Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-28-05 City of Lakeville Economic Development Commission Regular Meeting nda Tuest~v. Jung 28.2D06. B:Clo Q.m. City Mali, 20195 Ftolyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN _ 1. Call meeting ro order. . 2. Approve April 2~,'2f1415 n[ng minutes 3. Prdsar~tation of 2005 Community Survey Results by Dr. Bill Morris o}• Decision Resources Ltd. 4. Update on Strategic Plan Work Program 5. Director's Report 6. Adjourn Attacl~rruarNps• • Twin Cities Business Journal Article on Blue Sky Creamery • City of Lakeville May Building Permit Report .TiV u. ~ p~p~~t City of Lakeville Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes Apri126, 2005 Marion Conference Room, City Hall Members Present: Comms. Brantly, Emond, Gehrke, Matasosky, Pogatchnik, Schubert, Tushie; Ex-Offieio member City Administrator Steve Mielke, Ex-Officio member Todd Bornhauser -Executive Director -Lakeville Area Chamber of Commerce Members Absent Erickson, Miller, Smith. Others Present: Staff present: David Olson, Community & Economic Development DireMor; Brian Anderson, Assistant to the City Administrator; Penny Brevig, Recording Secretary. ' 1. Calf Meeting to Order. Chair Matasosky called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Marion Conference Room of City Hall, 20195 Holyoke Avenue, Lakeville, Minnesota. 2. Approve March 29, 2005 Meeting Minutes Motion 05.06 Comms. Emond / Pogatchnik moved to approve the minutes of the March 29, 2005 meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Presentation on Twin Cities Community Capital Fund Mr. Olson introduced Scott Martin, President of the Twin Cities Community Gapital Fund (TCCCF) who will be making a presentation at tonight's meeting. Mr. Olson explained that the TCCCF is in the process of attempting to secure the necessary capitalization to operate a loan fund to leverage the local economic devek>'pment financing resources of member communities. He indicated that any recommendation regarding possible membership in the TCCCF would be considered at a future meeting. Mr. Martin gave his presentation to the EDC members. He followed the outline that was distributed in the EDC packets. He indicated that six cities have joined the fund so far; Minnetonka, Eagan, Oakdale (first to sign up), St. Louis Park, Belle Plaine, and Jordan. Mr. Martin is looking to launch the program in June, 2005. After Mr. Martin thanked the EDC for their time and left the meeting, the EDC discussed TCCCF. Economic Oevebpment Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes April 2ti, 2005 Commissioner Pogatchnik felt that it would not make any sense to use TCCCF. He does not know what you would gain as a borrower. Commissioner Emond indicated that it was basically abuilt-in referral base. Chair Matasosky felt that there was no market for this company right now. Commissioner Tushie thought that maybe this could be a value to senior and affordable housing. After listening to the comments from the EDC members, Mr. Olson and Mr. Mielke indicated that TCCCF may be considered at a later date and the City will probably take a wait and see attitude. 4. Update on Strategic Plan Work Program Mc Olson updated the EDG on the progress of the Strategic Plan Work Program. Goal #1: Facilitate an effort to create a long term plan #o promote downtown economic viability while retaining its unique and historical characteristics. Mr. Olson stated that staff has completed meetings with Downtown "anchors" which included the Post Office, Art Center, Enggrens Market, ISD #194, and Ace Hardware. Mr. Olson indicated that staff has met with one planning consulting firm and wiH be meeting with at least one more in the next several weeks to discuss the project Mr. Olson stated that based on the discussion of the scope of work for this project, it appears as though the budget for this project will be in the $50-70,000 range. He indicated that there is sufficient funding from previous years CDBG allocations, and pending City Council authorization, will be proceeding with a CDBG Program Budget Amendment to authorize use of these funds for this purpose. Mr. Olson stated that a recommendation from the EDC to proceed with retaining a consulting firm for preparation of a Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown to t>a funded with previous years CDBG allocations is requested. Motion 05.07 Comms. Pogatchnik /Emond moved to recommend retaining a consulting firm for preparation of a Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown with funds from previous years CDBG allocations. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bornhauser stated that he really appreciates what the City is doing for the downtown area. Goal #2: Implementation of a process to facilitate the development of East-West Corridors. 2 Economic Development Commission D R A F T Meeting Minutes Apri! 28, 2f)05 Mr. Olson stated that staff is continuing to participate in Dakota County's Phase II of the East West Corridor Study. He indicated that further refinement of several of the corridors is being studied including the 179t^ Street and 185th Street Corridors. Mr. Olson stated that there have been some .discussions with Dakota County regarding the northwest corner of Cedar Avenue and Dodd Boulevard regaMin~g access and future traffic signals. He also indicated that the extension of 202 Street to 208th Street in Farmington is being discussed. Mr. Bomhauser asked Mr. Olson for a summary of what may be happening wfth County Road 70, which was discussed at the March EDC meeting. Goal #3: Completion of a study to determine he minimum market value.: of a residential housing unit that generates su~cient City taxes to' pay for the `City services required by that unit. Mr. Olson indicated that staff met with representatives of Springsted Inc. and has received a draft proposal to complete an Economic Benefits Study. He indicated that this draft proposal is to assist the City in developing a benefits system that would enable the City to estimate both the costs and the benefts that are likely to result from both residential and commercial~ndustrial projects within the City. Mr. Olson stated that Staff is reviewing this proposal.. and will work with Springs~d to determine the exact scope of the study and cast of completing this study. Goal #d: Facilitate a process with the City Council to establish affordable housing goals for the City. Mr. Olson indicated that the results of the affordable housing questions from the Decision Resources City Survey will be presented to the EDC sometime after May 5t", when the results are expected. Mr. Olson introduced Brian Anderson, the Assistant to the City Administrator, who will be attending EDC meetings and helping out in the interim until a new Economic Development Coordinator is hired. 5. Director's Report Mr. Olson stated that the annual State of the City address was held earlier today at Crystal Lake Golf Club and Banquet Facility. A copy of the brochure was handed out at tonight's meeting. The City and the Chamber received very favorable feedback from attendees. Mr. Olson stated that Commissioner Pogatchnik introduced Gander Mountain as the spotlighted business at the April 18th City Council meeting. He indicated that the information that was presented to City Council was in the EDC packets. Chair Matasosky was scheduled to introduce Cloverleaf Cold Storage at the May 2, 2005 3 t Economic lJevefopment Commission Meeang Minutes Apri128, 2003 City Council meeting, but Mr. Olson indicated that because Cloverleaf Cold Storage has just applied for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to complete their building expansion., we will. be rescheduling them to a later date. Mr. Olson updated the EDC members on the local construction projects that have either started again or will be starting soon. Mr. Olson stated that the building permit report for March 2005., which shows a total valuation of $41,691.216.00 was distributed to EDC members in their packets. Mr. Olson mentioned the a-mail from Associate Planner Frank Dempsey regarding a recent discussion with a representative of Eight Four Lumber, who recently received approval to develop a distribution facility on a 10 acre site in Airtake ndustrial Park.' The representative had very favorable comments regarding our approval process. 6. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Attested to: Penny g, Recording S retary R. T. Brantly, Secretary 4 Agenda Item MEMORANDUM TO: Economic Development Commission CC: Steven C. Mielke, City Administrator FROM: Brian J. Anderson, Assistant to City Administrato~J~ DATE: June 24, 2005 RE: Lakeville's 2005 Community Survey Results Decision Resources Ltd. has a longstanding history of performing the majority of the community surveys in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, .including Lakeville who has been retaining, them to perform community surveys since 1995. - Dr. Bill Morris, founder and president of Decision Resources, has recently analyzed the results of Lakeville's 2005 Community Survey and stated very high ratings for Lakeville when compared to previous survey results and regional trends. Dr. Morris presented this years survey results to the City Council at the June 6~h Work Session and Council Meeting and stated that across the board, Lakeville has many positive trends and very high ratings in the areas of quality of life, City amenities, safety related issues, infrastructure maintenance, parks and recreation, access to information, and planning and development. Dr. Morris stated that the quality of life results Lakeville received were among the highest he has seen. In addition, he stated the approval rating for the City Council and City staff continues to increase and rates extremely high in the Twin Cites. In a surprising result, Dr. Morris stated that resident's feel connected to City Hall, which is a countertrend being observed in the Twin Cities. Dr. Morris would like to take an opportunity to present this invaluable material to the EDC to inform and assist them in their strategic planning. The format will be informal; therefore, questions are encouraged during the presentation. Attached is the 2005 Executive Summary for your review and please contact me with any questions at 952-985-4430. D~z ,~e~~urnced, .Ltd. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2005 City of Lakeville Study Methodology: This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected residents of the City of Lakeville. Professional interviewers gathered responses across the community between Apri17`" and 28a', 2005. The average interview took forty-one minutes. In general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of adult Lakeville residents within t 5.0 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases. Residential Demographics: Lakeville remains a high growth, young, relatively upscale community, although signs of a slight decrease in the growth rate are occurring. The median longevity of adult residents is 8.0 years. Twelve percent of the sample report moving to the city during the past two years; seventeen percent have been there over two decades. Almost 60% of the sample come from two locations prior to moving to the community: thirty-six percent report moving from Dakota County communities, while 23% moved from Hennepin County cities. Seven percent relocated from rural Minnesota, and 19% came from outside of Minnesota - in relatively equal measure from the Upper Midwest, Midwest, and West. Seventy-seven percent of the sample either has no plans to move, or feel they would remain in Lakeville far at least ten years. And, 14% report they might move from the community during the next five years, consistent with previous surveys. Forty-nine percent of the households contain at least one school-aged child. Additionally,. 21% report pre-schoolers. The average age of respondents is 43.1 years old. Sixty-one percent of the sample falls into the 35-54 yeazs old age range, while 21% report ages over 54 years old. Women and men are equally represented in the sample. Forty-one percent of the respondents report their household heads work at upscale White Collar jobs --either Professional-Technical or Owner-Manager. Blue Collaz-led households number 19%; twenty percent report Clerical-Sales people as household heads. Retirees head 12% of the households in the city. Fourteen percent of the sample report home businesses, and 21 % of the households use some form of telecommuting. Fifteen percent of the respondents working outside the home hold a job in Lakeville, itself. Another 15% report Bloomington or Burnsville as job destinations. Minneapolis-based jobs aze posted by nine percent. The median household yeazly income is $76,375.00, approximately $14,500 higher than the current Metropolitan Area suburban norm. In general, then, Lakeville still must be classified as a young and growing "outer-ring" suburban community. Decision Resources, Ltd. ' Lakeville Residential Study Executive Summary June, 2005 Residents ate classified according to both the precinct and the school district in which they reside. Twenty-nine percent reside in Precincts 1-4; thirty-five percent, in Precincts 5-9; thirty- seven percent live in Precincts 10-14. Seventy-one percent of the sample resides in Independent School District 194; eleven percent lives in Independent School District 192, while 18% reside in Independent School District 196. Community Character: "Available housing," "high quality schools" and "rural, small town character" are the major reasons offered for settling in the community. Twenty-three percent mention "available housing," while 20% cite "high quality schools," and 16%, "rural and small town character." Only 14% aze disappointed about the current quality of the factors that drew them to the community. But, a solid 95% rate the quality of life as either "excellent" or "good;" the 47% rating the quality as "excellent" places Lakeville among the top decile of cities within the Metropolitan Area. "Location" within the Metropolitan Area is the most liked feature of the city, at 25%. "Small town ambience" ranks second, at 19%. "Nice people" and "strong neighborhoods" rank third, at 11 % and 10%, respectively. On the other hand, "growth" at 26% is the most unpopular feature of the community. "Roads and traffic congestion" follow at 19%. Only nine percent are troubled by "high taxes." But, it is noteworthy that a very high 23% report there is "nothing" they dislike about the community; this "booster" segment is among the highest in the Metropolitan Area The trade-off between growth and the maintenance of small town ambience and open space is still the greatest worry currently facing residents. Seventy-five percent agree that Lakeville is "`home,' not just another place to live." Twenty-one percent, though, report "Lakeville is just a place to live; I'd be just as happy elsewhere." Reinforcing this cohesive image, 79% feel the strength of community identity has increased or remained about the same while they were residents. Avery low 18%, in comparison with other growing suburban communities, see a "decrease." In the yeazs ahead, then, the City needs to continue watching for the development of a disaffected segment of the populace; so faz, though, they have done an exemplary job. Tax Climate and City Services: Lakeville residents aze generally receptive to current trade-off between city property tax levels and quality city services. When considering the value of city services -quality versus cost - 73%iate it highly, while 23% are more critical. City service evaluations are very positive overall. "Police protection" and "park maintenance" score approval ratings of 90% or higher. "Fire protection," "storm drainage and flood control," and "animal control" post approval ratings of between 80% and 89%. Just behind, at 79%, is the positive rating of "street maintenance." Particular irritants for residents aze "potholes," "loose animals," and "flooding." 2 • Decision Resources, Ltd Lakeville Residential Study Executtve Summary June, 1005 Municipal Liquor Stores: Ninety-one percent aze awaze the City of Lakeville manages and operates all liquor store facilities within the community. A lower 74% are awaze the profits from the liquor operation provides money for Lakeville city services and assists in reducing taxes. A lazge 84% report visiting one of Lakeville's liquor stores. Among store customers, at least 90% rate "customer service," "product selection," "location" highly. Eighty-one percent similarly rate "restricting sales to minors," while 74% feel the same about "prices." "Convenience," cited by 84%, is the main reasons they shop at Lakeville liquor stores. Public Safely Issues: If they could direct the Lakeville Police Department to place a greater emphasis on certain • activities, 34% would prioritize "drug enforcement" and 27% would stress "patrol of neighborhoods." Fifteen percent would place a greater emphasis on "crime prevention" and 12% choose "traffic enforcement." Eighty-eight percent feel safe in their neighborhood walking alone at night; only 10% feel unsafe. Among residents who would feel unsafe, 49% urge "more police patrolling," while 18% see a need for "more street lights." Eighty-two percent of the sample is unable to specify other areas in Lakeville where they do not feel safe walking alone at night or think there aze none. Forty-seven percent of the households in Lakeville have a child currently in school. Among this group, 40%aze aware of Lakeville's School Resource Officer Program. For those aware of the SRO Program, 81 % rate it favorably, while only nine percent see it unfavorably. Just nine percent report calling the Fire Department about a fire or rescue/emergency situation; of this group, 92% awazd the Department high ratings for the provided service, while six percent are more critical. Seventy-eight percent are awaze of the City's fire prevention activities. Forty-six percent of the households in the community have members who attended at least one of the fire prevention activities. Most of those aware of the activities learned about them through the schools or the local newspaper. Perceptions of the Neighborhood: A very solid 91% rate the condition and appearance of homes in their neighborhood as either "excellent" or "good." Only nine percent rate their local area lower. Critics point to "messy yards," "rundown homes," and "poor lawn care." 3 Decision Resources, Ltd. Lakeville Residential Study Executive Summary June, 2005 City Codes: Sixty-six percent feel the severity of enforcement of City Codes on nuisances is "about right " But, 24% feel it is "not tough enough." "Messy yazds," "junk cars," "weeds and tall grass," and "outside storage" are the cause of over 80% of the dissatisfaction. Parks and Recreationallssues: Lakeville residents remain committed outdoor enthusiasts. A high 69% use the smaller neighborhood pazks, while 63% visit larger community parks. Fifty-nine percent use city trails. While lower than the other components, 41 % use city athletic facilities. In the case of each component, over 90% of those holding opinions rate it as "excellent" or "good." Pazk facilities, then, continue to be viewed as a highly prized community asset by Lakeville citizens. In fact, by a 67%-21 % mazgin, residents support Lakeville estahlishing movable skate parks throughout the city. Twenty-four percent feel the park trails aze adequately ]it at night; however, the same percentage feels they are not. The remaining 52% are uncertain. Thirty-four percent feel safe walking on the park trails at night; sixteen percent do not feel safe, primarily because there is "not enough light" and they aze "secluded." The remaining 50% did not have an opinion on this issue. But, only 19% would make lighting more trails at night either a "top priority" or a "high priority." Lakeville Area Arts Center: Fifty-eight percent of the sample attended events at the Lakeville Area Arts Center. Sixteen percent report attending "The Taste of Lakeville," 15%, to "a concert or play," and 12%, to the "Lakeville Arts Festival." Thirteen percent participated in more than one of these events.. In the future, 67% are at least "somewhat likely" to attend concerts. Fifty-six percent are likely to attend plays, while 55% are likely to see performances of comedians. Forty-seven percent would be likely to attend children's theater performances. Three types of advertising of the Lakeville Area Arts Center are noticed by lazge percentages of the residents: seventy-eight percent note advertising in the local newspapers, while 69% recall them in the Lakeville Parks and Recreation Brochure, and 61 in the "Lakeville Community Education News." Lakes and Recreation: Seventy percent of the sample indicates household members used at least one of the four major lakes in the community during the past two years. Seventy-nine percent visit Lake Motion most often, while 10% more frequently use Orchard Lake, and 7%, Crystal Lake. Sixty-one percent consider the quality of water in the most visited lake as "excellent" or "good," while 32% feel it is "only fair" or "poor." In general, 75% feel the City of Lakeville's emphasis on environmental concerns is "about right," while only ten percent see it as "too low." Those critical of the City's emphasis point to "losing wetland areas," "losing open space," and "too much growth." 4 ' Decision Resources, Ltd. Lakeville Residential Study Executive Summary June, 2005 City Government and City Staff.• Residential empowerment within the community is very solid. Sixty percent report they could have a say in the way the City of Lakeville runs things, if they wanted. But, 34% think they cannot. This group of unempowered citizens is at the Metropolitan Area suburban norm. The Mayor and Council are awarded a job approval rating of 80% and a disapproval rating of six percent, the highest in the Metropolitan Area. But, dampening this somewhat, 55% of the community feel they know "very little" about the Mayor and the City Council, implying many of the ratings are based upon generalized feelings that things aze "going well." Since the number of uninformed residents stabilized during the interim between the last studies, the City should be even more aggressive in highlighting City Council actions and activities in the city newsletter, on the Internet, and on cable television programming. The City Staff receive a job approval rating of 76% and a disapproval rating of eight percent; the approval rating is among the top of the Metropolitan Area suburbs. "Poor communications," "lack of listening," and "room for improvement" aze the three major reasons for low evaluations posted by this small group of critics. The 36% of the residents reporting first-hand contact with the staff is also somewhat higher than compazable suburban areas. The City Staff, then, continues to serve an unusually large percentage of the population and, even more importantly, does it well. Economic Development: - The zoning and land use decision-making process is deemed "adequate" in providing for residential input by 50%. The 29% who rate the opportunity for input as "inadequate" suggests "more venues for community involvement" and "more responsiveness on the part of the City." On a related issue, 69% feel the City is well planned for the future; 15% disagree, while seven percent feel concern for the future only some of the time, and nine percent are unsure. Critics of the planning process point to the "fast growth rate of the community" and "instances of poor planning „ Sixty-four percent are interested in giving the City input for the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. A lazge 37% would prefer to give their input through "surveys in the mail," while 18% prefer "e-mail." Residents were asked about their top preference from a list of housing and development options. Thirty-six percent favor single-family homes, while 28% support more "commercial opportunities, retail stores and shops." By an overwhelming 87%-18% split, residents decisively feel Lakeville's current housing supply is an adequate mix of all types of housing. Among those thinking the current mix inadequate, 53% would like to see more "starter homes" and 24% would prefer more "middle income single family homes." Similarly, a decisive rating is awazded to the community's success in encouraging "life cycle housing:" seventy-one percent rate the City's efforts as "excellent" or "good," while 22% see them as "only fair" or "poor." s Decision Resources, Ltd ' Lakeville Residential Study Executive Summary June, 2005 Residential shopping habits were examined in some detail. Forty-seven percent of the sample says they make most of their household purchases in Apple Valley, while 31 % make them in Lakeville. Thirteen percent are drawn to Burnsville. On average, 62% report purchasing goods or services from Lakeville establishments on a "weekly" basis; eight percent make purchases daily, while 30% more sporadically. Lakeville shoppers aze primarily oriented toward three azeas: Lakeville Crossing, by 30%; Timbercrest, by 23%; and, Downtown Lakeville, by 21%. If they could choose types of retail or service businesses to come to the community, 41% would like "restaurants." Ten percent would prefer "clothing stores," while nine percent would prefer "discount stores." Sixteen percent, though, want "no further businesses." Transportation Issues: Ten percent report regularly using public transit or the HOV lane on I-35W. Eight percent use the HOV lane, while two percent take public transit. If it were available, 21 % are either `bery likely" or "somewhat likely" to use "bus service from Lakeville to Downtown Minneapolis." Seven percent are at least "somewhat likely to use "senior bus services," while four percent are similazly inclined about "bus service for physically challenged or disabled residents." By a resounding 75%-13% margin, residents favor in concept the City providing peak and non- peak bus service to Downtown Minneapolis, senior bus service, and bus service for physically challenged or disabled residents. Support decreases to 50% if a property tax increase of about $40.00 per yeaz were necessary to fund the service. At 82%, "I prefer to drive my own vehicle" is the main reason residents give for not using public transportation for their travel needs. Sixty-seven percent state, "public transportation does not go where I need to go: ' Sixty-one percent maintain, "public transportation is inconvenient." But. Only 12% report, "I have safety concerns about public transportation." City Communications: During the past decade, the City developed an extensive and focused communications system. Fifty-one percent consider "This Week Life and Times" stories their principal source of information about City government and its activities. Twelve percent rely upon the "Sun Current; nine percent, on Channel 16; and, eight percent, on "Messages" Avery high 82% feel adequately informed about City government and its activities; only 15% disagree. Critics would like to see more information on "development projects," in particulaz. Fifty-six percent of the residents report seeing the "Messages" page in "This Week Life and Times." And, 70% of those citizens regularly read the newsletter. Among readers, information about "road construction," "community events," and "current news" aze the types of information they like most. Readers suggest more information about "development projects" and "community events," although two-thirds have no suggestions for more inclusions. An almost unanimous 99% of the readers think the current weekly format provides useful information. And, only 11 % of current readers would be more likely to read the newsletter if it were in a more convenient location in the newspaper. Thirty-one percent of the sample would be more likely to 6 ' Decision Resources, Ltd LakevUle Residential Study Executive Summary June, 1005 read the City newsletter if it came in a different form, other than in the newspaper; fifty-three percent of this group prefer inclusion in the quarterly utility bill, while 35% would favor direct mail. Eighty-three percent. of the households have access to the Internet through a home or office computer. Of this group, 37% visit the City's website. Website visitors sought "general information," "pazks and recreation offerings," "information about codes and ordinances," "news about community events," and "specifics about development projects." Seventy-seven percent offer no suggestions for additional information on the website, while seven percent urge more information on "community events." Sixty percent of the website visitors would be interested in using it to conduct business with the City on-line - "filing or requesting a police report,." "utility bill payment," and "dog license applications" prove to be very popular additions. Only 29% of residents having Internet access report at least being "somewhat interested" in receiving the newsletter via a-mail; they would like to see "parks and recreation classes" and "road construction updates and information" included in an e-mailed newsletter. Nine percent of the households sampled report moving to the community during the past two yeazs. Of these new residents, 80% recall receiving a welcome packet in the mail, including the "Resident Guidebook." Seventy-five percent of those receiving the guidebook deem it as at least "somewhat helpful," while 15% aze critical. Twenty-throe percent of the new arrivals report receiving new resident information from other sources; "Welcome Wagon" is the major source of that information. By an overwhelming 70%-14% majority, residents support the City of Lakeville offering high- speed Internet access; in fact, 29% feel "strongly" that way. A majority of supporters are willing to pay $25.00 per month for this service. Sixty-four percent of the sampled households report currently subscribing to cable television, while 22% have satellite television, and 14% have neither. Of the cable subscribers, 53% at least "occasionally" watch Lakeville Government Channel 16. In comparison with other areas, this audience level is higher than the norm. Seventy percent of the Channel 16 viewers at least "occasionally" watch live or re-broadcasts of Lakeville City Council Meetings; similarly, 69% either "frequently" or "occasionally" watch the "Bulletin Board" listing of meetings, events, and information. Fifty-three percent watch "Focus on Lakeville" and 52% view Lakeville Police Department's "LDP Journal." Forty-five percent at least "occasionally" watch the "Lakeville Messages" program. Thirty-one percent watch "Lakeville Kids and Government," while 23% "occasionally" tune in to Lakeville Fire Department's "On-Call." Ninety-three percent could suggest no additional government-related programming they would like to see offered on Channel 16. 7 Agenda Item MEMORANDUM TO: Economic Development Commission CC: Steven C. Mielke, City Administrator FROM: David L. Olson, Community & Economic Development Director DATE: June 23, 2005 RE: Update on Strategic Plan Work Program Gcal #1 -Facilitate an effort to create a long term plan to promote downtown economic viability while retaining its unique and historical characteristics • The Dakota County CDA approved the use of up to $70,000 in 2004 Community Development Block Grant funds for the preparation of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan at their June 21, 2005 meeting. • City staff is finalizing a Request for Proposals that will be sent to at least three consulting firms on or before July 155. Proposals will be due to the City by July 18"'. A decision will be made on the selection of a firm and approval of a contract by City Council will be completed by August 15th. • The target date for a kickoff meeting of the Downtown Planning Task Force will be the week of August 22"d • The Downtown Planning Task Force is proposed to be comprised of no more than nine persons including representatives of the City Council, Planning Commission, EDC, Downtown Lakeville Business Association, Chamber of Commerce and several Downtown property andlor business owners and residents. A motion to designate an EDC rearesentative to serve on the Downtown Planning Task Force is requested to be made at this month's meeting. Goal #2 -Implementation of a process to facilitate the development of East-West Corridors • Dakota County staff has scheduled a public open house on Phase II of the East-west Corridor Preservation Study for Tuesday, July 26tt' at the Farmington Maintenance Facility located at 19650 Municipal Drive (near the intersection of 195th St. and Pilot Knob Road). Attached is a copy of the DRAFT notice of the Open House and newsletter regarding the status of the study. This information will sent to property owners along the proposed corridors and will be on the County's web site prior to the open house. • A portion of Alignment C that will result in an extension of 195'" Street from Flagstaff .Avenue in Farmington to 185th Street at Cedar Avenue in Lakeville has recently been included in the Capital Improvement Program for the City of Lakeville and is currently programmed to be constructed in 2009. Dakota County and the City of Farmington will be including this corridor extension in their respective Capital Improvement Plans as well. Goal #3 -Completion of a study to determine the minimum market value of a residential housing unit that generates sufficient City taxes to pay for the City services required by that unit. • Staff met with representatives of Springsted Inc. and has received a draft proposal to complete an Economic Benefits Study. The draft proposal from Springsted is to assist the City in developing a benefits system that would enable the City to estimate.both the costs and the benefits that are likely to result from both residential and commercial /industrial projects within the City. Staff is still reviewing this proposal as well as working with Springsted to determine the exact scope of the study and cost of completing this type of study. Goal #4 - Facilitate a process with the City Council to establish affordable housing goals for the City. • Dakota County has recently retained the firm of Maxfield Research to complete a "Comprehensive Housing Needs and Conditions Survey" for Dakota County. A memo from Dan Rogness of the CDA dated May 25, 2005 describing the study and a summary identifying the topics and issues to be addressed in the Study are attached. Much of the information to be provided for each City as part of the County study is the same type of information that would be collected by Lakeville if it were to undertake its own study to determine affordable housing goals for the City. As a result, it is my recommendation that we wait for the completion of the County Housing Study which is scheduled to be completed in October or November and determine at that point what if any additional work would need to be completed by the City in order to establish affordable housing goals. • The results of the Community Survey questions regarding life cycle housing will be included in Dr. Morris' presentation at Tuesday's meeting. Staff will continue to provide monthly updates to the EDC as to the progress on each of the goals of the 2005 Work Program for the 2005-2007 Strategic Plan. Selection of Community 2005 C~tv of Lakeville UnsJ'C ~ 5 City of Lakeville L°`~t`r 23 2005 Residential Study S`"°"' Ze Hous rc ~ 1999 Swdy `Z3 X2001 Stutly RuraVSmall Ton, o t G2005 $tud Near.~:~ ~ u Near Famry t° Scetterra i ' a G 5 10 15 20 25 30 Decision Resources. Ld ~ , F,,, _ , Quality of Life Rating Like Most about City 2005 City of Lariev~lle 2005 City of La:~.evdie 720 No Answer LOCaLOn H tfb 94 97 ~ ~ 92. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 92 _ 08 Schools fit- , Peoa= . Small Town Amtllar~ ~ X1999 Stcdy 60 - 47 Open SFz=-- ~ X2001 Study 41 38 39 Neghbomco~ys „ ~200551udy a0 ~36 ----34-----" ~ , Sate 2P, Suburban ~ ; ; : g 3 7 8 7 8 5 Crty Sernces D Scattered 3 '991 1993 1995 1997 1899 2001 2005 Nothlnp ' '~--Excellent Positive ~hlegative 0 r 5 10 t5 20 25 30 35 40 - i.. ~.r-_,c~r:es. LIC Like Least about the City Home vs Place to Live 2005 City of Lakeville 2005 City of Lakeville No Answer tT ~ 10D - - NoNing ~ ? ~ 80 77------i'S_____--T4" 71 '---------77 75 Taxes ~I LOCaaon ~ : ao - _ _ _ ROatlslHiphways ~ t 999 Stutly GroaA)tlCrowGng ~te ? ®2005 Stutly 4D S..hoOls ~t~ X2001 Stutly Cily Govammant ~s 20 27 22_ _ 22__.-'- 21 20 2t Latll tlt Retiil OppOrtuni6es TrattK t~ 0 Scattered b 1997 7993 1995 1997 7999 2001 2005 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -~'HOrne" ~Flappy Elsewhere gun r~esn,i rtes _;o „~c~smn Resoarcos _;a 1 Community Identity/Neighborliness Police Protection 2005 City of Lakevllle 2u0~ City o` Lakeville so 1GG em m 40 3s - 6G _ _ 30 - za 40 a zo ze e 20 ____is_._... ie 2 1 + 2G ~1 10 , 3 G 0 '99t 1893 1995 1997 7999 2001 2005 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2005 xcetlent -+POSiuve egatlve sure nuease ~Deuease VIVO Change e sc_°ee Ltc Fire Protection Storm Drainage/Flood Control 2005 Clty of Lakevllle 2005 City o+Lakevllle 100 10G M 6] O a6 41 ~ BO n n ro • 80 II ~ r-------------------------------^_....---...------ I 80 4C - " " " "s -----1z--------- 40 31 39 26 t t2 ]I 2C 2G _______te. ..--t ~ i3 a e ~ _ 3 = ~ G p 1991 1893 7995 7997 1999 2001 2005 1991 1993 1995 1997 7998 2001 2005 xcellent --PosiLve ~Neg - Unsure xcallent ~Positrve Negative Unsure - Park Maintenance Street Repair and Maintenance 2005 City of Lakeville 2005 City of Lakeville uG 1 ao taG w ~ so ~ 80 n._._ ~ ~ ~ e ~ BO _ ea m 60 60 40 S°- 40 ae-- m 1e zs m ~ zo + m +a +o s + z z z 0 p 7991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2005 1993 1995 1997 1999 2007 2005 ~Exce,len; ^POSitrve ~N aliveUnsure xcellent ~POSRrve ~Neganve ~Ursure sec s:a^ Pesos ces 7 Value of City Services Greater Police Emphasis ?005 City of Lakeville 2G05 Crty of Lakeville 11 Na+ah6orhood Pahol Excellent ~is ~ ~ z7 15 i Commelclal Area P.vol se' 2x GOOd 58 9e _ Tra}Ilc Enforcement 72Y. 20 X1999 Study edma Proeenaen Only Fair tt ~ ~ X2001 Study t5% _ - _ ` zo X2005 Study _ ~ unsure s t% Poor s s Community Invo+vement 4 Unsure ] ~ ~ i Drua Enbrcammt 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Sense of Safety Parent Awareness and Rating 2605 Crty of Lakeville 2GG5 City of Lakev+lie Feei Safe m NeynlwAwod Abne at Night Yes ii: a 4c r ato - _ _ _ _ Exce ~ nt Unsure t t8 X1999 Study. ~200t SludY~ Nc Yes Ctner C..y AreasNOl Sate Alone a1;Ngt1t ¦2005 Study ~ 6C~ 40% Gco~ .lrsure 7 ~ 6.,.; 9% Yes 2t _ 76 - - . -a+r Awareness of Lakeville's Unsure 2c School Resource Oifiu Rating of the Program a Program a 2a 4o fio 90 100 120 Fire Department Services Fire Prevention Activities 2005 Cdy of Lak:2vi le 200 Clay of Lakeville Yes 59% E.pllent 6]% Na 4t•'. ~ ~Jes 8% _ Und'+v.,~ Aware un,ure t% 22"~ 78% 9mf ralr ax toad za% ND Called Fire Department 41 % in Past Two Years Servlee Rating Awaroneas oT Fin Attendance by Provention ActlviUes Household Members 3 Neighborhood Appearance/Condition Code Enforcement 2005 City ~f Lakevin~ 2005 City of Lakeville sa ElfO~MM 11% n n ~ 3 ~ 64 ]B 40 31 1e _ ~ ]a 11 20 ~ Gni~r.i. e% 7 1 ] ] 1 1 , , a ;991 7993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2005 Toa "augn Abaut Righ; Pool 'augn Enaugn Empowerment Job of Mayor and City Council 2005 City of Lakeville 2005 Gty of LaH,evi le 70 ~ ao eo n n - - 50 ~ ~1999 Study aD ' 40 ~ ¦2001 Study • ~ X2005 Sludy 30 Sf 11 a 70 ~ 0 I t991 1993 1895 1997 1999 2001 2005 0 - - Yes No Jnsure Approval ~D~sapprovaiUnsure ~ Job of City Staff Park System 2005 Clty of Lakeville 2005 Clty of Lakeville too too 1, a~ ~ . 6 e 1 ~ BC ~~---"N------- 1-- - so - - - ,y ~ ,1}]., i ao ~ 2C - - >z e.. 1~' ---------u------ c zo rs------- - e e ~ emu., comm~Mn vin Mwi: F~c11Mw SmWY N.pe.arhooa iuM p ~Approva11999^ ¦Approva12001 ~Approva12005 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2007 2005 ~Disapprovai 1999 ~Disapprova12001 ®Disapprova12005 Approval Disapproval aUnsure ~USage 1999 ¦Usage 2001 ®Usage 2005 ~eais.or ~esc~rces. Lto ~ocsioo •:_.,~..~c~.. ~_tc 4 Park Trails Movable Skate Parks 2005 City of Lakeville 2DD5 C~ty cf Lakevlile • a~~~y,.aey Ut at Nlqht Support Yas - 24 No - 24 67% Unsure 32 Facl s~r~~ .~.I+mq on Tralls at Nlpht Yes J< No 16 Unsure 50 ~Percertaga PnOrity of Ughtlrtq A/Oro Tralls at N{ght Top Pnony a Hph Pnonty 15 Unsure Medwm Pnony eJ 12% Low Pnonty 2J Nol Pnonty 0 Unsure d _ - Oppose 0 70 20 JO s0 50 60 21 r..,i.n ti'o::cr~. r... ,a ...i..i i.. ,..,.r. ,.a v: Lakeville Area Arts Center Attendance Likelihood of Attending Events 2005 City of La'~e•i l e 2005 City ct Lakeville Lakev0le Arts Festrva~ Concerts Tasu of Lakevme Concert or Play plays Arta Close er Summer Art Cemp Mullipk Events ® Chlldron's Theater Unsure Comadlans Nor. c IL tti G 25 0 10 2D 30 10 50 60 70 ~Percen:aGe Very Likely ~SOmewhal Ukely Gea a;:n F.rncurcrs 'utl _ Lakeville Area Arts Center Advertising Emphasis on Environment 2005 Clty of Lakeville 2005 Clty cf Lakeville goo Canter Playbill ParkeBRecreahon BroChuro ; 8~ Z8. 7S CommunRy Edutaeon News 60 ~ 36 I~1g9q Slud i I Y Cable Television ~ ' ~1 Study ~ a0 I ~20055tutly. Gtye Web pope i 20 22 20 B 11 1U-- -7--'O- Local NewsPepers ~ 0 20 10 60 BO 10D Percentage V Too High rho~.c ^arh: 700 ~0w Unsure _,_~,x, 'plc v.,....•., 5 Lakeville's Lakes Opportunity for Zoning Input 2005 Cify of Lakeville 2005 City of Lakevilie 70 so M - - - ~ _Y-- SO ~ - a5 ~ 40 ___________________~r____________ Excei~em u u ' Na Yes 6% ~o°b cos 30 r "a~`° x a 20 boor t~ - - - - - r,^e. 10 , - 0 Visited Any Lake within Water Quality Rating 1091 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2005 Past Two years ~Atlequate ~Inatlequate Unsure Planning of Development Interest in Input 2005 City of Lakeville 2005 Ciiy of Lak.evilie eo 70 _ ao - nnau s~~e'; _ 37 % - - =-Mail 30 - - - - - s. ~a----- __.....,d 20 t° ~ Nsiphtwrhood Meetings ° Unintsrsstad 10 s________~_____ 9% 19% 0 Unsure 1991 7893 1995 1997 1999 20C1 2005 1791° Wen-Plannetl Unplanned -.Sometimes Unsure Top Priority for Development Encouragement of Life Cycle Housing 2005 City of Lakeville 2005 City of Lakeville ~ 70 in b amity Homes 36 69 9 artmanta 1 60 Townhouses Z 50--------- - ProfessioruVBusiness fees 1 ~ ~ 42 CommarciaUReuil Shops ~B ; 30 30 LieM lnduatry _ 10 Multpb _g : : 20 ~ 12 13 12 None _10 I 1D 7 10 10 -9-. 4 I - Unwre 0 0 10 20 30 40 SO Excellent Gooo Only Fair Poor Unsure ~~Parcenlage 11999 Stutly ~200t Stutly m2aC5 SWtly ~.e>_~~~:e: ~r nescurces Lttl L Principal Shopping Area Shopping Behavior 2005 City of Lakeville 2005 City of Lakeville ~o b so _ _ _ _ - ~ 50 - - 5D LakMl. CruuoM. Y]h 6~? z, M,.. 20 M.,,,r]]a ~a 0 995 Study 1997 Study 1999 Stutly 2001 Study 2005 Study Fngwnay o/ Shopplnp Principal Shopping Ana kevflle Apple Valley ~BumsvBie in Lakeville Business arminpton All Over EetahlishmeMs :ieusmn Nescur[es 'ate =r. sc~_r~.;;, Needed Retail/Service Development Primary Source of Information -~E Clty of Lakeville 2005 C~~ty u` Lakeville No MawerlNcne ~ r ; D+soxlM Store rt ~ , Grocery Store M ~rv w.e.+n .x ~ 1995 Study Restaurant ®1997 Study I/. 'MUUau' ax 11998 Study Hardware Store ~ ~ X2001 Study ~ unaun Clothing Sbro t ~ 02005 Study SomNhloy Elw 7x Specialty StareB f u \ChanruN to ax Sudered ~ -svneurrenc 'snrrneun: rx .,o~~~.r vrrn" sx 0 10 20 30 ~0 50 Adequately Informed Recent Lakeville Residents 2005 C,ty of Lakeville 20C5 C~;y cf Lakev~l;c Ves 8296 v.ry Neiy]ul ls~: _ ur„vn ++x No Yet !ex aex Unsure 'mt Nela1W 3% +sx SorMw?ial NatONI N% No Reoall Reaelvinp a Weleoms Helpfulness of the 15% Packet In the Mail "Resident Guldet]ook" 7 "City Messages" Different Newsletter Form 2005 City of Lakeville 2605 City of Lakevilie 100 - g6 88 g6 88 86 82 82 80 - - - - 70 79 78.. _ 72 ------70 66 60 - "66' Mailea Mome ]6% No ~Yes_ _ - - ~UnWnl 6% 40 - 69% 31% 9omaminp Elu 7% 20 - - _ Utlllty elll More likely to Read PMamd Forrn 0 NawsNttar if it wan in for Diroet Mall 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2005 Different Form ~Retall ~Reca,I/Read Internet Access Conduct Business on Website 2005 City of La;ev~lle 2005 City of Lakeville 1 ~ Yes sox 84 83 100 80 BC 6t B6 ~ ~ G~.~. 4J 40 36 30 31 No 2~ 16.. l$__-.......__ SOY. 11 p. 0 - Interested in Using ..,,..-lr'lele~ „ ow...... Ves Vo Visil Webvte City's Website to Conduct Business Intaroet in Pobntial Wabsib ~~19W Stctly X1999 Study 02001 Study X2005 Study Ssrviue r~ ~ ~~i Offering High-Speed Internet Cable Television 2005 City of Lakeville 2005 City of Lakeville fio Strongly Support ce r' 29% ~ a 6 Support 40 41% ' 20 e s Unsure s s ~ p 16% 0 _ '99151uay 18655avy 79~89tuay 205 Shay Strongly Oppose '~B935a,ay 18B'sye~~ x0•sn,m DPPo~ 4% 1056 ~ubscrioUOr ~FreGUant Charnui 16 Ce,. . Re,.., ra> r, f'cs~erce.. ~~t'. 8 Viewership of Channel 16 Programs Lakeville Liquor Stores 2005 City cf Lakevllle 2005 City of Lakeville Bulletln Board Lrve/Tapetl Gty Counul Meetings "Fovea on Lakevllle" ves 7~.o°a ves f•Frequently rar a..~ 'Lakeville Messages" et.ox ~Occas~onallY sera i.ox "On-Call" ~ I I ~ rlo io.ox "LPDJOUmaI" Aware City Manages Aware Profits Underwrite Ever Vlsit One of and Operates All City Services and Liquor Storoa "Lakeville Kitls 8 Gavemment" Liquor Storoa Redueing Taxes 0 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 i:~ens~..n ,~e=u.~r l~.c,.,,. c~, _.c Public Transit/HOV Use of Public Transit 2005 City of Laken!lie 2005 Clty cf Lakeville u tz io _ - _ Ho _ t10% g B HOV Lane 4 8'/0 2 - Puhlrc Transit 7% ~ Bua/Lakeville~M~nneapolis Senior Bus Service Hantlirappetl Bus Service Very ~ike~y ~Somewha; Likely <~._u,n Ren..~~r.r~ LIB Bus Service to Downtown 20Q5 City of Lakeville FavortFavor 50% i----.-,_ Unsuro 12% FavodOppose 25% Oppose 1 J% 9 DR~?F`~ EAST WEST CORRIDOR PRESERVATION STUDY PHASE II Dakota County Transportation Department t4955GalaxieAvenue,ThirdFloor STUDY 6ACKGf:OUND Apple valley, fNN 55124-f3579 The East West Corridor Preservation Study was adopted to plan for the future transportation needs In the area bounded by I-35 on the west, Highway 3 on the east, County Road 46 on the north, and County Highway 70 on the south, The communities of Lakeville, Farmington and Empire Township are experiencing rapid development and growth adjacent to segments of these corridors. The next steps in the project development process is to define the location in more detail for the transition segment between 185th Street and 195th Street of Alignment C, the development of feasibility options east of Biscayne Avenue for Alignment C's connection to Trunk Highway (TH) 52, and Alignment B concept assessment of two options between Highview Avenue and TH 3. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU This newsletter has been developed to keep you updated on the study, and to ask you to become involved in this process. The area east of Biscayne Avenue is beyond the Year 2020 growth boundary and the actual implementation of Alignment B may be beyond the Year 2020 planning horizon. However. a significant factor in the utility of Alignment C as an arterial highway facility is its connectivity with TH 52. Based on this; development within the Year 2020 growth boundary west of Biscayne may drive the need for improvements outside the Year 2020 growth boundary east of Biscayne Avenue. Dakota County and the affected communities are acting responsibly in studying Alignment C east of Biscayne Avenue with the goal of preserving a transportation corridor for future implementation that does not become precluded by future development. PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE LOCATION AND INFORMATION An open house is being held to discuss the next steps in the project development process. The county along with City of Lakeville, the City of Farmington and Empire Township will be on hand to _ share project information and to hear your issues and ro3ro s1w e, d concerns. Our design consultant. SEH Inc. will also be ~r, ~ present to hear your comments and to discuss your ideas E~•~,• + '`•y, Y for how to improve these corridors. ~ s+•, w• s ~ 195m St W ~~o st *u~•« v~ p, c, TUESDAY, Jut.V 26, 2005 FROM 4:30 P.M. TO 7:30 F.M. m Farmington Maintenance Facility ~,9• ~ ,,,,a.,,,,~w,~ 19650 Municipal Drive Farmington, MN 55024 3 ~q, s $ EaCI• lr ro71F St W ISSUES IDENTIFICATION A good highway is one that meets the needs for which it is proposed while complimenting the context in which it is constructed. This study wilt include an understanding of the area's topography, such as hills, wetlands, soils, and Vermillion River and it's tributaries and where parks, schools and trails exist or are planned; we also need to understand historical and cultural issues or where future development is planned. The residents. business owners and concerned citizens have an intimate and unique knowledge of the study areas setting, and we would like to hear from them. r = r., Alignment C East of Biscayne vennitlion Tm+nsn;p rmprrc •r~w„~n,p ' - "1'H 52 ayne Brsc j INO°' tit 1.1' + - - - - - _ , i Zr ~ t > :.xr 1 ~ t i ~ t ` r. ~ ~ .z,..... --~r PropOSed l_aynuts Middle picture Alignrnent C belvreen 185th and 195th Pro)eCt Objectives Y Corridor preservation is the strategy to assure that the roadway will be available now and in the ' 185`" S'f ( future to serve existing and future development needs. tir"-°-"~°"'°'-""~~. Y There is a lack of a continuous arterial running east-west between I-35 and TH 52 in this part of ' I the county. As growth in the area continues, the lack of such a connection limits the ability of the roadway system to safely and efficiently accommodate our traffic needs. Dodd Y IF such a connection is needed someday, and development has been allowed to occur without .,,,~95' ~S"I; consideration for this corridor, the impacts to property owners and the cost to the public will be much more severe. r C'ec1aJ Avc > If future development is to pay for itself, it is essential that we are proactive in identifying that ~ . ! connection for right of way preservation. _ • ~ Prevent inconsistent development; minimize or avoid environmental, social, and economic impacts from future transportation projects; reduce displacement; prevent the foreclosure of BOl"TOM PICTURE ALIGNMENT B (179'" ST) 6ETl"+Lf. N F11GI (ViEL^: Avr. nNO TI 13. desirable location options; allow for the orderly assessments of impacts; permit orderly project r i ; .rl I development; reduce costs; and others. ,r11 ••t• ~ Next Steps This newsletter is to notify residents of the upcoming study and open house on Tuesday July 26,2005. The Dudd ' _ open house will provide you the opportunity to share your issues with the project management team. This open house will allow for dialogue regarding the proposed alignments. Using this information the project management team will make a preferred alignment recommendation. Cedar Avc Pilot. Rnnb I _ Contact: Comments or questions about this project can be addressed to: ' - ~ ~ JOHN SASS, TRANSPORTATION PROJECT MANAGER AT DAKOTA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 14955 GALAxrE AVENUE APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-8579 TELr;PHONF: (952) 891-7I 30 F-MAIL JOHN.SASSC~CO.~AKOTA.MN.US Agenda Item MEMORANDUM TO: Economic Development Commission CC:. Steve Mielke, City Administrator FROM: .David L: Olson, Community & Economic Development Director DATE: June 23, 2005 RE: June Director's Report The following is the Director's Report for June of 2005. Road Construction Jodate A copy of the most recent construction update is attached.. New updates are prepared weekly and included ih the Messages page in the Life and Times, provided to the Chamber of Commerce to be included in their weekly broadcast emails and also posted on the home page of the City's Web site. Building Permit Update Through the end of May, the City has issued building permits with a total valuation of $83,388,627: This compares to a valuation of $90,026,357 during the first five months of 2004. Included in this amount is $19,155,000 for commercial and industrial permits year to date, which compares. to $10,906,150 for commercial and industrial: permits during the same period in 2004;- Also included in the total year to date baluation are permits for 112 new single-family dwellings, 166 townhouse and condo units. This compares to permits for 166 new single family dwellings and 223 townhouses and condos during the same period in 2004.. Attached is a copy of the full building permit report through May 31, 2005. Eureka Township Annexation Discussions Citystaff have been irT discussion with Eureka Township Board representatives since January regarding the annexation of 96 acres of land owned by Airlake Development on the east side of Cedar Avenue. The current annexation option proposed by the City being considered by Eureka Township involves an orderly annexation agreement whereby the ..:Township would be reimbursed the current level. of townsfiip taxes being levied on the property and 50% of the building permit fee revenue hat would be collected. within the first six years after annexation. Eureka Township is scheduled to discuss this item at their July 11th meeting. Cedar Avenue Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Study The Cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Apple Valley, Burnsville, Lakeville and Farmington along with Dakota and Hennepin County were requested to appoinYrepresentatives to oversee this study. The primary goals and roles and responsibilities of this group are described in the attached background information. Dakota County will serve as the Jead agency. for this group. Cities were requested to appoint individuals to represent businesses and business interests along the Cedar Avenue Corridor. Mr. Dan Regan of Airlake Development Inc. expressed interest in being appointed to the group to represent the Chamber of Commerce and business interests along the Corridor. The City Council recently approved the appointments of Councilmember Wendy Wulff and City Administrator Steve Mielke and Dan Regan of Airlake Development,. Ina representing the Chamber of Commerce to the Cedar Corridor Transportation infrastructure ImprovemenC Group. They also approved the appointment of City Engineer Keith Nelsoh and. myself to serve on the Technical Advisory Committee to this group. JUST A REMINDERTHAT THERE WILL BE NQ EDC MEETING IN JULY. THE NEXT EDC .MEETING WILL BE AUGUST 23RD. ~T Jt Dakota County ,1J¦L/y~. Community Development Agency MEMORANDUM TO: Dakota County Cities & Townships FROM: Dan Rogness, Director of Community Revitalization DATE: May 25, 2005 - RE: Comprehensive Housing Study Over the next five months, the CDA will be working with Maxfield Research to complete a "Comprehensive Housing Needs and Conditions Survey". The CDA has previously completed housing studies for specific purposes, such as market studies for senior housing. This upcoming study will evaluate aA affordable housing needs throughout the county, and it will provide findings, priorities and implementing recommendations. Maxfiekl's report will also be a key source of information for cities and townships as you begin to work on the comprehensive plan process based on the Met Council's 2030 Regional Deveopment Framework (and revised LCA housing goals for some of you). Amore detailed summary of the "scope of services" of this study is attached for your review. It should also provide valuable information to all government jurisdictions in Dakota County regarding resources for affordable housing. During this study process, you may be asked by someone at Maxfield Research to provide information about your city or township. I hope that you will cooperate, especially in light of the beneficial results you may obtain later for your own community. Near the end of this process, Maxfield will present its conclusions to all interested persons, and the CDA will also make itseH available for individual presentations within your community. Jay Thompson is the lead staff person from Maxfield Research, so please feel free to call Jay at 612-904-7973 or myself at 651-675-4464 'rf you have further questions or concerns. Encl. 1228 Town Centre Drive • Eagan, MN 55123-1066 tel 651-675-4400 • fax 65i-675-4444 COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING STUDY SUMMARY The Maxfield Research housing study will address the following topics/issues for Dakota County. Unless otherwise noted, all information will be provided for each city (20}, not including Northfield, and each township (13). Mapping is required as part of the study. 1. Population and household projections (2030) by age/tenure. 2. Minority population, household and immigration data, including projections (2030). 3. New housing construction history and projections (2030) by type of unit and tenure. 4. Home-sale data, ihcluding history and future price estimates. 5. Rent data, including history and future rent estimates. 6. Overall housing inventory by unit type and tenure, including affordable units (as defined by HUD and/or the Met Council). 7. Housing conditions analysis based on census/other data. 8. Housing demand through 2030 by tenure and affordability. 9. Existing/future land supply and land cost constraints for affordable housing. 10. Homelessness data on Dakota County as a whole. 11. Housing with problems, including cost burdens (as defined by HUD) for Dakota County (cities/townships, if available). 12. Findings, priorities and recommendations on affordable housing needs for the following types or groups (generally, with incomes aUbelow 80% area median): • First-time homebuyers • Workforce rental housing • Workforce owner housing • Owner-occupied rehabilitation • Rental rehabilitation • Senior housing, including assisted living • Persons with very low incomes at/below 30% AMI • Persons with special needs (e.g., AIDS, mental disabilities, immigrants) • Homeless population Updated June 10, 2005 Construction CJpdate: CR 70 Stop signs have been added at the on and off ramps for I-35 at CSAH 70. The stops signs were added as part of the detour for the closure of 185'" Street and are necessary to facilitate access onto and off of I-35. The additional traffic through this intersection will cause a significant delay. The detour route is expected to be in place through early July. 185th & Dodd Preliminary work has begun on improvements to 185'" St. between Ipava Ave. and Dodd Blvd. The project will improve 185'" to a four-lane divided road, with a transition from approximately 1000' west of the Ipava Ave. and improvement of the alignment atDodd/185th. As part of the project, signal lights will be installed at the Ipava/185'" intersection. Construction will also include improvements on Dodd: 1000' to the south and 3000' north of the Dodd/185'" St. intersection, which will be improved to afour-lane divided roadway. By-pass lanes will be installed the week of June 6 and delays may be expected throughout construction. 175th St. widening The project to widen 175'" Street from Jonquil Ave. east to Ipava Ave. has begun. Grading behind the existing curb will begin next week.The project will be constructed under traffic and drivers should anticipate delays. CR 60 (185th St.J /I-35 Work will continue on the bridge construction at CR 60 (185th St.) and I-35 through the end of August. Northbound and southbound traffic on I-35 will be switched throughout the project. CR 60 CLOSURE The 32-day closure of CR 60 from Knollwood Cr. west to Judicial Rd. began May 31 and will run through the month of June. The closure extends from just west of the Knollwood Cr./Kenyon Ave. intersection, which will remain open during construction. During the closure, the detour will be: Westbound traffic will be detoured south on Kenrick Ave. to 205th St., then west on 205th, which becomes Scott Co. 68 to Scott Co. 27 (TexasAve.) then north to Scott Co. 21(CR 60). Eastbound traffic will be detoured south on Scott Co. 27 (Texas Ave.), east on Scott Co. 68 to 205th St. then north on Kenrick Ave. to CR 60. CR 50/1-35 Concrete curb and gutter work has begun on the CR 50 medians. In conjunction with this project, old 175th from the former Super America location to Fire Station #3 will continue to be closed to allow for widening and sewer work. Businesses on the road may be accessed via Kenrick Ave. Report: Pe~rnito•-sued PERMIT ISSUED REPORT PAGE: 'Date Printed: 06/O6YLpp5 Permit Calegory:A11 Permits City of Lakeville CORRENT RANGE PREVi0U5 RANGE 05/01/2005 - OS/31/2005 05!01!2004 - 05/31!2004 y PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN RE VIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN RE VIEW Building Single Family-AIIIaclusive 23 49,138.85 5,946,000.00 28,128.06 37 71,190.89 8,I62,000.00 40,141.46 Duplex -All Inclusive 2 4,457.50 550,000.00 2,565.88 0 0.00 p.DD 0.00 Twnhse Unit -All Inclusive 42 62,403.70 6,327,000.00 16,255.46 51 71,683.56 7,029,000.00 26,500.42 Detached Townhouse -All Inc 2 3,701.50 415,000.00 2,074.48 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Condo 12 I5,04D.20 1,392,000.00 3,250.08 0 O.OD 0.00 0.00 Mobile Home Install 1 59.50 0.00 0.00 1 59.50 0.00 0.00 Driveway 4 200.00 0.00 D.00 2 100.00 p.00 Egress Window I 38.75 1,000,D0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Stucco Siding 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 391.25 25,000.00 0.00 Garages 2 362.50 20,000.00 0.00 6 1,199.50 68,000.00 381.22 Accessory Bldgs 4 339.65 13,300,00 0.00 2 264.50 10,000.00 0.00 Reside 12 30825 49,329.00 0.00 13 318.50 55,792.00 0.00 Reroof 21 514.50 7,000.00 0.00 33 808.50 77,668.96 0.00 Res Addn/Repair/Rmdl 9 1,938.50 141,500.00 618.64 13 1,889.10 104,050.00 627.93 Deck -Residential 61 4,861.40 188,300,00 0.00 69 5,452.70 196,900.00 0.00 Porch -Residential 3 445.75 23,000.00 D.00 7 946.75 47,000.00 O.DO Lower Level -Residential 21 3,285.75 174,000.00 126.91 1 ] 910.75 35,000.00 0.00 Addition -Residential I 461.93 32,000.00 300.27 3 889.85 55,000.00 487,89 Commercial -New 2 9,425.50 1,972,000.00 6,126.57 5 26,240.70 5,012,000.00 17,056.46 Commercial Addn/Rmdi 9 22,139.40 4,526,000.00 14,264.18 8 5,811.05 682,000.00 3,541.89 Commercial Re-Roof 3 448.50 D.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 1 2,981.75 455,000.00 1,938.14 Industrial Addn/Rtndl 0 O.DO 0.00 0.00 2 1,670.60 179,000.00 1,085.89 Tax Exempt Addti/Rmdl 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tax Exempt -New 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Swimming Pools 8 996.00 0.00 0.00 9 1,045.50 0.~ 0.00 Buildings Moved 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 199.00 0.00 0.00 a~ ~ ~ Report: Pe`mitslssued PERMIT ISSUED REPORT PACE: ~ I Hate Printed: oc~ncntros City of Lakeville ~ 1 Persil Category: All Permits CURRENT RANGE PREVIOUS RANGE 01l01l2005 - 05131!2005 01/01/2004 - 05!31/2004 PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW Building Single Family -All Inclusive 112 244,05220 29,856,000.00 140,235.83 166 338,038.24 40,031,000.00 192,211.D0 Duplex -All Inclusive 2 4,457.50 550,000.00 2,565.88 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Twnhse Unit -All Inclusive 114 176,257.70 18,167,000.00 54,173.22 223 310,704.16 29,680,000.00 117,428.22 Detached Townhouse -All Inc 14 25,064.90 2,754,000.00 13,971.72 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Condo 36 45,407.20 4,212,000.00 13,348.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Apartments of Units 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 26,206.18 4,182,410.00 11,808.62 Mohile Home Install 2 119.00 0.00 0.00 7 416.50 0.00 0.00 Driveway 6 300.00 0.00 0.00 5 250.00 0.00 O.OD Egress Window 3 191.25 6,000.00 0.00 0 .0.00 0.00 0.00 Stucco Siding 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 391.25 25,000.00 0.00 Garages 3 543.75 30,000.00 0.00 10 1,952.50 110,000.00 716.94 Accessory Bldgs 6 520.15 20,300.00 O.OD 5 576.50 25,000.00 0.00 Reside 35 871.75 100,229.00 0.00 46 1,127.00 152,842.00 0.00 Reroaf 56 1,372.00 34,872.00 0.00 68 1,666.00 135,316.94 0.00 Res Addn/Repair/Rmdi 35 8,416.89 729,700.00 1,279.85 42 7,111.85 467,050.00 1,641.50 Deck - Residentia] 126 10,200.45 386,900.00 0.00 134 10,781.85 390,400.00 0.00 Porch -Residential 15 2,004.75 99,000.00 0.00 20 2,502.50 121,000.00 126.91 LowerLevel-Residential 140 21,645.70 1,134,000.00 394.35 149 12,97].76 510,000.00 0.00 Addition -Residential 3 796.43 50,000.00 300.27 6 1,587.60 96,000.00 823,61 Commercial -New 3 13,609.25 2,672,000.00 8,846.01 8 33,890.95 6,260,400.00 22,029.12 Commercial Addtt/Rmd] 41 55,867.40 9,681,000.00 34,797.03 45 27,935.30 2,824,750.00 ib,836.03 Commercial Re-Roof 3 448.50 0.00 0,00 2 299.00 0.00 0.00 Commercial Reside 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Industrial -New 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 9,805.50 1,530,000.00 6,373.57 Industrial Addt1/Rmdl 4 27,428.50 6,802,000.00. 17,783.51 6 3,247.60 291,000.00 1,993.13 Tax Exempt Addn/Rmdl 1 111.25 5,000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tax Exempt -New 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Swimming Pools 21 2;439.50 0.00 0.00 27 3,336.50 0.00 0.00 Repay: Petxnilslasued PERMIT ISSUED REPORT PAGE: Date Printed: 06/n6fL005 City of Lakeville Perni[ Category: All Permits CURRENT RANGE - 'PREVIOUS RANGE 01!01/2005 - 05/31/2005 01/01/2004 - 05!31/2004 PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW Buildings Moved 0 0.00 D.00 0.00 5 497.50 0.00 0.00 Buildings Demolished 9 297.00 0.00 0.00 13 445.50 0.00 0.00 Foundation Only 2 4,087:50 575,000.00 2,656.88 2 415.75 25,000.00 254.31 Grading 1 75.00 D.00 0.00 2 150.00 0,00 0.00 Miscellaneous 2 421.55 2,022,985.00 274.01 6 197.00 4,000.00 0.00 Sub-total 796 647,007.07 79,887,986.00 290,626.56 1,009 796,504.49 86,861,168.94 372,242.96 Electrical Single Family 284 20,320.00 13,000.00 0.00 251 17,958.50 35,000.00 0.00 Duplex 1 80.00 0.00 0.00 1 80.00 0.00 0.00 Townhouse 25 2,002.00 0.00 0.00 153 11,152.00 0.00 0.00 Service Lateral 27 540.00 0.00 0.00 40 875.00 701.00 0.00 Furnace/Air Conditioning 46 960.00 850.00 0.00 65 1,320.00 0.00 0.00 In Floor Heat 7 160.00 6,428.78 0.00 2 40.00 50.00 0.00 Manufactured Home 3 70.00 0.00 0.00 7 270.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-Panel 7 149.50 450.00 0.00 6 140.00 500.00 0.00 Temporary Service 4 120.00 0.00 0.00 14 310.00- 250.00 0.00 Saver Switch 75 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fireplace 7 280.00 4,650.00 0.00 6 120.00 0.00 0.00 Res Addition/ltemodel 63 2,545.00 22,435.50 0.00 91 2,990.00 8,528.00 0.00 , Lower Level-Residential 134 5,439.50 39,925.00 0.00 161 6,500.00 2,551.00 0.00 Addi[ionalInspec[ions I 40.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 O.OD CommerciaVlndustrial 42 5,880.75 0.00 0.00. 68 4,588.50 0,00 0.00 CommerciaVlndustrial Addn/1 64 2,779.00 0.00 0.00 54 2,948:50 0.00 0.00 Traffic Signal Standard 1 8D.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Street Lighting 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sprinkler/Alarm 15 584.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ins[itutional/Tax Exempt 11 328.00 0.00 0.00 16 10,880.00 0.00 0.00 Swimming Paol 10 320.00 6,815.00 0.00 19 639.50 21,100.00 0.00 Sign 14 280.00 3,875.44 0.00 9 265.00 0.00 0.00 Report: Pamilslssued PERMIT ISSUED REPORT PAGE: Date Premed: 06/06/2005 City of Lakeville Permit Category: All Permits CURRENT RANGE - PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/O112005 -05/31/2005 01101/2004 - 05/31/2004 PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW Hot Tub 12 240.00 500.00 0.00 5 100.00 0.00 0.00 Heat Pump 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 20.00 0.00 0,00 Undefined 10 1,060.00 0.00 0.00 33 690.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 863 45,758.25 98,929.72 0.00 1,002 61,887.00 68,680.00 0,00 Fire Fuel Tank 4 220.66 8,577.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Automatic Fire-Es[inguishing 38 9,216.69 700,283.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 42 9,437.35 708,860.00 0.00 0 O.OD 0.00 0.00 Mechanical Heating 47 2,123.50 27,000.00 0.00 34 1,524.00 21,000.00 0.00 Heating/Air Cored 34 1,467.00 57,217.30 0.00 28 1,380.78 55,282.00 0.00 Air Conditioning 7 276.50 0.00 0.00 24 948.00 0.00 0.00 Commercial Mechanical 34 10,687.35 940,934.00 0.00 62 11,295.68 892,186.00 0.00 Gas Piping 18 1,041.50 35,195.00 0.00 27 1,206.93 21,210.00 0.00 Ventilation 9 - 1,298.98 96,793.97 0.00 5 237.00 12,232.00 0.00 Refrigeration 2 5,717.00 561,585.00 0.00 3 352.60 21,685.00 0.00 Fuel Tank 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 90.00 6,000.00 0.00 Garage Heater 2 79.00 0.00 0.00 5 197.50 0..00 0.00 Add/Rplc/Repairs 7 276.50 16,441.00 0.00 5 197.50 9,664.00 0.00 In Floor Water Heat 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 450.00 40,000.00 0.00 Miscellaneous 7 276.50 2,100.00 0.00 4 268.50 10,000.00 0.00 Fireplace 50 L,475.00 41;408.09 0.00 56 2,212.50 23,323.00 0.00 Sub-total 217 25,218.83 1,778,674.36 -0.00 255 20,360.99 1,112,582.00 0.00 Plumbing Commercial Plumbing System 36 8,116.69 687,829.00 0.00 51 6,330.01 452,868.00 0.00 Plumbing System 1 228.00 17,800.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Report: Pemtitslasued PERMIT ISSUED REPORT PAGE: oar PN,te;esisior~zoos City of Lakeville. Permit Category: An Permits CURRENT RANGE - PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/01/2005 - 05/31/2005 01/01/2004 - 05/31/2004 PERMIT TYPE QTY BA5E FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW X0,947.44 0.00 Water Softener 143 2,075.00 27,617.50 0.00 137 2,038.50 Fire Sprinklers 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 35 13,746.20 1,267,951.00 0.00 Water Meter 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lawn Sprinklers 39 1,540.50 6,430.00 0.00 178 6,007.00 36,925.00 _ 0.00 Inside Plumbing Conversion 1 39.50 0.00 0.00 2 79.00 0.00 0.00 Addn/Repair/Rmdl IS 592.50 0.00 0.00 3 118.50 0.00 0.00 Water Heater 50 726.00 1,900.00. 0.00 44 631.00 700.00 0.00 RPZ 5 198.00 0.00 0.00 4 158.00 0.00 0.00 Miscellaneous 2 79.00 0.00 0.00 8 276.50 0.00 0.00 Comm/Muti-Family Lawn Spr 7 276.50 0.00 0.00 5 197,50 0.00 0.00 Undefined 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 301 13,871.69 741,576.50 0.00 467 29,582.21 1,779,391.44 0.00 Sign Permanent Sign 44 2,400.00 0.00 0.00 58 3,2(10.00 0.00 0.00 Temporary Sign 22 .550.00 0.00 0.00 10 250.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 66 2,950.00 0.00 0.00 68 3,450.00 0.00 0.00 Sewcr /Water S/W Install 0 0.00' 0.00 0.00 7 591.50 0.00 0.00 Private Sewer-ReplacelRepair 1 74.50 0.00 0.00 1 74,50 0.00 0.00 S/W Conversion 1 84.50 0.00 0.00 1 84.50 0.00 0.00 Sewer Conversion Only 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 169,00 0.00 0.00 Water Conversion Only 0 0.00 0.00 0:00 1 84,50 0,00 0.00 Commercial 4 1,955.50 172,600.00 0.00 6 2,045.34 204,535.00 0.00 Draintile Connection 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Miscellaneous 2 39.50 0.00 0.00 5 197.50 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 8 2,154.00 172,600.00 0.00 23 3,246.84 204,535.00 0.00 Report: Pernitslssued PERMIT ISSUED REPORT. PAGE: Date Printed: or,~as/zoos City of Lakeville Permit Category: All Permits ~M__~~ CURRENT RANGE PREV IOUS RANGE - Ol/01!2005 - 05/31!2005 01!01/2004 - OS/31!2004 PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW User DeTined Re-inspection Fee 5 235.00 0.00 0.00 11 443.50 0.00 0.00 Plan Review 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 47.00 0.00 0.00 Security Escrow 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape Escrow 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Miscellaneous 1 0.00 0.00. 0.00 I 94.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 13 235.00 0.00 0.00 14 584.50 0.00 0.00 Zoning Accessory Buildings 20 400.00 0.00 0.00 19 380.00 0.00 0.00 Above Ground Pool 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 150.00 0.00 0.00 Fences 77 1,540.00 0.00 0.00 109 2,180.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 97 1,940.00 0.00 0.00 131 2,710.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2,403 748,572.19 83,388,626.58 290,626,56 2,969 918,326.03 90,026,357.38 372,242.96 THE CEDAR AVENUE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR A GROWING CONGESTED HIGHWAY A robust transportation system is critical For economic growth and quality of life The Problem The Cedar Avenue Corridor is a critical transportation lifeline for Apple Valley, Lakeville, Eagan, Farmington, and Burnsville. It is also one of the fastest growing transportation corridors in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area:`Traffic`now exceeds 100,000 vehicles on any given day. Overall, Dakota County's traffic is projected to increase 80 percent by the year 2020, a traffic density far beyond _the capacity of the current infrastructure. These Very significant increases in traffic reflect the tremendous growth that is taking place in3he corridor. In looking to the future, households and employment are forecast to increase almost twice as fast as the metropolitan area as a whole: Households. in Eagan, Apple Valley, Burnsville, and Lakeville will increase 47% to 130,400 by the year 2020, compared to 25% far the Metropolitan Area. Employment will increase 34 percent to 114, 000, compared to a forecasted 18 percent growth rate for the entire metropolitan area. This growth in the Cedar Corridor will generate significant traffic increases in the future. Congestion is a fast growing problem. Northbound traffic is frequently congested during the morning peak hours, sometimes backing up as far south as McAndrevrs Road (CR 38}: ,From 2002 to 2003, on TH 77, the number of congested milesincreased 45 percent, from 4.5 to ti.6 miles; From 2003 to 2004, on CSAH 23 from Griffon Trail (164"'} to 138'" Street, travel speeds for northbound traffic declined significantly from 42 mph to 29 mph. Not only. is congestion getting worse and travel lime getting longer, but the fix gets more expensive every. year.. In the last year, the municipal. construction cost index increased 8.7 percent.. (November 2003 to November 2004 U.S. Dept'of Commerce}. to other words the hole gets deeper and harder to get out of as each. year of no corrective action slides by. What does this mean for the people in the corridor? For the people in the corridor this means: ~ Itasca Project 1 • More and more congestion and longer and longer travel times. • Limited jobs and economic growth as the attractiveness of doing business in the Corridor is decreased. • Wasted fuel for people in all modes: cars, trucks and buses. • Diminished access to shopping and leisure activities. Decreased safety as emergency response vehicles are stymied in traffic. What has been- done so far? The needs analysis in the bako#a County Transit System Plan, prepared In November 2004, reinforces the dominance of the north-south travel sheds in Dakota County. In 2000, 46% of all Dakota County traffic'(311,300 Mps p®r"day)` entered and exited the County,using condors connecting to the Bloomington/Minneapolisorea. An additional 23 percent ofthe traffic, or 15~'~800 trips per day, entered and'exited the County to the St. Paul area. Together thdy represent 69 percent of all traffic in pakota County.-The 2030 travetforeca'sf= further substantiates the;corrxinuation of this north-south travel shed tlomirtanre. Expanded bus service to BRT status will provide transit choice opportunities in the oomdor, starting at the Mall of America and extending to`CSAH 70 in' Lakeville. Feasibility studies, alternatives analysis, financial analysis and estimates of costs and benefits have been done with financial. support from the Legislature and the Metropolitan Council The federal Congress has grartted`$1 million for additional work: The. objective is to establish a bus rapid transit` ' system in the corridor,. providing for both long term and short-term transit` solutions _,Prelimnary engineering. and environmental do___c mentation w~l begin soon. - _ The Dakota County Transportation Plan recognizes CR 23 (Cedar Avenue) as a principal arterial to CR 42 and calls for a study of possible extension of the principal arterial status down to CR 70. Cedar Avenue, from TH 77 to 155"'' Street in Apple Valley, CR 23 will exceed six lane divided highway capacity in ` coming years. The intersection at CR 42 is already over capacity, and wilt worsen as traffic in the corridor continues to grow. The CR 46 intersection will be over capacity by 2025. Regarding roadway needs for the TH 77 segment of Cedar, both the Metropolitar Council Policy Plan and the MnDOT Transportation System Plan call for increasing use of the facility as a principal arterial. However, neither plan contains any investment resources for expanding the capacity of the roadway, 2 i.e., removing bottle necks, adding lanes, expanding bridges, to the year 2030 and beyond. What needs to be done? The varied interests in the Cedar Transportation Corridor need to prepare a comprehensive plan of action for the development of road: and transit transportation infrastructure in the corridor. Major transportation improvements will not happen. without broad public support. We need to convert gnawing public irritation with transportation issues into demands far investment action in the corridor... Where a communitypf interests comes together and effectively organizes for action, big things get done in the community. Where there is no community organization, seldom, if ever, do big things`get done. The need in the Cedar Corridor is to bring together all the principal interests in the corridor in a transportation organization and form consensus on an approach and establish an action plan. The approach would embrace all modes of transportation, including both roadways and rapid transit. Continue the momentum on the development of a bus rapid transit system,,but also focus on the roadway. It is the roadways that are growing in congestion, and it will be roadways that. will carry the vast amount of traffic in future years. Road improvements are cnicial for removing the obvious bottlenecks that cause much of the congestion. Most people will continue to prefer cars. to public transit for most trips; the flexibility and: independence of car travel is central to many residents' quality of life. On the other hand,.pubiic transit provides consumer.. - choice, encourages commercial and, residential development. along the corridor, reduces vehicular emissions/air pollution, provides an alternative for low-income and senior residents, and,provides travel time predictability.. Study after study has come to the same conclusion -transit and road improvements are critical reinforcing investments. Why now? Public concern about adequate transportation facilities and services has -never been higher than it is at this time. A recent poll conducted by the Itasca Project found that more than 90 Percent of the responding citizens in the Twin city area support increased funding for roads and transit, and 52 percent said they not only support it, but also feel strongly about transportation funding. Action is timely! Cedar Avenue is becoming more and more congested each year. As mentioned above, there are no metro or state plans for any capacity improvements on Cedar for the next twenty-five years and beyond. Dakota County wants to flesh out the County Transportation Plan by moving ahead with an 3 -t . ' improvemenUexpansion plan for the County Road 23 segment of Cedar Avenue: An action plan is needed. The Cedar Busway Project is entering the first phase implementation program, which inGudes busway shoulder development requiring more detailed analysis and decisions regarding the juxtaposition of transitway and future roadway locations. This requires more closely planning and"designing busway and roadway development together. An opportunity exists to provide for increased development densities in the areas where transit statiosts wrll tie buit4. Sbfr?e cities in the Corridor are already actively pursuing transit oriented designs (ie. Cedar Grove Redevelopment) to anticipate the continued.improvei?Brits of trans in the corridor and to offer . residents greater Incentive tb use transit as tegftimate aftemative foc some portions of trips they would ordinarily snake by car. Novo is the 6me to put in place development incentives ar?d'ordinances that can guide future development accordir?gly. . What [tind of organization is needed? An organization that would provide'pvlicy guidance and oversight to transportation developments in'the'Cedar Corridor:"it would assume oversight leadership for the on-going Bus Rapid Transit project. tts members would be leaders of the varied interests in the corr~or, including businesspersons, municipal officials, county`officiats and transportation providers.. It would be organized for consensus buNding.'lt would have committed and.adequate staff. The following organizational proposal will accomplish these objectives. 4 CEDAR CORRIDOR TRANSPORTAT40N INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT GROUP Goals of the Group • Mitigate congestion growth. Strengthen transportation foundations for future economic growth. • Increase overall mobility, accessibility, and travel retiahility. • Create compelling transportation attematives. Rotes and Responsibilities 1. Provide oversight and input to transportation planning and devefoplnenf' , processes in the corridor. Assist in defining critical transportation issues. • Assist in identifying alternative roadway. and transit strategies. Review corridor study products andprovide advice on major study.,. decisions. 2. Provide two-way communication between the Group and the businesses, cities and counties. • Link the Group to businesses, residents and governments in the corridor. • Communicate Group issues to member's organization. • Bring organization's comments and concerns to the. Group.. 3. Provide guidance on Corridor transportation issues. • Ensure that the full range of local and regional issues are addressed 5 4. Make recommendations to transportation providers and government policy makers. • Actively support Group positions on transportation priorities and investments in the corridor. 5. Assume the role and function of the Cedar Transitway Project Management Committee. Membership Membership in the,Group shall consist of representatives who have a'direct ' interest in the corridor, bo#h from government and; fmm. business. The Cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Apple Valley,. BumsviUe, Lakeville, and Farmington shall appoint one member who'shali be the Mayor or an`elected member of the City Council. Each shall have an alternate, who also shall be appointed by the City Council. The duration bfthc=`~p~ioititmentfs atthe pleasure of the City Council, or until the memberbecomes ineligible to serve as an elected official. The counties of Dakota and Hennepin shall each appoint one member who shalt serve of the pleasure of their respective Courtly t3oard or until the member becomes ineligible to serve as an elected official. An alternate shall also be appointed tp serve at the pleasure of the County Board. Each,City Council in the Corridor may appoint one business representative. wfio has a'businessfiaeility orbusiness interestln the CedarAvenue Corridor. Dakota County shall serve as the lead agency. Meetings. The Group shall meet quarterly, or more often if necessary: Technical Advisory Committee A Technical Advisory Committee, consisting of planners and engineers, shall be appointed to advise the Group. Roles and Responsibilities • Provide regular technical input to the Cedar Corridor Group. • Provide guidance on technical decisions within the Corridor. 6 • Provide two-way communication between the technical activities of the Group and the member's respective government or agency. Receive and review comments from the Group. Committee Members: Each Group member city council, county board, the Metropolitan CounciE, MnDOT, and MVTA shall appoint one person to the Technical Advisory Committee. The appointee shall be either a planner, engineer, or public administrator. Meetings. The Technical Advisory Committee shall meet as often as necessary. Dakota County shall be the lead agency. Special Ad Hoc Local Advisory Groups As the work of the Group progresses, local, detailed transportation issues will be considered, causing the need for local interest representatives to mast as often as.necessary to work out local site and development issues. Examples are, issues dealing with highway design, signal placement, interface with local roads, etc. The: spacial ad hoc advisory group wilt be formed under the leadership of the Group member from the city in which the issue site is located. Ad Hoc Committee Members will consist of muniapal, business and county persons, and, as appropriate, transportation agency and major destination representatives. Once resolved, the issue resolution will be reported to the full Technical Committee and the Group, at which time the special ad hoc advisory group shall no longer exist. Special ad hoc Advisory Committees may also be appointed by the Group to deal with special issues of interest and concern to Group members. December 29, 2004 January 25, 2005 mvised January 3l, 2005 revised February I0, 2005 revised February 25, 200.5 revised -Txc NealXEPi loaxnsi. 'wiecilies.Nixjaurnab.eam one rn, mus r C+ al ~:'r'. 9 ~ N r ~-~..E 1 ,..a~ Bt19n74{tlsaEd,Ide/MtWBltdisnpeninB ni.EYMttPf#Yir`Iro~weira McWnp 1p1e1glt(ppfw~eENtlMWIIIIOytYh8N blWMgi 4sltiW BR>~ERf~~dIG,~.' flue Sky~franchisees target all-season ice cream sales DY NICDIE GANflIGON-SPflENGEfl :;raFF weGER BLUE 5KY MINNE50TA togrl~do so manyice cream shops non into Headquarters: Edina Chrishnas tree sates lotsin havemhct? 1'opexeeutiveso Brian Tmtlo, Christopher Elllon R:tan+e when il's 20 be4nv vRm, mosrpeo- Business: Retedlu and whdesaler of Bluo Ssy uk• ~.voul[I rather smp Ynr allot cup of cocoa Creamery icecream char, a cold scoop of ice cream. said Hrian .Founded: 2004 7 i~die. co-owner of fSlue SkV Gee:mlen' in Empbyees:26 pert time and five lull time Gikeailla Revenues: $190000 olfset those losses - hacaase Wep slte:www.blueakyicecrezm.com Niidrves(ereets do ea[ ice cream in their lan s during Ole o~nrer -'[lrtde and his f>m cr Ch.i<tophet I'lliott. wi!I olxr. en ice- Creameq~ inl.aAet Ott Is _nsfrs[BIn sk rr-m produclinn frntlin~ in !_den I mine This chisc in the cnunuti~.'t7te mncenr for narthat h~Ill enablethem mpeckage and sell aemulvas dm'elopnd by tlsmasPtn i. e ~ ream to grocers acres in ~iu=. is-~n Ch!es tVt?iam 3dvoedc of rote ece round. ~t the end of 2001 the faka~ille op ~io;~, ' :asl ~rcac 7D pemeor of nut busines wu reported restiaue ntabout $1 OO,000 tuna ~tid dons: be.,veen a4nr and the end of heexpecr shout $SOD,II(Hl 6y die end of2L0>- tiel I ~iubee°7-utde sold."Shortlgafte tuestarl- AuA whiie 4vhnlcsalc r- ndiere the n~:.ec ar'. islusl.res werealized rhxt Ore m~ho:esale wlli be. Tuttle and EAtorz also boos io x~l sia y<~~~hnre rile co+ume:vmild be." tniat of :0 [Steil stores in the Lan (,LL-s. ut. ~e rlel isiun to build a't 000-square-ino[ I?ose~ille is oneprobahle location lrr ureauenon tuctlin c~ae ahn sptneed bvo new The mmponye dccisien m sr 1 wu a~ co r,act the sampans signed x~lh Srilk+mter c~auld boost sale, at Its retail shops ~a d 4rn ila Iv Cub Poods Sw cs tltis vest. Blurs Sky has Bal ncr, one of the roundels n. PR [uc~ ardpincv a[ice seam in oOlergroury sroms, peanut butter cab Post s[nrtedrn v-G .r ne;I- Sr. .ding t.wule aldNl rlv s. forgh lul stoat. sur4 sl pear. '.I- our goal m be m u0 50-plea rCui~; It 6tkes' consumers about 10 nn e .a leek sa s Ilm'c said. `i?npeCully tcitr the Lden a brand and si ur m ru.i,,iu' n and Br wre fullitp well L?e able to prndureenough slairgohlg GO ic' Bans. v,.u. "LuatV . i~.t tenLa m sen h rvenihaoi's needs in mnxe [luickly reeched none Ch tt tit ° aainleapolis and 9r. Fanl:' peanut bu[ree it tiupei target store ire. ":he-e is nrr broker on the deal ar.d Oro gal Bcerlvi and Krn+~hkis Marker I h : ~ n I. u.r uc.~u ~u tai I {,eV om al~.aleti' I c ni- :crirrr .rilln-. •elnl in \ i 11.1, ;I,a t n tike ~xp+imCd~hx7w^a's.rm 1!fi"e!"Ifi%ti" F'ridar June 24, 2005 S4l~: NEWSPAPER- `OF THE. TWIN CITIES C'j,'eS The case's far-flung iroplica- The gist of the court fight ` e bons have drawn many groups v„as whether economic level- The d~SSentel'S into thelegalfight.Anunusual- opment amounts to a public "Under the banner of eco- m~~p lylargenumberofoensidearga- use; or, viewed another way, nomicdevelopment,allprivate .~~ii ntzations, including the Pacific ]tow much power government property is now vulnerable to Legal Foundation; tried to sway can wield. being taken and transferred to power the justices with friend-of-the- "I was in this battle tosave my another private owner, so long court beefs. homy Kela said f hursday, "and as it mighJbe upgraded," Iustice ~ The case invoh~es govern- in the process protect the rights Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in to seize tnent's power of eminent do of working-class homeowners dissent. main, with a twist: duoughout the country." Joined byThomas, Chief lus- Governmentscan seize pri- In his majority opinion, Ste- lice WilliamRehnquist and Jus- homes vote property for public pur- yens said it is "perfectly clear" lice Antonin Scalia, O'Connor pose's; for instanct:, to build a that governments cannot seize warned that the court's ruling road. Such seizures have pro- an individual's property"for ute will simply "wash out any dis- Sll 1'0117(', COATI yoked repeated court fights, sole purpose" of transferring unction between private and P often over the compensttion ownership to someone else. At public use ofproperry." }1P08Ci<0T15 AS0 Of owed the property owner the same time, he stressed that 'Any property may now be O,IAIAOD:C C~O [I]i1IIi. the court "long ago rejected any taken for the benefit of anoth- CaSe ~1a5 a tM/ISt literal requirement that con- er private party, but the fallout The Kelo case is different, demned property be put into frown this decision will not be By Michael Doyle invoh~ng dte seizing of private ?se for the general public." random," O'Connor wrote. "The Star Tribune Washington property for other private pur- prior cases effectively beneficiaries aze likely to be Bureau Correspondent paces that also promise apub- stretched the public-use re- those citizens with dispropor- liebenefit. Such condemnations quirement to include ewnomic donate influence and power in WASHINGTON, D.C. - Lo- happeitregtrlarly benefits, Stevens concluded. the political process, including cal governments can condemn An estimated 10,1100 cases He was joined in the opinion by large corporationsanddevelop- privateproperty and convert it of condemnation or threatened Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth ,meet firms." to more profttable private use, a condemnation for the benefit Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Ken- sharply dicidedSupreme Court of private parties acemred be- nedy and David Souter. ruled Thursday. tween 199U and 2003, accord- "Formorethanacentury;our Imone of the most closely ingtoastudyforthelibertaria~t public-use jurisprudence has watched cases of the year, the lnstituteforJustice.KansasCity, wisely eschewed rigid formulas court in a 5-4 ruling extended Kan., for instance, used emi- and intrusive scrutiny infavorof The eminent dmnain powers Went domain to condemn 150 affordinglegislatttresbroadlati- that frequenuyincite controver- homes to secure the land fora tude in determiningwhat public sy. It's a marked victory for city racetrack, while the Mississippi needs justify the use of the tak- planners and local officials over town of Canton secured l:utd for legs power,' Stevens wrote. private property advocates. aNissanmanufacturingplant• New Londons economic "Promoting economicdevel- .Facing double-digit un- development plan appeared opmen[ is a traditional and long employment. the city of New reasonable and "carefully for- accepted function of govern- London has likewise sought to mutated" even. though Kelo's meet,' Justice John Paul Stevens use eminent domain to develop working-class neighborhood wrote, adding that "quite simply, a research and development of- was not considered blighted., the governments pursuit of a fire park. The proposed loco- Stevens reasoned. public purpose will often benefit lion, next to a major new Pfizer Similar arguments might individual private patties." Ina pharmaceutical plant, is now apply elsewhere through- Bur with Justice Clarence the waterfront land now owned out the country. Thomas denouncing the deci- by nurse Susette Kelo and her In Minneapolis, the city's lion as "far-reaching and clan- neighbors. redevelopment agency cou- gerous," the Connecticut case New London officials covet demned a parcel owned by one called Kelo vs. City of New the additional tax revenue and developer so that a Target stare London is also ringing some jnbspromisedbythenewdevel' coiildbehuiltbyanotherdevel- alarm bells. opment. Keto and her neighbors oper. Minnesota courts upheld "'Phis is easilythe mostimpor- retorted [hat the plans don't fit tite condemnation. In a similar leer case of the term;' said7imo- within the meaning of-the Con- vein, the Minneapolis Com- thySandefiu,anattonteywiththe stimtion's Flftlr Amendment, munity Development Agency causerv;.uive Pacific Legal Foun- which requites "just compen- threatened in 2002 to condemn dauon, based in Sacramento, cation" when private property a3-acresi,te soaprivatelyowned G.ilif. "h halls that every private is taken "for l,~ublio use." housing developmenC could be house in the country is for sale, built; the owner sold. whether you kmrw it or not" COURT continues on A39