06/08/2010 - City Council SpecialAGENDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY
JUNE 8, 2010
5:30 P.M.
EAGAN ROOM-EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
f 1 III. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL COUNCIL OF
MAYORS/URBAN LAND INSTITUTE OPPORTUNITY CITY STUDY
PROJECT
RAD, IV. REVIEW OF CURRENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
f51 V. FRANCHISE ENFORCEMENT AND LONG RANGE E -TV FINANCING
f38VI. 2011 BUDGET PROCESS UPDATE
eq 1 VII. CAMPUS MASTER PLAN OVERVIEW
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Information Memo
Eagan City Council Workshop
June 9, 2010
III. INTRODUCTION OF RCM/ULI OPPORTUNITY CITY STUDY
PROJECT
NOTE: While this workshop is not a joint meeting, because of the topics covered by this
project, members of the APC and APrC and representatives of the MVTA and 360
Communities have been invited to present for this presentation and discussion.
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To receive a presentation on the scope and focus of
the Opportunity City project and define the points in the study process for Council updates
and input.
FACTS:
• The Urban Land Institute and Regional Council of Mayors developed the Opportunity
Cities Program as a tool for cities interested in receiving assistance in pursuing their goal
of supporting a full range of housing choices in suburban cities for a stronger, more
prosperous region.
• In 2009, RCM and ULI partnered with five cities around the Twin Cities in applying the
study process and developing individualized reports outlining findings and possible
strategies or opportunities to further their housing and livability priorities.
• In early 2010, RCM and ULI invited applicants for a second round of studies. The City
of Eagan responded to the invitation and, at its meeting of March 16, 2010, the City
Council approved an agreement to move forward with the project.
• The Opportunity City Program includes three key components:
1. Housing Audit - technical assistance to evaluate goals, programs and tools and
strategies that support a full range of housing choices.
2. Community Change Information — city household and parcel level data and
analysis for 2004-09 profiling demographic conditions and change that impacts
local housing decisions.
3. Opportunity Site Assistance - assistance in the assessment of and recommended
strategies for specific city identified opportunity sites with a preference for
development or redevelopment ready sites.
• In consideration of the role the Dakota County CDA plays in coordinating CDBG and
other HUD housing programs for Dakota County cities, Dan Rogness of the CDA staff is
also participating with City staff and the project team to provide background information
and review study findings and potential program alternatives that may arise from them.
/
• The project team that will be working with the City on this project on behalf of ULI
consists of Cathy Bennett of Bennett Community Consulting and Dennis Welsch, the
former Community Development Director for the Cities of Roseville and Apple Valley.
Ms. Bennett will provide the presentation on Tuesday evening and respond to questions
about the scope, focus and opportunities associated with the study process for Council
input.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Opportunity City Program overview on pages 3 through 7
• Program presentation on pages 9 through (Note: The attached presentation is
the long form. In consideration of time at Tuesday's meeting, Ms. Bennett will present a
shorter version of this slide set at that time.)
.c,
Regional
Council of
ayos
Minnesota
Introduction:
Housing Initiative
Opportunity City Program
Housing Audit Template
The goal of the Opportunity City Pilot Program is to build on the collaborative relationships
among RCM and ULI Minnesota professionals to identify and implement best practices that
support a full range of housing choices for economic stability and regional prosperity. By
working together and learning from each other, an approach was developed to serve as a
model for other cities. This model can be implemented and brought to scale at the regional
level.
The housing audit template will include four key steps:
1.) establish a framework;
2.) collect and analyze data;
3.) review and evaluate tools and strategies; and
4.) develop recommendations for implementation.
The process includes the engagement of policy leaders, key city staff and program users. The
engagement is facilitated at two key points in the process through group meetings that
identifies community needs, gauges the perceived success of existing tools and strategies and
provides discussion around outcomes and implementation methods to support a full range of
housing choices in the city.
F.siAcTitmofa
Full Range of
Housing
Choices
Page 1- ULI Minnesota/Regional Council of Mayors - Opportunity City Program - Housing Audit Template
3
1. Establish a Framework
Review and evaluate examples of key tools and strategies that are being used locally and
nationally to support a full range of housing choices. The following is the basis for the RCM
Tool Box and is based upon the HousingPolicy.org framework. Through the process, the
following examples of tools and strategies is discussed in the context of each opportunity
city and modified to be beneficial as a model for other cities.
a. Generate Capital for Housing Options
i. Tax Increment Financing
ii. Tax Abatement
iii. Housing Levy
iv. Housing Trust Funds
v. Tax Credits
vi. Pre -Development & Acquisition Financing
vii. Housing Bonds
viii. Cross Subsidies
b. Preserve Existing Housing & Neighborhoods
i. Preserve Rental Housing
ii. Preserve Ownership Housing
iii. Housing Improvement Areas
iv. Energy Efficiency
v. Strengthen & Promote Existing Neighborhoods
c. Expand Opportunities for New Housing
i. Rezoning & Regulatory Tools in Support of Mixed Use Development
ii. Use of Publically Owned Land for Housing Opportunities
iii. Redevelopment of Brownfields
iv. Green Building
v. Housing Policies
d. Provide Efficient Use of Local Development Tools
i. Land Use & Zoning Policies in Support of Housing Diversity
ii. Expedited permitting and review policies
e. Help Residents Succeed
i. Homeownership Education & Counseling
ii. Down Payment Assistance
iii. Foreclosures & Affected Renters and Owners
iv. Household Energy Costs
v. Homeowner Renovation Assistance
vi. Employer Assisted Housing
vii. Specialty Housing & Services
f. Talk About a Full Range of Housing Choices
i. What is it and Why is it Important —Talking Points
ii. Stakeholder & Neighborhood Engagement
g. Livable Communities
i. Transportation Policies & Land Use
ii. Sustainable Development & Healthy Living
Page 2 - ULI Minnesota/Regional Council of Mayors - Opportunity City Program - Housing Audit Template
4
2. Collect and Analyze Data
Achieving a full range of housing options is a requirement for any community that
desires long term demographic balance, economic stability, and prosperity. Achieving
this objective requires new information tools and strategic partners. Through Excansus,
LLC demographic information tied to the parcel level is provided, reviewed and analyzed
to help cities understand their community growth patterns, demographic trends, and
housing market changes. Community level data and reports are provided including the
following:
a. Demographic and housing attributes:
i. Household data — householder age, composition, resident ages, time at
address
ii. Dwelling data — type, value, year built, owner/renter status
b. Five-year history of residential change (2003 to 2007) by household and by address
i. Map changes in residential area demographics over time
ii. Map movement of households by year and location
iii. Map housing decisions and utilization patterns
c. GIS map overlays:
i. 2005-2006 Minnesota aggregated taxable income (census block group level
detail)
ii. 2002-2005 workforce profiles and access to jobs (home -to -work flows - census
block level detail)
iii. Current metro and suburban bus routes and stops (street level precision)
3. Evaluate Effectiveness of Tools and Strategies:
Through the housing audit there is an evaluation of the effectiveness of existing tools and
strategies. The evaluation is completed in three ways:
a. Evaluate numerous factors that limit a city's ability to provide a full range of
housing choices including: (Examples of factors as suggestions by Housing
Policy.org)
i. Constraints on new development and redevelopment that prevent the market
from responding efficiently to increased demand for housing.
ii. Community opposition to new development generally and affordable housing
specifically.
iii. The deterioration of older homes due to neglect or lack of financing for repairs.
iv. Lack of coordination between housing and transportation planning.
v. Difficulty accessing financing for various expenses, such as to rehabilitate older
homes.
vi. Shortages of land on which to develop.
vii. Low-density development patterns that constrain supply and make it difficult
to build affordable homes.
viii. Activity by investors to purchase and "flip" properties for a profit.
Page 3 - ULI Minnesota/Regional Council of Mayors - Opportunity City Program - Housing Audit Template
5
ix. A proliferation of predatory loans and/or sub -prime loans that may not be
affordable over the long -run.
x. Challenges faced by existing homeowners affording their housing costs.
xi. Insufficient funding for affordable housing.
xii. Low wages.
b. Evaluate city specific tools & strategies.
The evaluation is limited to the availability of city data and provides the following:
i. Name of tool/strategy.
ii. Type of tool/strategy (new development, maintenance, neighborhood quality
of life, others).
iii. Goal of the tool/strategy and how it supports or complements existing goals of
the city (comprehensive plan, housing goals, city council goals).
iv. Identify the stakeholders who benefit from the tool/strategy if successful
v. Review annual indicators (measurements of performance).
1. Return on investment — what is the city receiving in return for their public
investment?
a. Current public dollars invested
b. Current public dollars returned (revolved, increase in tax revenue)
c. Delivery of program — staff time to process, annual support costs
2. Leverage ratio of public dollars against private/other public funds
invested.
3. Number of new and/or retained net households.
4. Number and value of improvements.
5. Ripple effect.
a. Based upon available city permit data
b. Based upon available assessor's valuation data before and/after
improvements
6. Affordability targets reached @ 30%, 60%, 80%, 115% of household
income.
7. Number of net new children enrolled in school.
8. Increase in value for taxes.
a. Review annual increase in value for taxes over 5 years
9. Evaluate annual increase in value for properties assisted by city tool or
strategy.
vi. Review administrative effectiveness based on in-house, out -sourcing,
partnering.
vii. Identify factors that risk success of tool/strategy.
1. Problems identified, interacted/encountered, and method of resolution
2. Weaknesses of the tools and strategy
3. Overlap of tools and strategies with other initiatives
4. Evolution of the tools and strategies
Page 4 - ULI Minnesota/Regional Council of Mayors - Opportunity City Program - Housing Audit Template
Co
c. Identify and evaluate specific sites.
With staff guidance, identify and review developed and undeveloped sites that have
the potential to provide and/or preserve a full range of housing choices. The site
review is intended to help the city think about what is an appropriate housing site
based upon best practices and if the site is an opportunity to increase housing
choices within the city. Do the sites create an opportunity that would include some
or all of the following principles? The review considers the following:
i. Creates housing opportunities and choice
ii. Creates a positive community image
iii. Fosters a sense of place
iv. Matches housing and jobs; both existing and future jobs
v. Creates or links to walkable neighborhoods
vi. Provides access to nearby transit or transportation choices that are convenient and a
comfortable 5 to 10 minute walk or 30 minutes bike (standard guideline is 1/4, 1/2 mile
distance for walking and 2-5 mile for biking)
vii. Creates a mix of land uses within the site or within a walkable distance of the site that
includes:
viii. Encourages compact building design and efficient use of infrastructure to support
long term sustainability
ix. Ensure the projects long term success and marketability
x. Provides energy efficiency and/or green building techniques
xi. Encourages community and stakeholder collaboration
4. Recommendations.
Provide recommendations for specific implementation steps that will help to strengthen
and/or move a city toward supporting a full range of housing choices.
a. Identification of gaps - Do the current goals and policies address the community
needs based upon demographics and trends?
b. Identify the tools & strategies from the RCM tool box that assists the city in
addressing community needs and achieving community goals and policies?
c. Identify resources needed to successfully implement the tools and strategies.
d. Next Steps — what process should the city take to implement changes and/or new
tools and strategies that support a full range of housing choices.
For more information contact:
Cathy Bennett, ULI MN/RCM Housing Initiative
Bennett Community Consulting
651.257.4613 cathycbennett@frontiernet.net
Caren Dewar, Executive Director
ULI Minnesota
612.759.1016 caren.dewar@uli.org
Page 5 - ULI Minnesota/Regional Council of Mayors - Opportunity City Program - Housing Audit Template
Housing Initiative —
Opportunity City Program
What is the Housing Initiative-
Opportunity City Program
The Process
OCP Policy Leader Response
ULI Minnesota 6/7/2010
6/3/2010
1
Our Call to Action
ULI Minnesota
ULI Minnesota actively
engages public and
private sector leaders to
foster collaboration, share
knowledge and join in
meaningful strategic
action to create thriving,
sustainable
communities.
6/7/2010
ULI MN/Regional Council of Mayors
Mayors from 34
municipalities in 6 metro
counties, including core
cities, developed and
developing suburbs.
Collaborative, non-
partisan.
Focused on actions to raise
the region's overall
innovation, economic
competitiveness and
quality of life.
9
6/3/2010
2
ENVIRONMENT
TRANSPORTATION
HOUSING
JOBS
ULI Minnesota
6/7/2010
6/3/2010
3
Housing Initiative
Mission — Partnering to implement tools & strategies
that support a full range of housing choices - a diverse
mix of housing types, sizes and prices within the region,
within cities and within neighborhoods — for economic
stability and regional prosperity.
ULI Minnesota
6/7/2010
Decline of households
Al Households with children
with children, 1960-2025 ill Households without children
1960 A ‘dhilkaa52%
5
ULI Minnesota
Population characteristics are changing
Older. more singles, more immigrants, fewer households with children.
6/7/2010
11
6/3/2010
4
Have a village or
town center with
destinations
and services
close by
Have flexible
office space in
a town -center
envrionment
Facilitate
making
new friends
Baby Boomers seeking active lifestyles, more interaction
Boomers have made "third places" like Starbucks, Barnes and Noble: and
Borders their "community center"
ULI Minnesota
6/7/2010
l�a
Over
8Omiiiion
Gen Ys today (1979-96)
C5minion
aby Boomers (1946-64)
Overall, it is estimated
that Gen Y influences
"as much as half of all
spending in the U.S.
economy"
Over 35% of Gen Ys
households earn
above $75,000
They represent
$1.6 trillion
In eaming power
Gen Y represents the greatest magnitude and spending power
Represents almost 30% of today's population
6/7/2010
ULI Minnesota
la
6/3/2010
5
connectivity
MOREg
0 -
say that living in a walkable
community is important
Gen Y will shift toward homeownership in 2012
ULI Minnesota
will pay more to walk to
shops, work, and
entertainment
Gen Y seeks diversity, walkability, and proximity to jobs
In -town areas and inner suburbs will remain on an upward trajectory
6/7/2010
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
Attached
Small lot
2003 housing supply
versus 2025 housing
demand
ES 2003 supply
2025 demand '..
Net new units
needed
Large lot
Nationally, changing demands will change product types
Demand for attached and small -lot homes will increase.
ULI Minnesota 6/7/2010
f3
6/3/2010
6
Opportunity City Program
Opportunity City Program
1. Housing Audit — 7 Opportunity
Cities
2. Opportunity Site Assistance
— 11 Community Site Principles
3. Web based Tool Box —
HousingPolicy. org/MN
6/7/2010
Eagan's Participation
Opportunity City Program Provides:
Evaluation of Tools &
Strategies based upon
best practices to achieve
Comprehensive Plan
policies
Share with other Cities
6/7/2010 \
l(/
6/3/2010
7
Housing Audit - 4 Key Steps
Opportunity Site Review
Ull Minnesota
DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS
6/7/2010
1s
6/3/2010
8
Housing Audit - 1st Step — The Framework
What tools and strategies does the City
use and how are they used?
➢ Ex: TIF, Tax Credits, Bonding, HRA Levies, Density bonus, etc.
What external factors hinder the City's
ability to provide a full range of housing
choice?
D Ex: lack of land, redevelopment costs, high land cost, resistance
to density
ULI Minnesota
6/7/2010
Repo
About the Data
How is it Different?
• Local Parcel Based Data
Four consecutive years (2004-07) and full 7 -county metro
area coverage
▪ Shows residential changes and housing usage flows.
" Household -level demographics, housing usage history &
turnover patterns (1,065,000 profiled addresses)
• Actual counts - not survey estimates
• GIS property parcel based — can be rolled up and
summarized to fit almost any geographic area
ULI Minnesota 2/19/2010
r�
6/3/2010
9
1,1111t
alae
Key Metro Area Themes Emerged — through Pilot Prog
First ring suburban regeneration
Attracting move=up,households
ULI Minnesota
Moves from Apartments
to other housing in the City
Richfield r Shoreview
17
6/3/2010
10
Housing Audit - 3rd — Evaluate Programs/Tools
Who benefits, what is the return on investment, etc?
$250,000
$200,000
I
$150,000
$100,000
$64,500
Area Median Income Limit (family of 4)
$200,000
$200,000
$00,000
$50,000 ..
so
Deferred County MHFA Rehab Loan MHFA Fix -Up
Loan Program Fund
HRC Shoreview SHINE
Based on 2,3(38 AMI (family of q) = $8o,goo
ULI Minnesota
Investment (in millions)
r Private is Public
Housing Audit - 3rd Step
Demonstrate what has been learned
Opportunity Site Review
• 3-4 Site Evaluations
• ULI MN professional's provide general
recommendations on city chosen sites.
• ULI Technical Assistance Panel (TAP)
• ULI MN professional team evaluate one site along
with policy leaders over 2-3 meetings — more
specific, detailed review and recommendation.
6/7/2010
ULI Minnesota
6/3/2010
11
Housing Audit - 4th Step
Develop Recommendations
Self Discovery Process
What changes & additions can be
implemented to meet city goals?
➢ Shoreview — Approved an HRA levy
➢ Richfield - Create Interdepartmental Neighborhood Team
➢ Minnetonka — Create First Time Buyer Program
➢ Brooklyn Park — Adopt ULI MN Site Principles for new Multi -Family
developments
6/7/2010
ULI Minnesota
Policy Leader Involvement
• Introduction
• Review summary of Housing Audit — tools & strategies
/discussion of community change data
• Site assistance — application of the information
• Develop Recommendations
• Final Recommendations
ULI Minnesota
6/3/2010
12
Geeratu Cagdad for
Hoag ng Opus
fxp3nd Opportuuitios
hew Housing
(Do
6/3/2010
13
Decision -makers are
implementing changes based on
audit findings, data analysis, and
best practices provided by the
pilot program.
` The study highlights
elements of housing that we
currently lack and the types
of housing unats that are
needed as we grow."
"We had a lot of people telling us
how wrong we as policy leaders were
regarding the need for multi -family
housing. After the Opportunity City
process, there was an
acknowledgement that we do need
quality rental and multi -family
housing. The Opportunity City
process has changed the dialogue and
opened conversations regarding the
need for a mix of housing options."
6/7/2010
Cathy Bennett
cathycbennett@frontiernet.net
612-670-8147
httpa//minnesota.uli.org/
ULI Minnesota
Miineso
Regional
Council cat
ft5
6/3/2010
14
Agenda Information Memo
Eagan City Council Workshop
June 8, 2010
IV. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT UPDATE/REVIEW — CITY OF EAGAN
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
> To receive staff analysis of expired but not terminated Planned Developments (PD)
that have completed less than 75% of the PD and to provide direction to City staff
regarding further review of extending or modifying said PD's.
FACTS:
> As a one of its 2007-2008 Goals, the City Council directed the preparation of an
analysis of the City's PD's to form the basis for a review by the Advisory Planning
Commission and City Council, to determine whether any of the PD's that had
exceeded their terms should be extended, modified or terminated.
> While PD's have terms, they do not expire at the conclusion of the term. Rather they
remain in place unless or until they are extended, modified or terminated by an action
of the City Council.
➢ The City Council received a preliminary analysis of the status of existing incomplete
PD's with an expired term in February 2008. At that time, the City Council directed
staff to reach out to the PD holders with less than 75% completion in an attempt to
ascertain the current wishes of the owners. All but one PD holder asked for an
extension.
➢ The City Council reviewed the list of expired PD's in May of 2008 and directed staff
to review and provide analysis to the 75% complete group and report findings back.
➢ The outcome/direction from the May 13, 2008 City Council Workshop is listed
below:
1. For PDs that are under 50% complete, they should be forwarded to the APC for
consideration with a staff report and input from the owners.
2. For PDs that are between 50% and 75% complete, they should be analyzed by
staff and the outcome of the analysis to be forwarded to the City Council for
direction before being forwarded to the APC for action.
3. For PDs that are more than 75% complete, they should be provided extensions
through Council Action.
.-a
Agenda Information Memo
June 8, 2010 Eagan City Council Workshop
Page 2 of 2
4. Staff shall also prepare a process and timeline to conduct an annual review to see
whether any other PDs exceed their terms and, depending upon the percentage of
completion they are at, process them as outlined above.
➢ PD's that have expired since 2008 have been incorporated in the analysis document
attached to this item.
➢ As the City Council may recall, according to the PD holders, the primary factor
affecting development is market conditions. Additionally, development strategies are
being or will be undertaken in the near term as the larger property holders internally
look at 10-20 year master development plans.
➢ The City Attorney has stated that action to merely extend the term of an existing PD
can be processed by the City Council without action by the APC. However, any
action to change/remove a PD zoning first requires a Public Hearing and
recommendation by the APC.
➢ When the Council reviewed the Planned Development last, staff was asked to
research the PD review processes used by other cities to determine if there was any
consistency or best practices that can be applied to the process in Eagan. A number
of cities were contacted and responses crossed the spectrum from no review with the
PD zoning remaining in place until developed or replaced by subsequent development
application to no review with PDs terminating automatically upon the expiration of
their terms. As a consequence, staff has based this review on the previous direction
by the City Council to identify PDs that are reaching the end of their initial term since
the last review and to base the follow up on the plan on the percentage and nature of
development that has been completed on the basis of the original plan.
ATTACHMENTS: (2)
Map of City showing subject PD locations on page O(
Planning analysis by PD on pages o� S through 33
a3
APPLE VALLEY
Planned Development Area
Location Map
410/°.(Ity of
1. Compri Hotel
2. Eagan Preserve
3. Eagan Woods Office Park
4. Eagan Woods Office Park 2M
5. Effress Addition
6. Nichols Park
7. Nlcols Ridge
8. Oakview Center
9. West Publishing
0 0.5 1
2Mlles
Planned Development Update
1. Compri Hotel
The Compri Hotel PD was approved in 1986. The PD consists of two lots on
approximately 5 acres. The Crown Plaza Hotel exists on Lot 1; Lot 2 was approved
for a restaurant use as
part of the PD.
However, a PD
Amendment was
PILOT KNOB-R0-LOCP____. _..
... _- RAMP
approved in early 2000 "` ` LAIR'
allowing a hotel
(Hawthorne Suites) on
the undeveloped lot.
Lot 2 remains vacant.
The owner has
requested an extension
in the term of the PD
and no change to the
allowed use (hotel).
BUFFET WA
r:
4..
a`J
r%tivacaRt
Parcel
CORPORATE CENTER BR
Summary/Recommendation:
The owner would like to maintain the PD/hotel use for the site. The site appears
most suitable for a hotel or office and no change is warranted.
as
2. Eagan Preserve
PD was approved in
September 2005 with
a 5 term that will
expire this year. The
PD consists of two
lots, one for the
completed 25,000
square foot Yankee
Professional
Building and one 1.7
acre vacant lot
intended for two
restaurant pads.
-s -
YANKEE DOODLE 110 �-
p
Summary/Recommendation:
.05
LYANKEE S DDAM 4.
0
NI
The owner has been unable to secure any restaurant interest to date; however, the
owner would like to maintain the PD approval. While staff has fielded calls
regarding an interest in the site for a possible office use, these discussions have not
progressed to any degree so maintaining the restaurant use appears reasonable.
3. Eagan Woods Office Park
The Eagan Woods Office Park was approved in 1985. The PD consisted of one lot
and two outlots on approximately 20 acres. The 95,000 SF Eagan Woods Office
building exists on Lot 1.
Outlot A was approved for
a Raintree Hotel in 1999
but was never built.
Outlot B is also vacant and
was intended to develop
with an office building;
this parcel subsequently
became part of Eagan
Woods Office Park 2nd.
Summary/Recommendation:
Since development of the hotel is highly unlikely, future development will require
review and approval by the APC and City Council. Due to the topography and
existing woodlands, development as a PD is preferred; no change warranted at this
time.
a7
4. Eagan Woods Office Park 2nd
The Eagan Woods Office Park 2nd Planned Development was approved in 1995. The
PD consisted of one lot and two developable outlots on approximately 31 acres. The
Old Country Buffet Headquarters (OCB) Master Plan called for the OCB
headquarters, an additional office building, a hotel and a training restaurant. The
98,000 SF HQ building exists on Lot 1. A 24,000 SF office building (Venture Bank)
was constructed on
Outlot B (Lot 1,
Block 1, Corporate
Woods) in 2005. A
LaQuinta Hotel was
approved but never
built on Outlot C
(now Lots 1 & 2,
Block 1, Manley
Commons 1st
Addition).
Subsequently, a
Holiday gas and
convenience store
was approved and
constructed. A
retail use was also
approved for Lot 2,
Block 1, Manley
Commons 1st Addition; this parcel remains vacant.
Summary/Recommendation:
Office development via a PD is preferred; no changes are warranted.
5. Effress Second Addition
The Effress Second Addition Planned Development was approved in 2000. The PD
consisted of three lots and
continuation of the multi -
building Glen Pond
apartment development.
Effress Second provided
for four additional
apartment buildings.
One of the lots was
developed separately as
the Birchwood Office
Condos.
one outlot on approximately 25 acres. The PD provided a
Summary/Recommendation:
Since approval of the PD and construction of two of the four apartment buildings
has occurred, the Northwood Parkway Overpass and Draft Comprehensive Plan
Update were completed. The Draft Update contemplates intensification and re -use
in the Central Area and the new direct connection to The Promenade area presents
an interesting spin on development potential.
Although the owner currently does not intend to proceed with the remaining
development at this time; they have indicated their desire to keep the PD intact. As
such, no change is warranted; however, the City should expect the possibility of the
remaining undeveloped property being perceived in a different light, depending on
the ultimate developer.
a19
6. Nichols Park
The Nichols Park PD was created in 2001. As a consequence of the City eliminating
the Roadside Business (RB) Zoning Category, a PD was created for this eight acre
parcel. The PD provides for commercial uses that typically serve the traveling
public, e.g. hotel,
restaurant, which mirror
the allowed uses in the
now defunct RB Zoning
District. The entire site is
vacant and the owner has
indicated recently that a
mixed use
(apartment/retail) may be
more marketable.
Summary/Recommendation:
The owner believes a mixed-use development is most suitable for the site and area;
however, financial support for such a project, given the current and foreseeable
market conditions, will likely not be available for some time. As such, no change
appears warranted at this time.
7. Nicols Ridge
The Nicols Ridge PD was approved in 2001. The PD consisted of 230 attached
residential units on 26 acres.
Redevelopment Area
and the City and
developer entered
into a TIF
Development
Agreement. To
date, 48 row
townhomes and
one condo building
(14 units) has
been constructed.
The downturn in
the economy has
essentially
brought
development to a
standstill and the
City is currently
negotiating with the current owner (Lennar)
possible land acquisition.
The site is located within the Cedar Grove
Summary/Recommendation:
future development phases and
The intensity of development approved in the original Planned Development will
most likely not be realized. Lennar has stated that they no longer construct the
condo -type of units previously developed. An incomplete application to amend the
Planned Development has been submitted. As such, any modification to the
existing PD would be premature at this time.
8. Oakview Center
The Oakview Center PD was approved in 1998. The PD consisted of eight lots on
approximately 15 acres.
restaurant,
convenience gas,
strip retail and an
Development to date has included of a hotel, Class II
office building.
Two of the
remaining three
undeveloped
parcels were
combined into a
single parcel in
2006 as part of an
approval to develop
another hotel.
Economic issues
have caused the
hotelier to pull back
on that project
Summary/Recommendation:
There does not appear to be any reason to change the PD approved uses for the
vacant parcels.
3a
9. West Publishing
The West Publishing PD was approved in 1990 and consisted of approximately 260
acres. The bulk of the property had been part of the Gopher -Eagan Industrial Park
Planned Development that was established in 1976. Development to date has
included 1.2 million SF of single -story warehouse/manufacturing buildings, a
100,000 SF two-story office building (Lot 1, Block 1, West Publishing Company 2nd
Addition), a 1.3
million SF six -story
office building (Lot
1, Block 1, West
Publishing
Company 4th
Addition) and an
approximately
300,000 SF of data
center (Lot 1, Block
1, West Publishing
Company 7th
Addition).
Approximately 90
acres are
undeveloped outlots
(B & C, West
Publishing 4th
Addition.)
•ICpJ
1U 1
J
•
-- YANKEE-DOODtE-RO
‘kil 01714;
ldq;111-
-
Summary/Recommendation:
The sheer size of the Thomson Reuters campus and the technology needs of the
company require innovation and flexibility so growth needs can be met. As such, no
change to the PD is recommended. However, staff will continue to encourage TR
representatives to take a fresh look and consider an overall update to the base PD
that is now twenty years old.
Agenda Information Memo
Special Eagan City Council Meeting
June 8, 2010
V. FRANCHISE ENFORCEMENT AND
LONG-RANGE E -TV FINANCING
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Provide direction on public policy questions and
expectations for Eagan franchise enforcement and Eagan Television financial
performance.
FACTS:
• When Burnsville and Eagan mutually dissolved its partnership in the former
Burnsville Eagan Community Television (BECT) operation, one of the byproducts
was dissolution of the previous franchise enforcement method.
• There are a variety of options for how Eagan can enforce its franchise going forward
through the end of its term in early 2015, and handle resident subscriber complaints.
If directed, staff can prepare the pro's and con's of the various options and report
back, or if desired, briefly discuss those options with Council this evening to discover
its preferences.
• Because of recent FCC and Federal Court decisions, there have been changes too in
how a municipality may spend the Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG) fee
dollars it receives. This affects both negatively and positively the long-range
financing for Eagan Television (E -TV).
• Communications Director Garrison will briefly discuss those financial projections,
the implications for operations, and the public policy questions on which staff seeks
direction, as outlined below.
PUBLIC POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Would the City Council like to discuss franchise governance options this evening
or like staff to come back with options and pros and cons? (Options include
Council as hearing authority, a cable commission, a modified commission with
Councilmember, City Administrator and one other citizen that meets when
necessary, etc.)
2. Unlike some other cities, the Eagan City Council and staff have consistently
retainined franchise fees over the years and used them for cable access,
communications and telecommunications reasons, and not diverted funding to the
general fund. Is the City Council comfortable with maintaining the current
funding approach to Eagan Television operations? (See attached graphic showing
use of funds.)
3. Does the City Council wish to continue to share the mobile production truck with
Burnsville, buy its own truck, or buy out Burnsville's stake and perhaps lease
3y
back capacity to Burnsville and other Dakota County cities who have sports or
special events needs?
4. Finally, are there any other long-term expectations the Council has for E -TV that
should factor into staff planning?
ATTACHMENTS:
• Chart of E -TV fund utilization and PEG and Franchise fee balances on page
• Graphic showing current uses of franchise and PEG funds on page 3?
3W
2013 2014
O 0
O O S
!M1 fV N N N O O
suo!II!IN $
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
O
0
N
Old FCC Rules
New FCC Rules
Franchise Fees
Peg Fees
Franchise Fees
Peg Fees
Sources:
Sources:
Franchise Fee
Subscriber Fees
Franchise Fee
Subscriber Fees
Uses:
Uses:
% necessary to
100% available to
% necessary to fund
Amount to cover
fund BECT/BETC
BECT/BETC
remaining E -TV costs
eligible E -TV costs
Operations
Operations
(Increases from old
rules)
(Decreases from old
rules)
General Fund
Communications
General Fund
Eligible costs limited to
Department
Infrastructure:
Communications
Department
certain capital and
only certain
operational costs
*Fiber Conduit
Infrastructure:
*Fiber
*Fiber Conduit
*City Council and
*Fiber
Eagan Room
*City Council and
Technology
Eagan Room
*Conference Room
Technology
Technology
*Conference Room
Technology
Balance:
Balance:
Retained in fund
None available
Retained in fund
Retained in fund
balance for future
balance for future
balance for future
appropriation
appropriation
(Decreases from old
rules)
appropriation for eligible
expenditure items
(Increases from old
rules)
37
Agenda Information Memo
June 8, 2010, Special Eagan City Council Meeting
VI. RECEIVE UPDATE ON 2011 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
This is an information/discussion item and no specific action is required.
FACTS:
• In late April, staff began the 2011 budget process and Department Directors
are preparing 2011 budget proposals for the various divisions and
departments. The General Fund and Civic Arena proposals currently are to
be submitted to the City Administrator by June 18, 2010. Following
submission, budgets will be reviewed by the staff budget team with
departmental meetings beginning in late June and continuing into July.
• The City Administrator's recommended budget is scheduled to be presented
to the City Council for formal and detailed review on August 9 at the special
meeting.
• As a starting point, Directors have been instructed to prepare budgets that are
limited to a 2% increase to the non -personnel sections from the approved
2010 department non -personnel budgets. In the personnel section the
preliminary budgets prepared at the department level will include step
adjustments and only the changes to benefit levels that are in place, e.g.
PERA contributions. Preliminary budgets will not include any other changes
in compensation and no additional personnel are to be included in the
department budgets.
• Staff is approaching the budget preparation with the City Council's Budget /
Fiscal 2009 — 2010 Goal in mind to "Maintain the City's long standing fiscally
conservative budgeting approach through the creation of sustainable and
independent long term budgets".
• The budget team and department directors will be working to develop public
policy questions for City Council deliberation at subsequent meetings. While
the appropriate time to address the various items will vary, issues with policy
implications for the budget and tax levy include the following:
o The City's declining tax base
3S
o The impact on tax capacity and cash flow resulting from tax court
challenges to estimated property values (primarily commercial /
industrial)
o Levy limits, loss of Market Value Homestead Credit and special levies
o The need for budgets to be practicable in the short-term while
sustainable for the long-term
o Developing a proper balance between resources dedicated to
operations and to infrastructure and equipment; potential reallocation
of costs and/or tax revenues
o Increases to PERA contribution rates and potentially to health
insurance costs
o Implementation of Normal Costs for post retirement health insurance
o Contract negotiations
o Organizational and departmental rightsizing
o Potential levy for Fire Station construction
o Consideration of a new levy for the Park Site Acquisition &
Development Fund
o Potential adjustments to 2010 Budget
• The other Enterprise Fund operating budgets including Water, Sanitary
Sewer, Storm Drainage, Water Quality, Street Lighting, Community Center,
and Cascade Bay are due to the budget team on September 3 and are
tentatively scheduled to be presented to the City Council on October 12.
• Capital budgets including the Part II (Vehicles & Equipment) CIP and General
Facilities Renewal & Replacement are also being prepared at this time and
are due on June 18.
• This budget cycle will continue the process used over the last four years of
enhancing the budget to become a better and more comprehensive planning,
policy, and communications tool through recommendations of the
Government Finance Officers Association.
ATTACHMENTS: ,
• Enclosed on page 140
' 1 is a copy of the revised 2010 Budget Calendar.
Budget Calendar
Revised 6-04-2010
April 27 Kickoff meeting
April 28 Budget documents distributed to departments:
June 8 Brief budget process update to Council at Special CC
meeting
June 18 Deadline for General Fund departments, Civic Arena,
and E -TV
June 21 — early -July Budget team meets with Departments to review requests
Finance prepares preliminary revenue estimates
July 27 (tentative) City Council reviews/approves Civic Arena budget and
reviews status of General Fund budget
August 9 City Administrator's recommended General Fund budget
presented to Council at special meeting
September 3 Deadline for Utilities, Cascade Bay, ECC and ECV
September 7 City Council approves preliminary levy at regular meeting
Or
September 14 City Council approves preliminary levy at special meeting
September 15 Preliminary levy certified to County
October 12 (tentative) City Administrator's Enterprise Fund and ECVB budgets
presented
Early -December Truth -in -Taxation hearing
Mid -December Final 2011 budget and levy adopted by Council
Note: Council may elect to conduct budget open house(s) sometime in the fall.
Special City Council Workshop
June 8, 2010
VII. REVIEW MUNICIPAL CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: No formal action is needed. Staff is seeking comment
from the Council on the proposed master plan for the Municipal Center Campus.
FACTS:
• The presentation of the proposed master plan for the Municipal Center Campus is
intended to serve as a check point with the City Council and an opportunity for the
Council to provide comment to staff. No projects are currently being proposed.
Comments will be used to guide future renewal and replacement projects.
• The proposed master plan was completed by consultants from SEH during the spring
of 2008 in preparation for the 2009 budget cycle. Input was gathered from staff in
nearly every department. The goals of the plan included:
o Consider an increase in plantings on the Municipal Center Campus in order to
reach current development standards.
o Consider the addition of a number of water infiltration and environmentally
friendly technologies such as pervious pavement, rain gardens, and a green
roof.
o Consider methods to increase the ease of traffic movement for pedestrians,
bicyclists and vehicles including peak use times of Cascade Bay and Civic
Arena facilities.
o Address a number of other requests for changes to the campus such as an
outdoor seating area near City Hall, additional picnic space for Cascade Bay
users, and a trail connection between upper and lower City Hall parking lots.
• The plan was completed by the consultants but no action was taken at the time due to
impending budget constraints.
• Staff will present the master plan and answer questions at the workshop.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Design renderings and cost estimates are included on pages 4 too
z/1
0
c
0
06
a.)E
0
143
H
q
m
X
w
Proposed Signs
111 i b
11
. 1119,
li \
, $
! ' * K-.4 *
,n,: -741,s,
osi..._
_......,,,,
__..
_.....
-.Imieff
W.'
-el
rr
....
11..MIIIA
r
__;
•
c_. s - I ---
1 ,,-
I 1 '.'te , ___
1 , - --4.--- r' --•
a— (,- 77 ------ ----- ------ .
s' ' --•-,
1 —
- 1
1
-------'14? 1 • ,/-'
-2'-4 -.1 1
i ''''‘; . • a . 0
-4,
de,
,/,''Y ..:\r".-,_. j ____ _ ,,,N,,, .1111.2iii,,iu\ Ili (5
t
1 1 ...: -;;,-., „„ ,, „,„,,,,,, ,.,
, -
I, II i
..,.../ ,,
$., L
11 -:
$ 4 71 i
t../ ..., _ ___5 „ 1 •I.
P. ...
41 / --------
411
fS-
it
1
1 g
W4.1\ d.41:2 APO
;;•,,
4i‘
4.-...-4f4C,h4,5tot4f;
a • . • LATIMIgi
3
a
E
C3 c
00
>
c'5
CE
OYT
.0 a
c
8
LU
0
1 24444114:,
VA
4.‘
8 1
§
d/'
§ g
tg.
gt AE2
pood goo lopd
LID Improvements
47
5.
Eagan, Minnesota
J
c
E
• 0
U�
0o
_Q a)
U o
"C E
Lu
c Q
N
00
O a
w •-4-
O1
V
City of Eagan Municipal Campus
Eagan, MN
Preliminary Cost Estimate
File No. Eagan - 101671
24 -Oct -08
Page 1
Lig
Unit
Qty
Unit Price
Cost
Entry A Municipal Building
Mobilization
LS
1
$43,100.00
$43,100
Demolition
LS
1
$15,000.00
$15,000
Excavation
CY
5,000
$11.00
$55,000
Colored Concrete @ Front Entry
SF
10,050
$6.00
$60,300
Porous Pavement
SY
4,000
$60.00
$240,000
Rock Infiltration Bed under Porous Pavement
CY
4,100
$25.00
$102,500
Filter Fabric under Porous Pavement
SY
4,000
$10.00
$40,000
4" Concrete Trail
SF
12,500
$3.25
$40,625
Utility - Stormwater
LS
1
$35,000.00
$35,000
Landscape - Trees
LS
1
$34,100.00
$34,100
Rain Gardens/Bio-Swales @ Nose of Parking Median
SF
2,500
$2.15
$5,375
Turf Restoration
LS
1
$2,500.00
$2,500
Deck Outside Employee Lunchroom
LS
1
$35,000.00
$35,000
Site Amenities ( Benches/Litter Receptacles/Planters)
LS
1
$15,000.00
$15,000
Boardwalk over Rain Garden/Bio-Swales
SF
200
$65.00
$13,000
Pergola
SF
3,675
$50.00
$183,750
Lighting - Bollards
EA
10
$2,000.00
$20,000
Subtotal
$940,250
LID Im .rovements
Mobilization
LS
1
$41,000.00
$41,000
Demolition
LS
1
$20,000.00
$20,000
Excavation
CY
8,000
$11.00
$88,000
Porous Pavement
SY
5,850
$60.00
$351,000
Rock Infiltration Bed under Porous Pavement
CY
8,000
$25.00
$200,000
Filter Fabric under Porous Pavement
SY
5,850
$10.00
$58,500
Utility - Stormwater
LS
1
$60,000.00
$60,000
Landscape - Trees
LS
1
$35,650.00
$35,650
Rain Gardens/Bio-Swales
SF
1,950
$2.15
$4,193
Turf Restoration
LS
1
$2,500.00
$2,500
Subtotal
$860,843
Parking Areas - Recreational Uses
Mobilization
LS
1
$53,700.00
$53,700
Demolition
LS
1
$25,000.00
$25,000
Excavation
CY
3,000
$11.00
$33,000
Colored Concrete - Crosswalks, entry @ Eagan Civic Arena
SF
27,125
$6.00
$162,750
6" Concrete @ front Eagan Civic Arena & Cascade Bay Parking Lots
SF
90,300
$7.00
$632,100
4" Concrete Trail
SF
12,500
$3.25
$40,625
Utility - Stormwater
LS
1
$125,000.00
$125,000
Landscape - Trees
LS
1
$44,650.00
$44,650
Rain Gardens/Bio-Swales @ entry of Eagan Civic Arena
SF
11,250
$2.15
$24,188
Turf Restoration
LS
1
$1,500.00
$1,500
Site Amenities ( Benches/Litter Receptacles)
LS
1
$10,000.00
$10,000
Subtotal
$1,152,513
Page 1
Lig
City of Eagan Municipal Campus
Eagan, MN
Preliminary Cost Estimate
File No. Eagan - 101671
24 -Oct -08
Unit l Qty. 1 Unit Price 1 Cost
Cascade Bay/Library Improvements
Mobilization
LS
1
$25,000.00
$25,000
Demolition
LS
1
$15,000.00
$15,000
Excavation
CY
5,000
$11.00
$55,000
Colored Concrete @ Crosswalks
SF
2,150
$6.00
$12,900
4" Concrete Trail
SF
10,000
$3.25
$32,500
Stairs - Stone Slab
LS
1
$50,000.00
$50,000
Utility - Stormwater
LS
1
$35,000.00
$35,000
Landscape - Trees
LS
1
$25,550.00
$25,550
Turf Restoration
LS
1
$2,000.00
$2,000
Building Re -location
LS
1
$15,000.00
$15,000
Site Amenities ( Tables, Picnic Tables, Benches, Litter Receptacles)
LS
1
$55,000.00
$55,000
Water Feature @ Future Display Space
LS
1
$50,000.00
$50,000
Pergola
SF
2,650
$50.00
$132,500
Lighting - Bollards/Uplighting
LS
1
$15,000.00
$15,000
Subtotal
$520,450
Green Roofs
Mobilization
LS
1
$13,000.00
$13,000
Demolition
LS
1
$5,000.00
$5,000
Public Safety - Green Roof
SF
7,525
$25.00
$188,125
City Hall - Green Roof
SF
2,510
$25.00
$62,750
Subtotal
$268,875
Total Estimated Project Costs
Total Phase 1
$940,250
Total Phase 2
$860,843
Total Phase 3
$1,152,513
Total Phase 4
$520,450
Total Phase 5
$268,875
Sub -Total
$3,742,930
27% Contigency
$1,010,591
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (ALL ELEMENTS)
$4,753,521
Note:
Contingency includes 12% soft cost engineering, final design and 15% construction costs.
Page 2
49