Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-12-02 WS• CITY OF LAKEVILLE CITY COUNCIL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 12, 2002 Present: Mayor Bob Johnson, Council Members Mulvihill, Luick, Bellows and Rieb; :Economic Development Commission Members Jim Emond, Barry Pogat6hnik, Jack Matasosky, Bob Vogel, Robert Brantley, Tom Smith and Dick Mille City Administrator Bob Erickson; City Engineer Keith Nelson; Finance pi-~ctor Dennis Feller; Community and Economic Development Director Dave ~1son; Assistant to City Administrator John Hennen; Economic Development Coordinator Ann Flad; and Springsted representative Dave MacGillivray. ITEM NO. 1. REVIEW INTERCHANGE FINANCING REPORT. City Engineer Keith Nelson provided background on three interchanges: County Road 50, County Road 60 and County Road 70. Engineering consultant SRF is currently under contract to complete the interchange preliminary design and right of way mapping for the County Road 50 project. Mr. Nelson highlighted costs associated with the interchange project including design, right of way acquisition, and construction of four lanes under the bridge, totaling approximately $20 million. • Currently, Phase I of the County Road 60 project is underway, which includes the Mr. Nelson mentioned that a neighborhood meeting was recently held regarding the County Road 70 interchange project. SRF has been contracted to complete traffic projections for Dakota County and TKDA has been contracted to complete the preliminary design work on the interchange. Total estimated cost for this project is $16 million. Interchange construction is projected to be completed in 2007 subject to funding. realignment of Kenrick Avenue, ..construction of interchange ramps, right of way acquisition, and construction of a four-lane divided roadway from I-35W to Orchard Trail. In 2004, plans are to construct afour-lane roadway from I-35W to Judicial Road along with the reconstruction of the bridge. Total cost of the reconstruction of County Road 60 interchange is approximately $22 million. Scott County also plans on reconstructing County Road 60 (Scott County Road 21) from Judicial Road to Scott County Road 91. Mr. Nelson proceeded then to review miscellaneous City road construction and overlay projects equaling approximately $5 million. The three interchange projects and miscellaneous City projects total approximately $63 million. Mr. Erickson mentioned there is a possibility that the federal government may require a third lane along I-35 from County Road 46 to either County Road 50 or • 70 as part of theses interchange projects. A third lane could significantly increase the costs, which would jeopardize the projects. City Counci// EDCJoint Work Session August 12, 2002 • Page -2- Mr. MacGillivray highlighted his "Interchange Financing Report'; the purpose of which was to determine a funding strategy for the construction of the three interchanges. Mr. MacGillivray highlighted some financing sources which included Dakota County, G.O. Street Reconstruction Bonds, Federal STP-MnDOT funds, MSA Allotments, MSA Bonds, Interchange Improvement Account, Storm Water Trunk Fund, Water Trunk Fund, HRA Tax Levy, Park Dedication Fund, and miscellaneous others totaling approximately $63 million. Mr. MacGillivray proceeded to review several of the specific funding sources such as the state and federal transportation grants and Dakota County participation. Of the approximately $63 million dollars needed for the projects, over $22 million is proposed to be provided by Dakota County and over $10 million by state and federal transportation grants. Mr. MacGillivray indicated there is a high probability that one-third of the funds proposed to be provided by Dakota County will be available, however, the rest will depend on Dakota County's CIP. Mr. Nelson reviewed Lakeville projects that are currently in Dakota County's CIP. Charts were presented illustrating property tax impacts on a $200,000 residential homestead and on a $1,000,000 commercial site as a result of tax levies. The tax changes were based on the City's tax base growing at a rate of 5% per year • resulting from new residential and commercial/ industrial construction. Mr. Matasosky felt 5% was quite conservative. Mr. Erickson indicated it most likely would be more than 5%, however, in past years it has been beneficial to the City to be conservative in its estimates. Commission Member Vogel suggested staff look at property tax impacts if one of the interchanges were completed thus driving development and increasing the City's tax base. Mr. Erickson briefed individuals on the Metropolitan Councils proposal to extend a wastewater interceptor to the Elko/New Market area. If the extension of the interceptor proceeds, Lakeville is interested in exploring the idea of extending it along County Road 70 out to the interstate allowing Lakeville property within the 2010/2015 MUSA to develop. Mr. Erickson and Mr. Feller would recommend the use of municipal state aid funds for larger construction projects and protect the pavement management program by using a new funding mechanism that will be presented to the Council in the near future. Mr. Erickson added that even the best financing plans could be changed. quickly by the legislature at any given session. Mayor Johnson commented that it's rare to see three interchanges constructed within one city in a ten-year period. This is a new chapter in financing and consultants and advisory committees are going to play a very important role in determining the funding for these interchanges. • City Council / EDCJoint Work Session August I2, 2002 Page -3- • .Commission Member Matasosky stated that a large number of people have been waiting for the reconstruction of the I-35/County Road 50 interchange and asked what is the next step. Mr. Erickson indicated that some level of financial commitment is needed from Dakota County for this project. He believes the City needs to exert more pressure on the County for this to happen. It is Mr. Erickson's understanding that a quarter of a million dollars has been spent by the Northern Mayor's Association on lobbying efforts over the years, resulting in abundant federal and state funding for their road construction projects. The TimberCrest project didn't drive .the reconstruction of County Road 60 and I-35, but it did provide the City the added impetus to pursue funding, resulting in the City being the recipient of $5 million .for the project. Mr. Feller believes that Dakota County should take advantage of the new laws that would allow them to spread the cost of these interchange projects to more residents in the county. Mr. Erickson believes the next logical step would be to hold neighborhood .meetings with the residents of County Road 50 and County Road 70 interchange areas to present them with the estimated costs associated with these interchange projects and the role the County must play in order for them to move along, with the hopes that they will have a better understanding of the variety of financing issues involved in interchange projects. Commission Member Matasosky questioned how the City could get Dakota County to the table to commit to the • project. Mr. Erickson suggested that the cities work .together and .take a respectfully aggressive approach with Dakota County, requesting commitment to funding of road construction projects. Mayor Johnson would encourage having all the studies and plans completed and on the "shelf', ready to move forward on the projects when funding is available, similar to the scenario at the County Road 60/I- 35 project. Mr. Erickson highly recommends the purchase of every available piece of property for future Right of Way at the County Road 50/I-35 interchange once the moratorium is lifted, since the land will not get any less expensive and the County is required to provide up to 55% reimbursement. Commission Member Pogatchnik mentioned in a high growth community like Lakeville, the goal of being debt-free might be unachievable. Commission Members Pogatchnik, Matasosky, Vogel and Emond recommend the City set up neighborhood meetings with property owners in County Road 50 and County Road 70 interchange areas so property owners understand what the City is facing. People are more likely to support the projects if they are well informed, and it may be an inexpensive way to obtain lobbyists. Commission Member Vogel suggested that a fiscal analysis be completed, showing that the development of the County Road 70 / I-35 interchange could result in X number of acres being developed equaling X dollars of tax revenue. Economic Development Commission members left the .meeting at 6:30 PM. .• ~ ' City Counci// EDCJoint Work Session August 12, 2002 • ITEM IVO.2. OTHER BUSINESS. Page -4- Under Other Business, Mr. Erickson informed the Mayor and Council Members that the issue regarding the Elko/New Market interceptor has been quite challenging and frustrating. Representative Holberg and Senator Orfield have jointly created a resolution opposing the Elko/New Market interceptor proposal, which will be presented at committee level at the State Capitol. Both Representative Holberg and Senator Orfield conceded on certain philosophies to complete this joint resolution. Mayor Johnson asked if staff had heard back from the Metropolitan Council or if any meeting had been set up since the Mayor .sent out his letter to Met Council Chair Ted Mondale. Mr. Erickson indicated that staff has not yet received a response. Mr. Erickson asked the Council to consider setting a work session at the next Council meeting to continue to the discussion regarding interchange financing along with a strategy to fund the pavement management program. Council Members indicated that they could be available for a work session on Monday, August 26th and asked staff to place the item on the next Council meeting agenda. Council Members Luick and Mulvihill indicated they would not be at the August 19, 2002 Council meeting. • ITEM NO. 3. ADJOURN. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 PM. Respectfully submitted, n Hen en, Assistant to City Administrator •