs. $773).
Land Development. Growth and development continues at a pace of approximately
2,300 acres per year in Dakota County. From a land value standpoint, the metro's
average for all cities for commercial/industrial is 16.3% of total market value in 2005.
Although not available for Dakota County as a whole, only two of the 11 largest cities in
Dakota County meet or exceed this C/I average: Burnsville (19.1 and Eagan
(19.8%). Other C/I market value percentages: Apple Valley (9.1 Farmington (4.2%),
Hastings (10.5%), Inver Grove Heights (9.4%), Lakeville (9.3%), Mendota Heights
(14.5%), Rosemount (11.5%), South St. Paul (10.8%), and West St. Paul (13.7%).
Another indicator is that three cities are in the top 20 as net contributors to the metro
fiscal disparities pool (Burnsville, Eagan, Mendota Heights). Five cities are net
recipients from that same top 20 pool (Apple Valley, Farmington, Hastings, Lakeville,
South St. Paul).
Workforce Housing. A demand of 82,000 new housing units is projected in Dakota
County between 2000-2030. Two-thirds of that increase will be located within the
developing communities of Apple Valley, Farmington, Hastings, Lakeville and
Rosemount. Of the total housing demand during 2000-2030, a minimum of 15% (or 400
units/year) should be affordable to renters and owners with household incomes aUbelow
80% of median. In addition, the county has existing needs related to an unmet demand
for affordable housing, both for new construction and preservation of existing units.
Affordable owner-occupied units are based primarily on lower market prices, but these
units are either new condo/townhomes or small older homes, all priced <$200,000.
6
. Draft 9-5-06
Strategic Initiatives: 2007- 2008
The following strategies, particular to the county role in economic development, are
designed to support the economic vitality of Dakota County businesses, communities
and residents.
Strategic Initiative #1: Invest in transportation and transit.
Efficient transportation and relatively low levels of congestion support the
productivity of the workforce and the competitiveness of Dakota County
businesses. Transit and transit-oriented development help alleviate congestion
and the demand for additional highway capacity. Efficient transportation and
transit make Dakota County a competitive business location.
Strategic Initiative #2: Coordinate strategic infrastructure and land
development.
Dakota County works closely with cities and townships to plan infrastructure
investments and land development patterns to strengthen the tax base and
accommodate quality employers. Investments are made strategically, taking into
account measurable economic impacts. Excellent infrastructure (transportation,
telecommunications, utility services) makes Dakota County a competitive
business location.
Strategic Initiative #3: Link workforce development and economic
development.
A proactive and responsive workforce training and development system is
attractive to existing and prospective businesses and helps ensure that an
appropriately skilled workforce will meet the needs of current and future
businesses in Dakota County.
Strategic Initiative #4: Create prospect response capacity; Enhance image,
marketing and branding.
Dakota County responds promptly and professionally to business and site
location inquiries. Business decision-makers identify Dakota County as a good
location for high-quality companies.
Strategic Initiative #5: Provide quality workforce housing.
Dakota County provides opportunities for workers with modest incomes to live in
decent/affordable housing located in close proximity to places of employment.
Strategic Initiative #ti: Strengthen development-related research and policy
capacity.
Research provides a sound basis for informing and shaping county development
policies and investments.
7
Draft 9-5-06 '
Strategic Initiative #1: Invest in transportation and transit. Efficient
transportation and relatively low levels of congestion support the productivity of the
workforce and the competitiveness of Dakota County businesses. Transit and transit-
oriented development help alleviate congestion and the demand for additional highway
capacity. Efficient transportation and transit make Dakota County a competitive
business location.
Key findings:
• Grow Minnesota survey (2004-2005) revealed that businesses in Northern
Dakota County exhibited a significantly higher level of concern with highway
infrastructure (53% "unfavorable" ranking) than businesses in Minnesota
generally (37% "unfavorable).
• Transportation infrastructure consistently ranked in the top 2-3 priority issues
identified as an appropriate county role in supporting economic development,
during interviews, focus groups and surveys of business, local government, and
development professionals conducted as part of the economic development
strategic planning process in 2006.
• The most serious issue facing the county, as perceived by respondents to the
May 2006 Resident Survey, was growth and development (26%). The fourth
most important issue was traffic congestion (8%).
• Transportation and transit ranked #1 and #2 in importance in a survey of Dakota
County Commissioners, city administrators, mayors, council members and
Dakota Future. (Survey results shown below, a ranking of 5 =Highly Important,
0 =Not Important.
Planning and securing funding for critical Planning & supporting transit corridors, especially
infrastructure (bridges, mayor roads) those linked to employment concentrations in
Dakota County
AtlmiNetretofs _
Atlmirvstrators
MayorsCOUncilmembers
Mayors-Councilmembers
Dakota FWUre
Dakota FWVe
Courry Commissionms County Commissioners
0 t 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Transit-Oriented Develooment
• A number of counties throughout the nation are involved in transit-oriented
development along county roads that pass through multiple communities (e.g.,
King County, WA, Denver County, CO, Montgomery County, MD, and Hennepin
County, MN).
• County participation includes planning, land acquisition, redevelopment, and loan
funds to stimulate development that will complement transit stops.
8
- Draft 9-5-06
Possible goals/action steps:
• Incorporate tax base return on investment and economic development impact
analysis into transportation planning and decision-making.
• Strengthen linkages between transit planning, transit-oriented development,
economic development, workforce housing and workforce development to
identify ways that transit and transit-oriented development can better support
Dakota County employers and workers.
• Implement a pilot program that promotes transit options while supporting
employment growth in Dakota County (e.g., transit service to major Dakota
County employment locations).
• Dakota County CDA and Transit Office work with communities to hold and/or
redevelopsites for Transit Oriented Development.
Financial implications:
• Relatively modest one-time investment to build internal capacity to evaluate tax
and economic benefit of infrastructure investments.
• Dakota County CDA capacity and resources to buy and hold land, and finance
development costs can be used to leverage federal, state, city, and private funds.
• No significant additional on-going resources needed from Dakota County.
Policy questions:
• Should Dakota County consider the tax base and employment implications of its
investments in transportation and transit infrastructure?
• Should the Dakota County CDA work with cities, county transit planners, and
transit agencies to identify and hold key sites for transit-oriented development?
9
Draft 9-5-06
Strategic Initiative #2: Coordinate strategic infrastructure and land
development. Dakota County works closely with cities and townships to plan
infrastructure investments and land development patterns to strengthen the tax base
and opportunities for quality employment opportunities. Investments are made
strategically, taking into account measurable economic impacts. Excellent infrastructure
(transportation, telecommunications, utility services) makes Dakota County a
competitive business location.
Key findings:
Land Use
• Cities and townships control land use and zoning in Dakota County; the county is
responsible for critical transportation infrastructure.
• Cooperative, strategic land development and infrastructure planning has potential to
enhance tax base.
o Scott and Sherbume Counties have conducted county-wide market studies
on commercial and industrial development to provide cities and the county
with a better understanding of market potential as they update their
comprehensive plans.
o Chisago County assists cities with industrial park development to achieve a
more balanced tax base in the county. Sherbume County expects to begin
land banking in 2007 for future industrial parks in areas with appropriate
transportation access and future city utilities.
• Land development patterns have a significant impact on the property tax base, with
fiscal implications for all taxing jurisdictions.
Fiscai Impact of Land Use
Average Tax Tax on Tax -100 Acres
Type per Acres 100 Acres over 20 Years
Brick/glass $35,000 $3.5M $70M
Strip mall $24,000 $2.4M $48M
Showroom $18,800 $1.9M $38M
Single Family $10,400 $1.OM $20M
Truck Terminal $4,800 $480,000 $9.(iM
~ Based on 3 parcels of each type in Eagan, MN -Dakota Co. GIS Department, 2006.
10
- Draft 9-5-06
Employment
• Land use and transportation access decisions create "places" with size, location,
access and other characteristics attractive to office, research, industrial, medical,
retail, and other users.
• The nature of these "places" impacts employment opportunities available in Dakota
County.
• The type of employment available in an area impacts wage levels, commute times
and the pressure to commute to concentrations of higher wage employment.
o "Traded Cluster" businesses export a product or service and import wealth to
the region; these businesses paid an average wage of $54,555 and
comprised 32.2% of all jobs in the Twin Cities MSA.
o "Local Cluster" businesses depend upon local consumers; these businesses
paid an average wage of $32,100 and comprised 67.7% of all jobs in the Twin
Cities MSA2.
• Cooperative, strategic land development and infrastructure planning can create
"places° that are competitive locations for high wage employment.
Transportation
• Land development pattems create significant transportation and traffic impacts.
• Access and access restrictions have a significant impact on land development
pattems and tax base. NOTE: This was the most consistent concern expressed by
cities about their relationship with the county on economic development.
• The current challenge to county transportation planning is to move toward a system
that is more strategic and cooperative in relationship to the cities.
• Cooperative, strategic land development and infrastructure planning that balances
traffic, tax base, employment and other considerations has potential to reduce
tension between Dakota County and other units of local government in Dakota
County.
Brownfield Revitalization
• Hennepin County offers an example of successful county initiatives in this area:
o Created the Environmental Response Fund in 1997. The legislature
authorized a mortgage registry and deed tax with a 10-year sunset. It
generates $2-3 million per year (or $10 -12 million to date). Since 2001,
they have provided 1 large grant to St. Louis Park ($4.75 million) and 113
grants from $5,200 - $683,000. They have a common grant application with
the Met Council and State of Minnesota and provide matching funds to
increase the competitiveness of Hennepin County applications. Hennepin
County funds less than 50% of applications submitted; Met Council and the
state fund less than 33%.
s Michael Porter, Harvard Business School, Institute for Strategy 8 Competitiveness.
http://www. isc.hbs.edu/
11
Draft 9-5-06 '
o Secured funding from the US Environmental Protection Agency for a
browntield clean up revolving loan fund. Loans are made to the private
sector. Six loans have been made to date, totaling $3 million.
o Assists cities with environmental assessment. The county provides technical
assistance (e.g., scoping assessments) to its cities and HRAs and oversees
report preparation.
• Redeveloping brownfields was considered a high priority (#7) in a survey of county
commissioners, city administrators, mayors, council members, and Dakota Future.
(Survey results shown below, a ranking of 5 =Highly Important, 0 =Not Important)
Redeveloping brownfleWs (contaminated sites)
that have potential as a location for commercial dr
industrial development or workforce housing
AdmlNSSaWrs
Mayors-Cowcitrrembers
Dakota Fuhue
~ I
CouQy DOmml9$i0fbrs
0 1 2 3 6 5
Telecommunications
Telecommunications was ranked highly (#4) in importance in a survey of Dakota County
Commissioners, city administrators, mayors-council members and Dakota Future.
(Survey results shown below, a ranking of 5 =Highly Important, 0 =Not Important)
Malysis of telecommunications capacity and
advocacy to maintain state of the art systems
Admirtistmbrs
Mayors-Couicilmem6ers
Dako~ FWiue
Coady Commisslonsrs
~ 1 2 3 4 5
Possible goals/action steps:
• Analyze property tax implications of various land development patterns. Share with
cities and townships as part of the comprehensive plan update. Develop policies
that encourage efficient use of infrastructure and enhance tax base density.
• Conduct a countywide market study to provide the cities and county with realistic
guidance on commercial and industrial development potential and better inform the
comprehensive plan process.
12
. Draft 9-5-06
• Explore expanded role for the county (CDA, environmental services and other
divisions) to support cities and townships with brownfield revitalization. Explore use
of "deed tax" used in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties to support brownfield
remediation. Make recommendations regarding an expanded county role, the
benefits of clean-up, and the potential to leverage additional state and federal dollars
for assessment and remediation. Present findings to the county board.
• Maintain telecommunications inventory developed through E-Commerce Ready
process.
• Expand telecommunications inventory to map available hotspots and public Internet
access sites.
Financial implications:.
• Many of the possible activities envisioned in this section are based on a premise that
a strategic approach to land development and transportation infrastructure will
enhance county revenues. The relatively minor cost of analysis has potential to
significantly enhance tax base revenue.
• Given the additional potential costs associated with brownfield remediation, it may
be more cost effective to enhance brownfield remediation capacity at the county
level than in a number of cities/townships. Amore aggressive approach to
assessment and remediation may bring in additional state and federal dollars and
speed the establishment of a stronger tax base on contaminated parcels.
Policy questions:
• To what extent does the county want to shape development or respond to
development pressures?
• What are the benefits of minimal involvement in planning (responding to city
actions)? What are the disadvantages? What are the benefits of uniform regulatory
policies on access management? What are the disadvantages?
• Does the county want to work with the cities and townships to be more proactive and
strategic in shaping the potential for enhanced tax base and higher wage
employment opportunities?
13
Draft 9-5-06
Strategic Initiative #3: Link workforce development and economic
development. A proactive and responsive workforce training and development
system is attractive to existing and prospective businesses and helps ensure that an
appropriately skilled workforce will meet the needs of current and future businesses in
Dakota County.
Key findings:
• Most employers present at the 2006 Dakota Future conference expressed concerns
about the availability and skills of workers, especially long term due to the retirement
of the baby boom generation.
• Human capital is a key source of competitive advantage. It is also typically the
largest cost, the foundation of product quality, and a source of vision, strategy, and
product development.
• EI Paso County, Colorado (Denver area) used its private activity bond allocation to
establish a loan fund to increase the earning power of its workers and the
competitiveness of area companies.
• Short course certificate programs are not eligible for federal financial aid. Dakota
County Technical College offers some short courses that could boost worker wages
substantially and is interested in cooperating to create a revolving loan fund targeted
at "shortage occupations" affecting Dakota County employers.
• Kate McEnroe, a national site location consultant presenting at the Dakota Future
conference, indicated she might steer employers away from Dakota County due to
labor market constraints.
Highly educated, creative workers are critical to a competitive, higher wage economic
environment. Therefore, communities that are attractive to key segments of the
workforce will be attractive to higher wage employers.
Michael Porter- Harvard Business School Richard Florida, Author of
Competitive Advantage & Industry Clusters "Rise of the Creative Class"
Competitiveness is not simply cost related Sr~entists, engineers, architects, writers,
factors Or natural resources...other fadors entertainers, educators, artists
• Specialized labor pool or infrastructure Economic function is to create new ideas, new
• Disadvantages that ddve Innovation technology, new ueative content
• Related and supporting indushies that create Ddve innovation; critical to competitiveness
demand, spur innovation or spin-oNs Charectedzed by creativity, individuality, diversity,
• Rivalry among local industries merit, self dlreetlon, high achievement
• A "Wlture° that supports innovation 30°k of the workforce
• Choose high amenity, stimulating environment
• Demographic change is expected to constrain the availability of employees for
Minnesota companies, as detailed below:
14
Draft 9-5-06
Minnesota's Boom Generation Begins Minnesota Labor Force F~rpected to
Turning 65 in 2011 Grow by 421,000 by 2010 But Only
,,,g,.,0, 175,00 between 2010 and 2020
sogwD
LMe.1a1
1W,000 -a-1611 880000
800.010 +08~
_ 30!000
009A00
300,010 780000
p
/8N tOW 1810 1N0 1180 1010 ]010 2030 M30 g
1!1680 1080.90 t000A0 1000.70 3010.40 10!0.90
MN Demognp0er 8 Sbb Ee0nomislfar Ore C2mn5 Leagues 2005 MN Demographer 8 Stale Eca~omis! IOr ON Ci0rene League, 2005
Competition For The Future Uncer#ainty!
Workforce Will Increase Labor Force Projections Depend On
„x Migration And Retirement Decisions
fax aox
a aox
°1 u* zox
>a ex
o ex arc ¦u8 LOX
1% AOx
am
~ 8x .1.Ox
ax 'i'~' aeu aax
200008 3005.10 ]010.18 191810
Coriws 9rmi t6 Roj, Mn Beata 00naQaphar Mn Pnl
MN Ddn0grapher 8 Slate Ecanamistfor bte Ci0aens lmgue, 2005
Possible goals/action steps:
• Explore the establishment of a targeted scholarship/loan program to enhance
workforce skills in job shortage occupations, with the goal of improving worker
earning potential and meeting the needs of county employers. Focus on short-term
training programs not eligible for federal financial aid. (Dakota County CDA and
Workforce Investment Board)
• Pilot test the establishment of an employment-related "resource room" at a public
housing site so employment-related resources are available after normal business
hours at the Service Centers. (Dakota County CDA and Workforce Investment
Board)
Financial implications:
• Exploring the establishment of a revolving loan fund for shortage occupations could
be done at minimal expense by existing staff at the Dakota County CDA and WIB in
collaboration with the college, lenders and businesses experiencing a shortage of
skilled workers.
15
Draft 9-5-06 '
• The source of funds to capitalize the revolving loan fund (e.g., private activity
bonding authority, reserve accounts leveraging private lenderfunds, CDA, private
businesses, foundations) will need to be determined in the exploration phase
described above.
• The cost of a pilot "resource room" including computer(s) and furniture is expected to
be $2,000 - $4,000. An evaluation of the pilot can determine whether additional
investment in resource rooms is warranted.
Policy questions:
• Should the CDA and WIB explore the establishment of a revolving loan fund to pay
for short courses at area colleges with the goal of improving worker earning potential
and meeting the needs of county employers?
16
Draft 9-5-06
Strategic Initiative #4: Create prospect response capacity; Enhance
image, marketing and branding. create the capacity to respond to prospective
businesses promptly and professionally. Strengthen the image and awareness of
Dakota County as a location for high-quality companies.
Key findings:
• Kate McEnroe, a national site location consultant, made the following points in a
presentation to a Dakota Future conference in early 2006:
o The Intemet is where the first cut on site location decisions is made.
o Timelines are incredibly compressed.
o The site locator is in the process of narrowing options. Don't give them any
reasons to eliminate your area (e.g. unable to provide information promptly
and professionally, lack of clear policies).
o Work out your issues before the prospect shows up: be prepared.
• Participants in the survey, interviews and small group sessions identified a need for
county involvement and leadership in projects of "county wide significance"
(examples cited include a stadium, air cargo facility, light rail, 4-year university,
major corporate relocation, or a project that impacted more than one community).
• Marketing is an expensive proposition for individual communities; joint marketing as
a county is perceived as providing an opportunity for building awareness and a
positive image in a more cost effective manner.
• Dakota Future is playing a role in responding to inquiries and is interested in a more
pro-active marketing role, if funding can be raised. Dakota Future provides
prospect-oriented site location information on the Internet.
• There is regional interest in creating a presence for the Twin Cities metro area on the
Internet, where most initial site location assessments are now made. This would
enable site locators to consider real estate options and workforce characteristics on
a GIS platform. The system could provide basic information; prospects would be
linked to brokers and could also be referred to the county, city, chamber or utility
associated with a particular site.
• Marketing Dakota County's development assets ranked highly (#5) in a survey of
Dakota County Commissioners, city administrators, mayors, council members, and
Dakota Future.
• Interestingly, the less glamorous "providing customer friendly, coordinated response
to prospect inquiries" ranked lower. However, it can be counterproductive to market
an area before there is a strong response capacity in place. When marketing yields
results and inquiries are made, it is important to have a strong response capacity.
Lacking this, the area may develop a reputation for great promotion and poor
service.
17
Draft 9-5-06
Marketing~Dakota Countys development assets Providing customer friendly, coordinated response
to prospect inquiries
Admiristrators
~ Atlmirusiralars ~ i
Mayors-COUwilmembers i
MayorsCOUncilmembers
Dakota Fubue
Dakota Fatale
Cauray Commissioners County Commissioners
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 t 2 3 4 S
Possible goals/action steps:
• Strengthen county government capacity to respond to inquiries promptly and
professionally {e.g., review and. update policies regarding financing and incehtives;
identify existing materials that can be used in responding to prospect inquiries or
prepare new materials; make sure appropriate information is available online.
o Establish a clear first point of contact for handling prospect inquiries in Dakota
County government.
o Identify processes far handling typical inquiries, as well as large regionally
significant projects.
o Coordinate response process with cities, Dakota Future and other partners.
• Increase awareness and strengthen image of Dakota County as an excellent
business location. Clarify messages; send out press releases.
• Invest in apro-active marketing strategy and develop an appropriate Internet
presence and print support materials. Implement a media relations campaign.
• Explore options for provision of these services internally or externally.
• Coordinate with other metro counties to establish a regional economic development
Internet presence that provides site location decision-makers with high-quality GIS-
capable real estate and workforce information on the Twin Cities metro area. The
system could provide prospects with links to cities, counties, chambers, utilities,
workforce development and private sector partners.
Financial implications:
• Coordinating responses to routine inquiries can be time consuming for staff.
• Improving prospect response materials and upgrading online information could be
accomplished for approximately $10,000.
• Although costs to develop a marketing strategy and sustained campaign can vary
dramatically, a reasonable expectation is $50,000 - $90,000 in the first year and
somewhat less in subsequent years as initial strategy and print costs are reduced.
Based on the experience of other cities and counties, it is likely that private sector
funds can be secured to offset some of these costs.
• The cost of establishing a regional Internet presence will depend on the scope of the
collaborative effort, but is estimated to be less than $20,000 per year.
18
Draft 9-5-06
Policy questions:
• What is the intent of a marketing program? Enhance image & awareness? Motivate
prospect inquiries? How will success be measured?
• Should response capacity be established first?
• In what division/organization(s) should response capacity reside?
• What is the appropriate level of financial commitment of the county or CDA to a
marketing effort?
19
Draft 9-5-06 '
Stratectic Initiative #5: Provide quality workforce housing. Dakota
County provides opportunities for workers with modest incomes to live in
decent/affordable housing located in close proximity to places of employment.
Key findings:
• Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) is very highly regarded.
Interviewees would regularly, spontaneously interrupt the interview to say how good
they felt about the working relationship with the CDA, the quality of housing they
build, and their management of properties.
• Developing workforce housing was considered a high priority (#6) in a survey of
county commissioners, city administrators, mayors, council members, and Dakota
Future. (Survey results below, ranking of 5 =Highly Important, 0 =Not Important)
Developing workforce housing
AomirGSOators
Mayors-Gouncihnembera
Dakota FuWre
Cow9y COmmissiorers
0 1 2 3 4 5
Possible goals/action steps:
• Enhance marketing of workforce housing programs through employers.
• Continue HOPE program.
• Work with cities on townhouse and condo conversions with deferred maintenance
problems via Housing Improvement Associations and Housing Improvement
Districts.
• Provide information to cities that demonstrates the impact of land use regulation on
the cost and availability of affordable housing (integrate with 2008 comp plan update
process).
• Work with transit officials and cities to target sites with good transit access for
workforce housing. (Dakota County CDA)
• Purchase sites with good transit access for future development. (Dakota County
CDA)
• Provide policy or financial incentives to include affordable housing in Transit
Oriented Development projects.
Financial implications:
• Funds could be allocated within the existing CDA levy for the items identified above.
20
Draft 9-5-06
Policy questions:
• Should the CDA work more closely with transit officials and cities to target sites with
good transit access for future development, including the possibility of affordable
housing?
21
DrafE 9-5-06 '
Stratectic Initiative #6: Strengthen development-related research and
policy Capacity. Research provides a sound basis for informing and shaping county
development policies and investments.
Key findings:
• Several interview/small group participants were strong advocates of a "return on
investment" approach to evaluating economic development projects and
infrastructure investments needed to build a strong commercial/industrial tax base.
• Steering Committee members demonstrated a consistent commitment to weighing
the costs and benefits of any new initiatives.
Possible goalslaction steps:
• Establish a protocol for evaluating the impact of economic development projects and
infrastructure investments (cost:benefit, return on investment).
• Establish economic indicators for consistent reporting of workforce and economic
trends.
• Track commercial industrial real estate market trends.
Financial implications:
• Additional evaluation tools, processes and staff time will be needed to better
consider the economic implications of projects or investments, including tax base
and employment.
• Some data, tools and processes can be assembled relatively quickly using existing
staff and data resources. Consulting resources may be required to develop more
sophisticated tools and processes.
Policy questions:
• Does the County and/or CDA want to invest in analytical tools and data resources to
create the capacity to evaluate the costs and benefits, or return on investment for
infrastructure investments and/or economic development projects?
• Should the County incorporate economic development measures into its
infrastructure investment decisions?
22
Item No. ~
City of Lakeville
Community and Economic Development
Memorandum
To: Economic Development Commission
From: Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist
Copy: Steven Mielke, City Administrator
David L Olson, Community and Economic Development Director
Dam: September 22, 2006-
Subject: Business Telecommunications Technology Task Force
The High-Tech Subcommittee recently completed a survey of the business
community assessing their telecommunications needs and satisfaction with their
service in Lakeville.
With the recent resignation of Telecommunications Commission Chair, Doug
Thompson, and the increased amount of knowledge and input needed to effectively
guide and accomplish tasks associated with telecommunications issues in Lakeville,
now is a good opportunity to expand the High-Tech Subcommittee into a larger task
force to better study and receive input on the telecommunications issues in the
Lakeville business community
The Business Telecommunications Technology Task Force would be comprised of
representatives from several groups and organizations as well as local residents.
Suggested .members include a representative from the EDC, Telecommunications
Commission, a Lakeville technology company, a resident who works in the
information technology or telecommunications sector outside of Lakeville, Chamber
of Commerce, and possibly a City Council member.
A proposed draft Purpose and Scope of Work for the Task Force will be provided to
the EDC at the meeting on September 26.
Staff is recommending that the EDC recommend the formation of a Business
Telecommunications Technology Task Force to the City Council
Recommendation: Creation of a Business Telecommunications Technology
Task Force
Purpose of the
Task Force: To make recommendations to the City Council regazding:
1. Telecommunication technology resources available to
Lakeville businesses and the ability of those resources
to meet the current and future needs of the business
community.
2. New and emerging technologies that could better
support existing businesses and encourage new business
developments in Lakeville.
Scope of Work: The Task Force shall:
1. Explore and evaluate broadband technologies, Wireless,
end-user fiber build out, and other telecommunications
technologies that provide any and or all
telecommunications services to our business
community;
2. Assess the need for alternative or duplicative
technologies to support and provide businesses with
multiple methods of acquiring and maintaining
adequate telecommunications services.
3. Explore various business models by which the private
sector, the city (if needed), or others could offer these
technologies. Review options with service providers
such as public/private partnerships, contract or lease
arrangements, and other models, and examine what role
if any the city might play in such models;
4. Consider these and any related questions that might
assist the Task Force in fulfilling its purpose:
i. Is it possible for the city to motivate providers to
increase services within the City of Lakeville?
ii. If needed, what City resources might be utilized?
iii. What is the fiscal viability of the preferred
alternative(s)?
iv. What aze the direct benefits of providing this
service through the preferred alternative(s)?
v. Could a revenue generating solution be a
possibility?
vi. What are alternative sources to fund preferred
alternative(s)?
vii. What risks are there in the selected alternative(s)?
viii. What role would the City play in the selected
altemative(s)? Owner, lessor, partner with private
industry, etc.
5. Invite a wide array of experts and persons
knowledgeable in the issues to be studied by the Task
Force, to inform, generate helpful discussion and assist
in evaluation of technologies.
6. Prepare a preliminary report, to be authored with the
assistance of City staff, reflecting the preliminary
conclusions of the Task Force.
7. Obtain feedback and input on the preliminary report
from a variety of sources including but not limited to
the public, the Telecommunications Commission, the
Economic Development Commission, and known
providers of telecommunication services.
8. Prepare and submit a final report to the City Council.
Recommended Task Force members: Seven members
1. Economic Development Commission member (1)
2. Telecommunications Commission member (1)
3. Chamber of Commerce member (1)
4. Lakeville Residents employed in Telecommunications or
Technology (2)
5. Business Owners within the Community (2)
Item No.
City of Lakeville
Community and Economic Development
Memorandum
To: Economic Development Commission
From: David L. Olson, Community and Economic Development Director
Copy: .Steve Mielke, City Administrator
Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist
Date: September 22, 2006
Subject: September Director's Report
The following is the Director's Report for September of 2006.
Intemationat Economic Development Council Annual Conference
This,past week I was fortunate to attend the International Economic Development
Conference (IEDC} in New York City. The Conference was attended. by over 150
ecoromic development professionals from aIF 50 states and over 20 countries. The
theme for the conference was Roadmap for the Knowledge-Driven Economy. The
sessions I attended included topics on industry clusters, mixed use development,
innovative design and business partnerships, new trends in Indus#rial and
manufacturing sectors, business retention and expansion and neighborhood retail
developments. In addition to the sessions and presenters, attendance at a national
conference allows for the ability to network with counterpartsfrom other parts of the
country and find out that cities of all sizes are. dealing with similar types of economic
development issues.
Downtown Planning Project
Staff is currently reviewing the second draft of the plan prepared by Hoisington
Koegler based on the preferred concept that was presented at the Community
Meeting on July 11~' and the joint City Council, EDC, and Planning Commission
meeting on July 10~'. The Draft Pian will be reviewed by the Task Force later in
September or early October.
Spotlight on Business
BTD Manufacturing Inc. was the Spotlight on Business at the September 18"'
meeting of the City Council. Economic Development Specialist Adam Kienberger
was the presenter and copy of the information that was presented to the City
Council for B'TD is attached.
2006 Manufacturers Recognition Event
The 2006 Manufacturers Recognition Event has been scheduled for Wednesday
October 25"' and will be field at the Lakeville Area Arts Center. There will be a
luncheon and it will begin at Noon. The. City Council will be asked to consider a
proclamation. recognizing manufacturers week at the October 16'" City Council
meeting, We are requesting one or more EDC members be present at that meeting.
2006 August Building Pelmit Report
The City issued building: permits through August with a total valuation of
$107,288,003. This compares#o permits totaling $128,945,588 during the same
period in 2005. Included in this valuation were commercial and industrial permits
with a total valuation of $9,898,500 compared to $31,773,500 through August of
2005. The City also issued permits for 183 single family homes and 138 townhome
and condo units through August. This compares to 159 single family and 272
townhome and. condo unit permits during the same period in 2005.
September 15, 2006 Item No.
Spotlight on Business
BTD Manufacturing, Inc.
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."
BTD Manufacturing will be featured at the September 18, 2006 City Council meeting. Economic
Development Specialist, Adam Kienberger, will present the information on BTD. CFO Dave Wette
and Performance Tool & Die General Manager Craig Rix wilt be present to accept the award.
BTD Manufacturing, located at 21673 Cedar Avenue, is a metal fabrication business based in
Detroit Lakes. The business began operations in Lakeville in 2005 .and recently purchased
Performance Tool & Die as part of their expansion efforts in the Lakeville market.
Owned by Ottertail Corporation since 1995, BTD does design, improving existing designs, and
creating innovative manufacturing processes that enhance products and save businesses money.
In 2005, BTD relocated its Twin Cities distribution center to a 46,000 square-foot facility in Lakeville.
After a recent expansion, BTD now has 96,000 square feet in the Airlake Industrial Park at their
Cedar Avenue location. Their leased space consists of/2 warehouse and'/z production facility and
includes 3 turret presses, a laser cutter, and 2 press brakes. The Performance Tool & Die location
at 21315 Heywood Avenue adds approximately 30,000 square-feet to BTD's Lakeville presence.
Locating in Lakeville to better serve their local customers, BTD and Performance Tool & Die work
with several area businesses including Toro, Heat n' Glo, and Cybex in Owatonna. Some other
businesses they work with include Amtic Cat and Polaris.
Located in Lakeville because of the quality employee pool and proximity to customers and
providers, they currently employ approximately 50 area residents.
In addition to employment, BTD provides a substantial tax benefit to the community. The Dakota
County Assessor has assigned an estimated market value of over $4.8 million to the buildings and
property BTD and Performance Tool & Die occupy. Based on current tax capacity rates, this market
value will result in an estimated contribution of over $143,000 in local property taxes going to
support the City, Dakota County, and Independent School District 194 in 2006.
Adam Kienberger
Economic Develop nt Specialist
Financial Impact: $ 0 Budgeted: Y/N _ Source:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
myuu. rra uuu~a~ucu YL~KfYi111JJV L'L ICCYVICI YAbb:
Dam Pr;~ea: osr>31!~0~ City of Lakeville
Y`mnit Cerary: All Pemtils
- CURRENT RANGE PRE VIOU5 RANGE
08/01/2006 - 08/31/2006 08/01/2005 - 08/31/2005
PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW
Building `
Single Familv -All Inclusive 22 _ 53,565.50 6,605,000.00 29,416.94. 23 54,333.85 6,836,000.00 31,586,06
Duplex- All Inclusive 0 0.00 0.00 Q00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Twnhse Unit-All Inclusive 16 23,362.79 2,188,000.00 4,798.24 18 24,647.50 2,400,000.00 6,608.68
Detached Townhouse -All Inc. 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 8,982.15 989,000.00 5,009.66
Condo 0' 0.00 O.OU 0.00 32 42,257.60 4,096,000.00 9,204.48
Mobile Home Install 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Driveway` 2 100.00 Q00 0.00 4 200.00 0.00 0.00
Retaining Wall 1 149.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Egress Window U 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 63.25 1,000.00 0.00
Stucco Siding 1 24.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Garages 2 1,056.00 89,000.00 686.40 3 543.75 30,000.00 0.00
Accessory Bldgs 7 722.75 31,000.00 136.01 5 554.25 32,000.00 0.00
Reside 11 270.00 10,643.00 0.00 14 343.00 30,000.00 0.00
Reroof 53 1,298.50 96,043.87 0.00 41 1,004.50 19,141.00 0.00
Res Addn/Repair/Rmdl 9 1,407.25 74,000.00 417.62 11 1,783.75 95,000.00 172.41
Deck-Residential 38 2,909,95 99,700.00 0.00 42 3,572.95 134,400.00 0.00
Porch -Residential 1 24.50 500.00 0.00 7 1,016.75 52,000.00 0.00
Lower Level -Residential 18 2,589.25 132,500.00 0.00 19 2,897.75 151,000.00 O.CO
Addition -Residential 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 627.75 36,000.00 344.82
Commercial -New 4 2,428.50 174,000.00 1,578.53 3 18,825.75 3,722,000.00 12,236.74
Commercial Addr>/Rmdl 5 1,399.00 98,500.00 728.33 8 3,620.70 270,000.00 2,235.64
Commercial Re-Roof 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 299.00 0.00 0.00
Commercial Reside 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0,00 0.00 0.00
Industrial -New 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial Addn/Rmdl 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 853.75 80,000.00 554.94
Tax Exempt AddrJRmdl 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 321.25 20,000.00 208.81
Tax Exempt -New 2 33,26750 9,000,000.00 21,623.88 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Swimming Pools 5 647,50 0.00 Q(l0 14 1,993.00 0.00 OAO
ncpuu. rcuwwaaucu YP.KiV111 1JJUP.L Ktl.YVlil YAbl1:
Date Printed: 0 8/3 112 0 0 6 City of Lakeville
Permit Category: All Pemilts
CURRENT RANGE PREVIOUS RANGE
08/01/2006 - 08/31/2006 08/01(2005 - 08/31/2005
PERMIT TYPE QTY BA5E FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW
Fences 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Buildings Moved '0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 99.50 0.00 0.00
Buildings Demolished 1 - 49.50 0.00 R00 1 49.50 0.00 0.00
Foundation Onty 1 3,708.75 0.00 2,410.69 2 2,183.00 212,000.00 1,418.95
Grading 2 150.00 0.00 0.00 1 75.00 0.00 0,00
Miscellaneous 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 139.25 7,000.00 0.00
Sub-total 202 129,131.24 18,598,886.87 61,796.64 264 171,388.50 19,272,541.00 69,581.19
Electrical
Single Family 7 230.00 0.00 0.00 25 1,550.00 0.00 0.00
Duplex 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Townhouse 0 0.00 .0.00 0.00 8 640.00 0.00 0.00
Service Lateral 9 200.00 1,000.00 0.00 18 360.00 0.00 0.00
Furnace/Air Conditioning 24 485.00 4,832.00 0.00 20 400,00 0.00 0.00
In Floor Heat 0 0.00 Q00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Multi-Family 0 0.00 0.00 OAO 0 .0.00 0.00 0.00
Manufactured Home 3 65.00 0.00 0.00 5 125.00 0.00 O.UO
Sub-Panel 1 20.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Temporary Service 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 25.00 0.00 0.00
Saver Switch 84 1,680.00 9,800.00 0.00 18 360.00 0.00 0.00
Lawn Sprinkler Controller 5 155.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cable Boa/DSL 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off Peak 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 OAO 0.00 0,00
Fireplace Blower/Igniter 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 l 40.00 0.00 0.00
Res Addition/Remodel 1? 700.00 2,150.00 0.00 23 900.00 0.00 0.00
Lower Level -Residential 1 40.00 0.00. 0.00 25 960.00 0.00 0.00
Commercial/Indus[rial 12 580.00. 0.00 OAO 5 1,33000 QAO 0.00
Commercial/lndnstrial AddM 1(i 843.50 A00 0.00 22 962.00 0.00 0.00
Traffic Signal Standard 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Street Lighting 1 OAO 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
nuPu~r. rc~uuu~~ucu Ybl(1YLL1 lJJVbL 1(AYVXl YAlil~.:
Date Printed: 08!3112006 City of Lakeville
Pennit Category: Alt Permits
- CURRENT RANGE PREVIOUS RANGE -
08(Ol/2006 - 08!31!2(106 08/01!2005 - 08/3172005
PERMIT TYPE QTY BASEFEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASEFEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW
SprinklerlAlantt 2 60.00 0.00 0.00 3 60.00 D.00 0.00
Otitle[s ,1 20.00 0.00 0.00 2 40.50 0.00 0.00
InstitutionalfI'ax Exempt 6 - 2,370.00 0.00 0.00 3 60.00 0.00 0.00
SwYmming Pool 4 140.00 O.UO 0.00 16 580.00 L00 0.00
Sign 1 20,00 0.00 0.00 4 80.00 0.00 O.W
Hot Tub 4 80.00 0.00 0,00 4 50.00 0.00 0.00
Heat Pump 0 0.00 0,00 0.00 2 40.00 0.00 0.00
lJndefined 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 85.00 0.00 0.00
Sub-total 194 7,688.50 1Y782.00 .0.00 207 8,677.50 1.00 0.00
Fire
Automatic Fire-Extinguishing 13 1,387.43 90,480.00 0.00 7 1,506.15 105,500.00 0 00
lndustrialOvens 0 0.00 0.0(1 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
LP Gas 0 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0 000 0.00 OAO
Paint Booth 0 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sub-total 13 1.,387.43 90,480.00 0.00 7 1,506.15 105,500.00 O,W
Mechanical
Heating 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 276.50 0.00 0.110
Hea[ing/Air Cond 18 712.00 32,269,00 000 ] 4 553.50 22,b70.00 0.00
Air Conditioning 8 316.00 0.00 0.00 9 356.00 0.00 0.00
Commercia] Mechanical 11 1,823.24 147,750.00 0.00 5 1,238,00 97,4D0.00 0.00
Gas Piping 6 237.00 0.00 0.00 14 553.00 50.00 0.00
Ventilation 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Refrigeration 2 150.89 10,059.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Garage Heater 0 0.00 0.00 000 1 39.50 0.00 O.OD
Add/Rplc/Repairs 10 395.00 34,393.00 0.00 5 197.50 12,057.00 0 0(1
In FIoor Water Heat 0 D.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous 0 0.00 ~ 0.00 0.00 1 48.00 3,200.00 0 00
Fireplace 6 237.00 1,200.00 000 8 3]6.00 6,773.30 0.00
rtcpm t. rcuwwiaauca YI:XN1l11lJUbl)1(1SYV1(1 YAbI::
Date Priryzd: oat31goo6 City of Lakeville
Permit Category: Alf Permits
W-__~-- CURRENT RANGE - ,-----W PREVIOUS RANGE
08/01/2006 - 08/31/2006 08/01/2005 - 08/31/2005
PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BA5E FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW
Sub-total 61 3,871.13 225,671.00 0.00 64 3,578.00 ]42,150.30 0.00
Plumbing
Commercial Plumbing System 8 904.50 55,10(1.00 0.00 6 1,076.25 83,725.00 0.00
Plumbing System 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 p 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Softener 27, 392.00, 10,705.00 0.00 36 522.0(1 1,935.00 0.00
Water Meer 0 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 .0.00 0.00 0.00
Lawn Sprjnklers 50 1,897.50 1,900.00 UAO 23 893.50 1,070.00 0.00
Inside Plumbing Conversion 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .0.00 0.00 0.00
AddNRepair/Rmdl 3 118.50 0.00 0.00 3 118.50 0.00 0.00
Water Heater 17 320.75 5,850.00 0,00 9 191.00 6,OOD.00 0.00
RPZ 4 158.00 0.00 0.00 1 39.50 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 D 0.00 0.00 0.00
Comm/Mu1i-Family Lawn Spr 3 79.00 0.00 0.00 1 .39.50 OAO 0.00
Sub-total 112 3,87025 73,555.00 0.00 82 2,88Q25 92,730.00 O.OD
Sign
Permanent Sign 6 300,00 0.00 0.00 18 950.00 0.00 0.00
Temporary Sign 1 25,00 0.00 0.00 10 250A0 0.00 0.00
Sub-fatal 7 325.00 0.00 0.00 28 1,200.00 0.00 0.00
Sewer/ Wafer
Sewer Install Only 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wa[er install Only 0 0.00 Q00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Private Sewer -New 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .0.00 0.00 0.00
Private Sewer-RcplacelRepair I 74.50 0.00 0.00 1 74.50 0.00 0.00
S/W Conversion 0 0.110 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sewer Conversion Only 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Conversion Only 0 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0,00 0.00
rrauvua aaavatiu accrauca rnt:as:
date P~aed: ttarsvyou~ City of Lakeville
Pemut Category: All Pernik
--------CURRENT RANGE - PREVIOUS RANGE -
OS/Ol/2006 -68/31/2006 OS/01/2005 - 08/31/2005
PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW
Commercial 4 745.50.. 74,550.00 0.00 5 2,052.11 205,211.00 0.00
Drainfile Conneetion ~0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous D - 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 124.00 0.00 0.00
Sub-total 5 820.00 74,550.D0 0.00 9 2,250.61 205,211.00 0.00
User Defined -
Re-inspection Fee 1 _ 47.00 0.00 0.00 2 141.00 0.00 0.00
Plan Review 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
Security Escrow 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0,00 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sub-total 2 47.00 0.00 0.00 5 141.00 0.00 0.00
Tuning
Accessory Buildings 7 140,00 0.00 0.00 9 180.00 0.00 0.00
Above Ground Pool 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 .0.00 0.00
Fences 12 240.00 0.60 0.00 28 540.00 0.00 0.00
Sub-total 19 380.00 0.00 0.00 38 720.00 0.00 0.00
Totat 615 147,520.55 19,080,924.87 61,796.64 704 192,342.01 19,818,133.30 69,581.19
nctwu. rcuwwimuw YC1U~'lll 1JJUbU 1(6YV$1 YAlvb:
Date Printed: 08/31/j000 City of Lakeville
Pennil Category: All Permits
CURRENT RANGE PREVIOUS RANGE
01/01/2006 - 08/31/2006 01(01!2005 - 08!3112005
PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BA5E FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW
Building _
Single Family -All Inclusive 183 _ 445,346.94 54,580,955.00 249,128.09 159 351,974.40 43,340,000.00 202,731.92
Duplex--Alllnclusive 4 6,659.00 640,000.00 1,329.76 2 4,457.50 550,000.00 2,565.88
Twnhse Unit -All Inclusive 133 221,117.64 21,698,000.00 55,133.28 164 247,965.80 25,293,000.00 76,796.66
Detached Townhouse-All Inc 1 2,448.75 300,000.00 1,373.94 24 42,715.60 4,676,000.00 23,787.20
Condo 0' O.Od 0.00 0.00 82 106,163.70 10.102,000.00 26,582.24
Mobile Home Install 11 654.50 0.00 0.00 7 416.50 0.00 0.00
Driveway' 14 700.00 _ 0.00 0.00 14 700.00 0.00 0.00
Retaining Wall 1 149.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Egress Window 5 270.00 7,500.00 0.00 11 613.65 16,500.00 0.00
Stucco Siding 2 49.00 0.00 0.00 0 0,00 0.00 O.OU
Garages 15 3,664.25 237,000.00 1,539.35 ]0 1,784.50 98,000.00 190.61
Accessory Bldgs 14 1,473.50 64,000.00 136.01 18 1,911.15 84,300.00 0.00
Reside 83 1,911.50 64,258A0 0.00 73 1.,802.75 159,979.00 0.00
Rcroof 202 4;944.75 232,992.87 0.00 162 4,123.50 178,402.00 0.00
Res Addn/RepairlRmdl 78 12,689.15 753,600.00 3,375.83 77 18,008.99 1,458,500.00 2,885.18
Deck -Residential 242 19,384.20 697,500.00 0.00 296 24,722.00 922,500.00 0.00
Porch -Residential 21 2,851.50 137,500.00 .145.11 29 3,912.25 191,000.00 0.00
Lower Level -Residential 179 27,330.90 1,424,800.00 255.66 199 30,625.23 1,604,500.00 39435
Addition -Residential 6 1,428.SU 114,000.00 614.09 11 2,869.93 194,000.00 1,177.28
Commercial-New 22 30,374.45 .4,635,000.00 19,462.77 8 46,381.05 9,247,000.00 30,147.61
CommercialAddn/Rmdl 31 25,861.26 3,848,500.00 15,846.85 59 62,344.65 10,145,500.00 38,477.32
Commercial Re-Roof 4 598.00 0.00 0.00 6 897.00 0.00 0.00
Commercial Reside 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 OAO
Industrial -New 1 2,645.75 395,000.00 1,719.74 3 23,243.14 4,989,000.00 15,108.35
Industrial Addn/Rlndl 11 9,007.00 1,020,000.00 5,583.84 6 31,563.50 7,392,000.00 20,471.26
Tax Exempt Addn/Rmdl 7 637.00 25,500.00 0.00 3 613.75 35,000.00 208.81
Tax Exempt -New 6 42,327.50 11,776,000.00 27,80134 1 ]39.25 7,000.00 0.00
Swimming Pools 28 2,686.00 0.00 0.00 60 6,470.00 0.00 0.00
neyw reumu~asueu YEKlV1l11JJUL,L 1(GYVl(1 YALE:
Date Pr~,tea: oar~trlaob City of Lakeville
I'emut Category; All Permits
CURRENT RANGE ----PREVIOUS RANGE
01/01/2006 -08/31/1006 01/01/2005 - 08/31/2005
PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW
Fences 1 38.75 1,000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Buildings Moved ~0 0.00 0:00 0.00 I 99.50 0.00 0.40
Buildings Demolished 13 643.SD 0.00 0.00 16 643.50 0.00 0.00
Foundation Only 3 4,856.37 88,000.00 3,156.70 6 6,773.00 877,000.00 4,402.45
Grading 11 825.00 0.00 0.00 7 525.00 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous LO 2,086.75 16,000.00 0.00 5 760.30 2,029,985.00 274.01
Sub-total 1,344 875,660.91 102,757,105.87 386,302.36 1,520 1,025,221.09 123,591,166.00 446,201.13
Electrical
Single Family 60 3,720.00 D.00 O.OU 415 29,495.00 19,500.00 0.00
Duplex 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 160.00 5,000.00 0.00
Townhouse 80 6,280.00 ..0,00 0.00 76 5,962.00 0.00 0.00
Service Lateral 119 2,400.50 1,400.00 0.00 66 1,320.00 1,000.00 0.00
Furnace/Air Conditioning 156 3,200.00 42,501.00 0.00 116 2,360.00 1,925.00 0.00
In Floor Hea[ 4 120.00 SOQDO 0.00 10 260.00 7,028.78 0.00
Multi-Family I .120.00 O.UU 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0,00
Manufactured Home 13 315.00 0.00 0.00 9 220.00 0.00 0.00
Sub-panel 10 270.00 201.00 0.00 13 334.50 450.00 0.00
Temporary Service 5 130.00 100.00 0.00 8 260.00 0.00 0.00
Saver Switch 226 4,520.00 15,875.00 0.00 1.48 2,965.00 0.00 O,OD
Lawn Sprinkler Controller 11 300.00 2,500.00 0.00 U 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cable Box/DSL 1 30.00 O.DO O.DO 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Og p~ 30 600.00 0.00 0.00 0 O.OD 0.00 0.00
Fireplace Blower/Igniter 10 360.25 3,020.00 D.00 13 520.00 5,800.00 0,00
Res Addition/Remodel 58 2,315.00 13,602.00 0.00 140 5,395.00 29,614.50 Q00
Lower Level -Residential 20 760.00 1,602.00 0.00 195 7,859.50 53,175.00 0.00
Additional Inspections 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 60.00 0.00 D.DD
CommerciaUIndustrial 54 4,073.00 0.00 O.OD 58 8,199.75 0.00 0.00
CommerciaVIndusvial Addn/1 149 8,414.25 0.00 0.00 101 4,828.00 0.00 OAO
Traffic Signal Standard 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 330.00 0.00 0.00
ne~u. rmuuuissueu Yb1UYll1 lJJUD.U 1(P.YVl(1 YAGL"
Ua[e PrirtteJ: 08/31/ZOf16 City of Lakeville
Permit Category: Nl Permitx
CURRENT RANGE pREVIOUS RANGE
01/01/2006 - 08/31/2006 01/01/2005 - 08/31/2005
PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW
Street Lighting 2 20.00 OAO 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
SprinklerlAlarm lU~ 247.00 0.00 0.00 21 762.50 OAO 0.00
Outlets 18 - 460.00 7,125.00 0.00 4 8050 150.00 0.00
Institutional/Tax Exempt 26 2,956.00 0.00 0.00 21 618.00 0.00 0.00
Swimming Pool 23 705.00 1,500.00 0.00 54 1,82000 47,666.00 400
Sign 13 345.00 3,900.00 0.00 22 440.00 715.OD 0.00
Ho[ Tub 12 240.00 4,501.00 0.00 23 485.00 2,75400 0.00
Heat Pump 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 80.00 0.00 0.00
Undefined 25 575.00 - 0.00 0.00 16 3,100.00 0.00 0.00
Sub-total 1,136 43,476.00 98,327.00 0.00 1,542 77,914.75 174,774.28 0.00
Fire
Fuel Tank 0 0,00 OAO 0.00 6 298.66 13,777.00 0.00
Automatic Fire-Extinguishing 48 7,R17,00 60Q174.68 0.00 59 15,030.26 1,180,625.00 0.00
Industrial Ovens 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
LP Gas 4 158.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paint Booth 0 0.00 0.00 400 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sub-total 52 7,975.00 600,174.68 0.00 65 15;328.92 1,194,402.011 0.00
Mechanical
Heating 17 671.50 0.00 0.00 57 2,S1R.50 27,000.00 OAO
Heating(Air Cond 94 3,714.00 252,733.00 0.00 76 3,126.50 120,678.30 0.00
Air Conditioning 50 1,975.00 0.00 0.00 50 1,976.00 0.00 0,00
Commercial Mechanical 64 23,105.98. 2,074,476.00 0.00 53 17,652.80 1,551,407.00 0.00
Gas Piping 31 1,230.00 3,470.00 0.00 69 3,056.00 38,145.00 0.00
Ventilation 3 250.53 16,701.00 0.00 14 1,529.98 105,293.97 0.00
Refrigeration 2 150.89 1Q059.00 400 2 5,717.00 561,SR5.00 0.00
Garage Heater 2 79.00 1,000.00 0.00 3 118.50 0.00 0.00
Add/Rplc/Repairs 41 1,619.50 94,842.00 0.00 23 908.50 54,303.00 0.00
In Floor Water Heat 1 39.50 0.00 0.00 2 79.00 0.00 0.00
acµur. rcuruuunu<u Ybl<Ig111JAUl:ll 1(EYVK1 YAlrk.:
Uxte Primed: 08/3U2006 City of Lakeville
'Permii.;alegory: All Permits
CURRENT RANGE PREVIOUS RANGE
01/01/2006 - 08/3112006 01/01/2005 - 08/31!2005
PERMIT TYPF. QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW
Miscellaneous 2 79.00 0.00 0.00 8 324.50 5,300.00 0.00
Fireplace 57 2,251.50 25,545.00 0.00 67 2,646.50 51,381.39 0.00
Sub-total 364 35,166:40 2,478,826.00 0.00 424 39,653.78 2,515,093.66 0.00
Plumbing
Commercial Plumbing System 49, 9,612.4$ 749,112.00 0.00 52 11,981.62 1;009,672.00 Q00
Plumbing System 1 . 39.50 0.00 0.00 3 267.50 17,800.00 0.00
Water Softener 227 3,249.00 28,796.00 0.00 258 3,743.50 42,035.50 0.00
Water Meter 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lawn Sprinklers 156 6,084.50 18,715.00 0.00 104 4,093.00 14,550.00 0.00
Inside Plumbing Conversion 321.50 0.00 0.00 2 79.00 0.00 0.00
AdrU>/RepairlRtndl 10 395A0 0.00 0.00 23 908.50 0.00 0.00
Water Heater 130 1,920.75 10,250.00 0.00 88 1,338.00 7,900.00 0.00
RpZ 27 1,067.00 240.00 0.00 13 514.00 383.99 0.00
Miscellaneous 3 79.00 0.00 0.00 2 79.00 0.00 0.00
Comtn/Muti-Family Lawn Spr 17 632.00 0.00 0.00 14 553.00 0.00 0.00
Sub-total 634 23,400.73 807,113.00 0.00 564 23;557.12 1,092,341.49 0.00
Sign
Permanent Sign 59 3,075.00 0.00 0.00 88 4,750.00 0.00 0.00
Temporary Sign 29 700.00 O.DO 0.00 38 950.00 0.00 0.00
sun-total 88 3,775.00 0.00 0.00 126 5,700.00 0.00 OAO
Sewer/ Water
Sewer Install Only 1 84.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Install Only 6 632.50 21,000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Private Sewer -New 1 74.50 0.00 ~ 0.00 1 74.50 0.00 0.00
Private Sewer-ReplaceJRepair 2 149.00 0.00 0.00 3 263.50 0.00 0.00
S/W Conversion 5 422.50 0.00 0.00 2 169.00 0.00 0.00
ndxn~. rauu~iiaweu YL~xmll 1JJUL~U K6YVx1 YAGD.:
llate Printed: 08l3a/2006 City of Lakeville
Pzrtni[ Category: All Pe`mity
CURRENT RANGE PREVIOUS RANGE -
Dl/Ol/2006 - 08/31/2006 01/01/2005 - 08/31/2005
PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW
Sewer Conversion Only - U 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 84.50 0.00 0.00
Water Conversion Only 2 I69.00 D.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Commercial 13 5,329.07 524,457.00 0.00 11 4,159.62 377,811.00 0,00
Draintile Connection U 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous 3 118.50 0.00 0,00 4 163.50 O.OU 0.00
Sub-total 33 6,979.57 545,457.00 0.00 23 4,914.62 377,811.00 0.00
User Defined
Re-inspection Fee 5 235.00 0.00 OAO 13 611.00 0.00 O.OD
Plan Review 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 9 0.00 0.00 0.00
Security Escrow 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 OAO 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous 7 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 3 0,00 0.00 0.00
Suh-total 19 235.00 1,000AO OAO 29 611.00 0.00 0.00
Zonink
Accessory Buildings 39 780.00 0.00 O.OU 43 860.00 0.00 0.00
Above Ground Pool 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 D.00 0.00
Fences 120 2,300.00 0.00 0.00 162 3,220.00 0.00 0.00
Sub-total 159 3,080.00 0.00 0.00 206 4,080.00 0.00 0.00
Total 3,829 999,748.61 107,288,003.55 386,302.36 4,499 1,196;981.2$ 128,945,588.43 446,20L13
Dakota County Dakota County Manufacturers
Manufacturing
Support Alliance Breakfast
September 20, 2006 7:30 - 9:30 a.m.
DAKOTA Partners ;n Higher Education
;FUTURE 14200 Cedar Ave. S. Apple Valley
~un~.S~acuaa to
~*~a~ • Workforce Skills Shortages
M~~~~?~?
• English Language Skills
c~ta=Scott
"t''t'"'geiid • Attracting Young People into Manufacturing Careers
w.p.~w~.wr.w.
• Workforce Data
At our recent fact-finding meetings, these four issues dominated the discussions.
In response, this program will inform you, our manufacturers, about the resources,
current strategies and opportunities to more systematically address your workforce
concerns. We will also have time to discuss our next steps in working together on
these critical issues.
Our response to your concerns...
Inver~lC~i~s Workforce Facts, Trends and Reports
Community College Rachel Hillman -DEED Labor Market Information Office
Training Resources from Area Colleges
Supporters Larry Raddatz -Dakota County Technical College
Apple Valley Peter Hoch -Inver Hills Community College
Chamber of Commerce
Accessing English Language Skills Training for New Workers through
Burnsville Adult Basic Education
Chamber of Commerce Claudia Kimille - MNDepartment ofEducation
Hastings Area Promoting Manufacturing Cazeers to Youth
Chamber of Commerce Mark.7acobs -Dakota Scott Workforce Investment Board
Gail Morrison, Burnsville School Board
Northern Dakota County Deirdre Wells, Inver Grove Heights School Superintendent
Chambers of Commerce
Manufacturing Workforce Development Strategies
Lakeville Debra Bultnick- DEED-MPMA
Chamber of Commerce
Discussion...
River Heights How can we work together to address these issues?
Chamber of Commerce
Please RSVP by sending an email with your contact information to
MN DEED bill(a~dakotafuture.com. Feel free to pass this invitation to anyone who may
be interested. Thank you! We hope to see you at this meeting!!