Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-30-07-07 City of Lakeville Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes January 30, 2007 Marion Conference Room, City Hall Members Present: Comms. Matasosky, Pogatchnik, Tushie, Brantly, Emond, Gehrke, Erickson, Ex-officio member Mayor Holly Dahl, Ex-officio member City Administrator Steve Mielke, Ex-officio member Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Todd Bornhauser. Members Absent: Comms. Smith, Schubert. Others Present: David Olson, Community & Economic Development Director; Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist, Steve Michaud, Park & Recreation. Director; Dennis Feller, Finance Director; Dan Rogness, Dakota County CDA; Janna King, Economic Development Services. 1. Call. Meeting to Order. Chair Matasosky called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Marion Conference Room of City Hall, 20195 Holyoke Avenue, Lakeville, Minnesota. 2. Approve November 28, 2006 Meeting Minutes Motion 07.01 Comms. Erickson/Gehrke moved to approve the minutes of the November 28, 2006 meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Election of Officers After a brief discussion, Chair Matasosky asked if anyone was interested in being an officer for the EDC. Motion 07.02 Comms. Emond/Gehrke moved to re-elect Jack Matasosky as Chair,. Barry Pogatchnik as Vice-Chair and Bob Brantly as Secretary for 2007.- Motion carried unanimously. 4. Presentation of Dakota County Strategic Plan for Economic Development Dan Rogness from the Dakota County CDA and Janna King from Economic Development Services were present to give an overview of the .Dakota County Economic Development Strategy. The six strategic initiatives for 2007-2008 include: Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes January 3Q 2007 1. Invest in transportation and transit networks 2. Coordinate strategic infrastructure and land development 3. Link workforce development and economic development 4. (a) Create prospect response capacity 4. (b) Enhance image, marketing and branding 5. Provide quality workforce housing 6. Strengthen development-related research and .policy. capacity Ms. King added that the goal of the County is not to create a new department, but to collaborate with existing resources within the County and prevent .duplication of efforts. Comm. Tushie added that transportation will be a big issue and that it .basically parallels Lakeville's Strategic Plan for Economic Development. Comm. Pogatchnik asked if the County had committed any funding for this initiative yet. Ms. King responded that the County Board will be reviewing the Strategic Plan and fiscal impacts in April Mr. Rogness added that the funding will also .vary by activity and the timing . associated with each activity. Chair Matasosky stated that the County should be encouraged to utilize. community resources and maintain a high level of communication with everyone. 5. Presentation of Proposed Changes to Park Dedication Ordinance Requirements Mr. Michaud gave an overview of the proposed Park Capital Improvement Financing Plan along with the park dedication fee structure and the history of park funding. Comm. Tushie .asked if the proposed $101,658,000 is in today's dollars and Mr. Michaud responded that is was. Comm. Ernond asked what percentage of Lakeville is currently park land. Mr. Michaud responded that the goal is to have 10% at buildout, and that we currently have less than 10%. Mr. Feller discussed the five options for financing the proposed capital improvement costs for Lakeville's park systems based on the. 2006 Comprehensive Parks and Trail System Plan: 2 Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes January 30, 2007 Option I: Park Dedication Fund $101,658,000 -Park Bond Issue $0, - Increase Park Dedication Fees 41 % in 2007 - No increase in taxes Option II: Park` Dedication Fund $82,258,640 -Park Bond Issue $19,400,000 - Increase Park Dedication Fees 14% in 2007 - Increase taxes $30 on average value home in 2008 and 2015. Option III: Park Dedication Fund $82,258,640 -Park-Bond Issue $19,400,000 - Increase Park Dedication Fees 9% in 2007 and 9% in 2008 - Increase taxes $30 on average value home in 2008 and 2015 Option IV: Park Dedication Fund $71,986,293 -Park Bond Issue $29,672,348 - No change in Park Dedication Fees - Increase taxes $125 on average value home in 2008 Option V: Park Dedication Fund $71,986.,293 -Park Bond Issue $0 - No change in Park Dedication Fees - No increase in taxes Mr. Feller noted that proposed .improvements were based on 2007 estimates. As such, an inflationary increase in costs would need to be financed with a corresponding increase in the park dedication fee structure or other revenue source. • Mr. Feller then noted that an alternative to debt finance would be a "pay-as-you-go" tax levy. The 2008 tax levy would be approximately $562,000; the 2015 tax levy would be approximately $974,000 and adjusted annually for inflationary factors. Mr. Feller further described the advantages and disadvantages of this. approach as outlined in the Park Capital Improvement Financing Plan. Mr. Feller next reviewed the recommendation of doing atwo-step Park Dedication Fee increase of 9% in 2007 and 9% in .2008. In addition, the recommendation will be to use the new community surveys to obtain public input on what the public is willing to pay for park amenities and to fulfill the Park Improvement Financing Plan. The survey responses will help guide .the Council's decision as to which of the five options is most appropriate. Comm. Brantly suggested that in the community survey, information about potential mussed opportunities if funding is delayed be included. He also expressed his support of the plan. Mr. Michaud reaffirmed the importance of preserving park land now and the cost savings it can have in the long run. The -group discussed how much of that land would be dedicated .through • development over time and if the City might miss out on some of the identified areas if you wait for development. 3 Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes January 30, 2007 • Mr. Michaud clarified that. it would be approximately $20-25 million to purchase the land identified for park but that some desirable land is already owned by developers. Mr. Mielke added that if the Park Dedication fees were increased by 41 it still wouldn't put Lakeville at the top of the list for commercial/industrial property. This is one way to avoid having to do a referendum. Comm. Tushie stated that he thought it would be a good idea to get the money now to purchase the identified land because he wasn't sure if it made sense to put the entire .burden on the development community, although it is part of the cost of entry to develop in Lakeville. It would seem to make sense to have both the development community and the public contribute in some capacity. Mr. Mielke responded that he agreed but because the City has already invested a substantial amount of money into the Parks system that the Park Dedication Fees have already paid for, would it be fair to someone building a .house. down the road to benefit from someone else's previous investment. Comm. Tushie agreed with Mr. Mielke and stated that land prices are currently down by almost half in .Lakeville and now might be a good time to buy the land that might never be dedicated to the City. Comm. Emond agreed with Comm. Tushie and also noted that this is impacting home values. Comm. Brantly, Chair Matasosky and Mr. Bornhauser stated that the public needs to be actively involved and included in the communications so that they understand the benefits and financing of the proposals. Chair Matasosky stated that a referendum is an important part of this process so that the public understands the financial impact of this plan. Comm. Pogatchnik added that it also needs to be fair to the older residents who have already paid their share.. Mr. Feller stated that the tax levy for a city voter approved referendum is based on market value rather than tax capacity value. The group discussed the "opportunity costs" or "missed opportunity costs". Waiting for adequate funds to accumulate as a result of dedicated tax levies for land acquisitions may take. time. As such, the City assumes the risks associated with escalating land acquisition costs or that the land is lost to development. 4 Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes January 30, 2007 Mr. Feller stated that the EDC's comments regarding the Park Improvement Financing Plan would be forwarded to the City Council. The City Council will consider,. at its February 20 meeting, approval of the recommendations as contained in the Plan subject to the comments received from both the EDC and the Parks,. Recreation and Natural Resources Committee. The EDC thanked Mr. Michaud and Mr. Feller for presenting and discussing this issue with them. 6. Summary of 2006 Development Projectfeedback Surveys There was no discussion on this issue. 7. Review of 2005-2007 Strategic Plan for Economic Development Work Program for 2007 Mr. Olson reviewed the progress made on the 2006 Work Program and outlined the recommended 2007 Work Program consisting of: 1. Completion of an Economic Benefit Study. 2. Completion of the Affordable Housing Needs Study. 3. Completion of the Business Telecommunications Technology Task Force Study. 4. Preparation and implementation of the 2007 Action Plan for the Downtown. Development Guide. 5. Completion of corporate campus/office park market analysis. 6. Completion of the 2008-2010 Strategic Plan for Economic Development. Motion 07.03 Comms. Emond/Tushie moved to accept the 2007 Economic Development Work Program as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Review of the Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendments Mr. Mielke noted that this item will be discussed in greater detail at the next EDC meeting. Mr. Olson gave a brief overview and status update of the proposed changes to the sign ordinance. • Comm. Emond .asked what the level of enforcement is with the current ordinance. 5 Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes ' January 30, 2007 Mr..Mielke acknowledged that certain portions. of the ordinance aren't actively enforced unless.. a complaint is received or there is an obvious abuse of the regulations. He added that the new ordinance will give the City the ability to enforce more of these abusive situations when it is necessary. Mr. Mielke added that much of a sign ordinance has to do with community standards and what the community wants to see regulated. This will continue to be discussed - with the business community and other stakeholders in Lakeville. The portion of the ordinance that was recently addressed dealt with changing from being content based to solely dealing with .type, size and location requirements. The proposed ordinance is being updated to reflect a content-neutral standard as it relates to freedom of speech. 9. Director's Report There was no discussion on this issue. 10. Ad jou rn The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Attested to: U/- Adam Kienberger R. T. Brantly, Secre' Economic Developm Specialist 6