HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999.10.12 PACKET CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
• ECONOMIC
Secretary
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
AGENDA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1999
7:30 A.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of September 14, 1999 Minutes
• 4. Business Items
A. Project Updates
B. Golf Outing-2000 Plans
C. Marketing/Advertising Updates
D. Metro East
E. Stormwater Design—Industrial Park
F. Livable Communities Grant Application
G. EDA Strategic Plan
H. Senior Housing
I. Year 2000 Road Improvements/Wakota Bridge Update
J. Fiscal Impact Analysis Update
5. Miscellaneous Business Items
• 6. Chamber Business Meetings
7. Adjourn
Next Meeting Date: November 9, 1999
• City of Cottage Grove
•
Memo
To: Economic Development Authority Members
From: Michelle A. Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator ,k
Date: 10/07/99
Re: Project Updates Item 4A
METRO EAST
We responded to one Request for Proposal in September. This was for a 30,000 —
50,000 square foot building, light industrial (paper products.) This was just submitted to
Metro East on September 27. I spoke with the broker, and he was very impressed with
• our proposal. He is meeting with the owner on Friday, and he hopes to narrow down to
a few sites to visit. I may hear from him again prior to Tuesday's meeting. At this time,
this appears to be promising.
As far as the proposals we previously submitted, the following information is available:
• 75,000 sf building, heavy industrial handling and storage equipment (submitted late
August The client was provided with proposals, but have not yet responded back to
MEDP. The client is looking in seven states.
• 2-acre office/warehouse, international (submitted late August): The CEO and his
representative here conducted site visits on their own on September 1. Apparently
they were pleased with the Metro East sites, but have not made any decisions yet.
• 120,000-180,000 office/showroom/warehouse (submitted mid-August): Last we
heard, they were concentrating on West Metro, but haven't eliminated Metro East
sites from consideration. There has not been any new information to report this
past month.
• Fortune 100 company: Most recent information was that they were still compiling
their database of information about possible sites. It is believed they are
concentrating on the west metro locations.
• Metal galvanizing (originally submitted January; a site visit occurred in late June):
They have slowed down their process, and seem to now be looking at western
• locations.
F:\GROUPS\PER_ECON\MA\MEDA Memos\Oct 99 Proj Update.doc
• Transportation headquarters, 15,000-20,000 sq. ft building (submitted late March):
The client hired a broker after meeting with MEDP, and the process seems to have •
slowed. They have not been willing to provide information to MEDP.
• 85,000 square foot hair/skin care (submitted mid-July): Last we heard, as reported
last month, they are interested in another community.
In addition, we are expecting a new RFP to come in within one week. This will be for a
growing company with 160 employees currently, planning to add 40 more in the near
future. If we receive the RFP prior to the meeting, we will be able to provide you with
more information.
HOTEL/RESTAURANT/OFFICE
The developer is currently interviewing traffic consultants. It is expected that the study
could be underway in a couple of weeks.
POST OFFICE
Planning staff met with the post office designer and engineer last month. Plans will be
revised to include some on-site ponding. This will require purchase of additional
property and new survey work. This will delay the final plat application.
GROVE PLAZA
Staff is meeting with representatives from EBL&S and KKE on Thursday, October 7.
We will be able to provide you with a verbal update at the EDA meeting. •
API
A site visit was conducted on Wednesday, October 6. Staff, Mayor Denzer, and
Councilmember Wolcott toured the current APi facility and talked with management
representatives. We will provide a verbal update at the EDA meeting.
OFFICE MANAUFACTURING
On September 21, we responded to an inquiry from a commercial broker. This would
be for 15,000 square foot building, with possible future expansion to 30,000. We sent a
proposal to the broker, and will be visiting the current location on October 7. At that
time, we will be able to go over our proposal in greater detail. We will provide a verbal
update to you at the EDA meeting.
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE PROJECT
A site plan was submitted to the Planning Department for review. The plan shows
phase one construction of 44,000 s.f.
DTED REQUEST FOR INFORMATON
In July we responded to a request for information issued by DTED. This was on behalf
of a food processing company looking for an existing facility to purchase or land on
which to build a new facility. In follow-up discussions with DTED, I learned that the
company is focusing on responses that included an existing facility. If those do not
meet their needs, they will then look at vacant land to build a new facility. Therefore, I
think this is a long shot. There is nothing new to report on this project. •
F:\GROUPS\PER_ECON\MAW\EDA Memos\Oct 99 Proj Update.doc
MURPHY WAREHOUSE
• No new information is available as of this writing.
MISCELLANEOUS
• Worked with an individual interested in opening a bar and grill restaurant.
• Majestic Antiques is in transition, we can update you at the meeting.
• There is a conceptual development layout being developed for the vacant
commercial property next to Menards. We anticipate seeing this in about two
weeks.
• Office remodeling of former Soft Toppe building is progressing.
As usual, we will attempt to get any updates possible regarding any of these projects
between now and the meeting on October 12.
•
•
F:\GROUPS\PER_ECON\MA\MEDA Memos\Oct 99 Proj Update.doc
City of Cottage Grove
Memo
To: Economic Development Authority Members
From: Michelle A. Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator ( 4t }N
Date: 10/04/99
Re: EDA Golf Tournament Item 4B
The Chamber Golf Tournament was held on September 21. It was my understanding
that after the Chamber event had occurred, the EDA would re-visit the question of
whether or not to have a joint golf tournament in 2000. The decision is probably needed
soon, as there is a June date on hold for a joint event. If the decision were to hold
• separate events, one of the groups would have to schedule a date at River Oaks.
a
\\CG_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\PER_ECON\MAW\EDA Memos\Oct 99 Golf.doc
City of Cottage Grove
•
Memo
To: Economic Development Authority Members
From: Michelle A. Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator
Date: 10/07/99
Re: Marketing/Advertising Update Item 4C
ADVERTISING PLAN FOR 2000
• As of this week, we have not yet received all of the 2000 editorial calendars. However,
we expect them within a week, and plan to study them and bring a recommendation to
you for the November meeting.
COMMUNITY MAP
Staff has been talking with the Chamber regarding a possible joint venture in producing
a community map. Jeff Patterson is putting together some information which we hope to
have prior to the EDA meeting, but do not have as of this writing. Attached is a copy of
a sample map from Hastings. It has been proposed that perhaps the EDA would fund
part of the cost of the map. Staff would like to discuss this concept with the EDA at the
meeting October 12.
METRO EAST DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP (MEDP)
City Administrator Schroeder and I met with Executive Director David Piggott and
discussed a variety of issues. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss the
possibility or some cooperative advertising, and to see if there were any improvements
that could be made in how Cottage Grove responds to requests for proposals. Mr.
Piggott stated the Cottage Grove's proposals were very well done, and did not have any
major suggestions for improvement.
F:\GROUPS\PER ECON\MAVV\EDA Memos\Oct 99 Market.doc
In terms of cooperative advertising, Mr. Piggott indicated that he would discuss this with
other member cities. In addition, he advised us of some of the marketing efforts MEDP •
has planned. These include a big effort on their WEB Page, attendance at a trade show
next fall (150,000 attendees!), continued print advertising in the Minnesota Real Estate
Journal Leasing Guide, and some major direct mail efforts. In addition, they are working
on some new programs, such as a matching grant program, some new efforts attracting
high-tech businesses, and comprehensive plan meetings.
Overall, it appears the MEDP is working to diversify their marketing approach. We will
continue to support MEDP's efforts and work with them to make sure our marketing
program is complementary to theirs.
In September, MEDP produced a special inse
rt to the Minnesota Real Estate Journal. I
will bring it to the meeting for your review. Attached is a copy of the article that was
written about Cottage Grove. Note our ad in the bottom right corner; this is a new ad
design that we have just begun using recently.
Attachments
111
F:\GROUPS\PER ECON\MAW\EDA Memos\Oct 99 Market.doc
Page 8 •Metro East Special Insert• September 6,1999
0 -.: Renewal By Andersen Opens New Facilityin
Cottage Grove
enewal by Andersen,a subsidiary of
dersen Corporation recently cele-
brated the grand opening of its new 227,000
square foot manufacturing and headquarters ,• "...
facility in Cottage Grove.The new facility
is located on 30 acres in the Cartage Grove
Industrial Park at 9900 Jamaica Avenue
South. The site was selected in May 1998 f J n
and Renewal broke ground in July. The ,. ... �'•
facility houses the fabrication.assembly and
support services for the business. Current-
-- ly.180 associates woh atthe new facility
which is on track to employ 300 within two ,,, x
years.minding more prodtsoon jobs.
Renewal by Andersen began as a pilot s.
• tIP!!
in 1995 to provide homeowners -
ple, solutions far replacingblem ws. The business offersrs ato-finish process thats in hales consultation,mea• .�■—andation an of c menti winraise .on and wa�ties ms and .anufacMmg facility began operas-
ing on March 29 and the office staff moved
in on May 10.A window is typically man- ___ _
ufactured and shipped to the Renewal by
Andersen retailer three weeks after order
confimtation.
Elsewhere in Cottage Grove,3M Contin- _ f,
ued expanding at their facility. They have
3> spent over 5140 million in the past two years
y on remodeling. Now in their 51st year in
Cottage Grove,3M's facility now includes •4
36 buildings with 1,350.000 square feet on i
1,750 acres. The plant has 850 employees
r with wages and benefits exceeding S50 mil-
_ lion annually. a ._-. .
• •
• ...
..,
'" , City of Cottage Grove
4 Economic Development Authority
k laillicer
,
4 IL, __ ____
••.. _ .
..
, _
__. ,__ • _ ,..,
Trying to solve the r�°a 1 /13C111. ,
a� [ In J
i
real estate puzzle? T...
CRESA Partners,formerly Tobin Real Estate Company,
offers real estate services to corporations nationwide: 3M 11 Building
g
•strategic evaluation
•objective negotiation ' on
•skillful implementation •
., - Success■
1
PARTNERS
terpane rid mase swage Mals,
Call Michelle Wolfe at(651)458-2882 to
612.337.8498 oppotunities.
exploregrowth
P your
k
• rt-
•
lik
• - Carlson Wagonlit, •
WI OPs SERVICEPARTS. c.
Suntime Travel lII' Quality Parts for Tractors _ilU ,�,
Competitive Prices
UE
. "Call the VACATION EXPERTS today!" -AUTO PARTS
1 - Nursing Hesse : 51) 4'37-7015 'Serving you is our specialty"
plans. 42541700 SStiDgS, X 62--4212437-3139
_ 112 ven„iNion -
1
437 3 39
mc, . Hastings,MN 55033
651 1� Riva WI �Vi `, 95
Falls,( X80.4 "' .
AUGUSTANA HOME OF MASTICS' 1' I !I goo Ialh SL.W.Hsk 451437.6176 ;x'
ter 118 East tad St a Haab ,MN
obstetrics axe BEST IN LONGTERM PROFESSIONAL CARE N. J4..
. .. iwdodt *Administered in an atmosphere at respect&Christian dignil)f lb
}C° c •itAec6cere CtartAed +SOelf Chaplain �p
Site 3 . •Private&Semi-Private Rooms +Exceptionally Clean e•* •
Campbell •P.T..0.11 Speech 11terapy -.•Recently remodeled
. WI 'Celebrating 30 Ways o1Service to the art [,'bdrs
!Is
-- J4rgusoena Care Corporation(non-profit)affiliate. 0••4
DCK Enterprises
' --.,-w.
w a ' z
Laurie l(alland (651)480 2144
LEGEND Joe Drexler
rn US Hwy Hospital Insurance Agency
0 State Hwyz. 1 223 Sibley St.,Hastings
® imiGov't Center
CO.Roads
Bike Trail Library MERICAN FAMILY
(on road) Call Joe...
Bike Trail 71kSchools 438-3646 AMC NOME 61ISMESSHEALTH LEEe
(off road)
Public Parks
Post Office
Aquatic Center l
�1 i_ Cemetery General Bldgs.
Thomas Ellis
t- IIP Funeral Home
• Established 1955
r� 1 1 ®a Pece'aobligation�';
4.
m g -\�j ` compete crenation services.
4100 street
_ _.T__ E.4111 sT. nps,llAinnesota 55033.651 X37.3752
i,� ,...--105-,,,,„ Thomas M.Elks,Director
; a
"... --..;-1‘-'''
)
. ST.
is „ , ,s - 1ICiI c�
'fid -+.r. -\ _ s.._
Authorized Service Cerner 151.437-9613
Hoffman Radio &Television Inc.
APY ..'• ;`.
i �. Sales & Service
.tar+
,...'..��' gt., � _ 1222 Vermilion St Hastings. MN•Midtown Center
• Sound Lodging De siom'
you need to get tg in Mae;
7p a
Indoor Pod 8 HotTitb
... _ ''table TV•Air • • .
-*Ion-Smoking Rooms
_ MINNESOTA SC- ,, RICK
1 VETERANPS - _
' HOME :�• r-K -_—_ OF HAS 1NOS
=� 2400 Vermilion St.
i (851)4374877
__� Steve Johnson
City of Cottage Grove
i
Memo
To: Economic Development Authority Members
From: Michelle A. Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator 17#
"V
Date: 10/04/99
Re: Labor Force Expo 99 Item 4D
Attached is a memorandum from Dan King regarding the 1999 Labor Force Expo. His
comments should be considered as we think about our continuing participation in this
event.
I would like to note the focus on business retention. I recently attended a seminar at the
110 ICMA Conference on "Best Practices in Economic Development", and one focus in the
discussion was business retention. This may be an area where we can continue to
become more active.
Also included in your packet is a copy of the second edition of"How to Stop Employee
Turnover", which was provided to Expo participants. Staff plans to use this information
as a resource when we receive calls from local businesses.
Attachments
•
\\CG FS1\SYS\GROUPS\PER ECON\MAW\EDA Memos\Oct 99 Golf.doc
• Ik NI.
CTTY OF COTTAGE GROVE
Memo
To: Economic Development Authority Board Members
From: Dan King ow-)
CC: Michelle Wolfe
Date: 10/04/99
Re: Labor Force Expo 99
11, The Second Annual Labor Force Expo was held this morning at the Holiday Inn
in Woodbury (off 1-94). The format was organized to have several speakers
through the morning, with resource booths staffed the entire day. The Keynote
speaker was Steve Keefe from Honeywell, who spoke on the labor shortage in
the metro area. He stressed that economic development should focus on
increasing productivity of the present workforce, retaining and training them, not
simply creating more jobs. Sounds intelligent. Other speakers addressed
issues such as childcare, working with teens, and simple retention strategies.
The speakers and resource booths were beneficial for small businesses that
could utilize the info the most. Also, the handbook on resources was given out,
and this would be very useful as a resource guide throughout the year. (we now
have 36 copies of the book "How to Stop Employee Turnover", which we can
share with areas businesses)
The turnout was about 80, an improvement from last year. It seemed to go well
and the participants appeared to appreciate the information. Follow-up evaluation
comments confirm the usefulness and appreciation for this event. It is under
consideration to expand the geographic extent of next year's event to include
more of the east metro area, which would seem like a good idea.
i
F:\GROUPS\PER_ECON\Dan\Labor Force Expo memo.doc
City of Cottage Grove
i
Memo
To: Economic Development Authority Members
From: Michelle A. Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator kyit)Date: 10/04/99
Re: Stormwater design — Industrial Park Item 4E
Attached is a copy of the agenda item recently approved by the Cottage Grove City
Council at the September 15 meeting. The EDA voted to support funding part of this
project at your September meeting. However, at that meeting, we had not been able to
provide the actual project proposal. Therefore, I am including in this packet for your
• information.
Attachment
411
F:\GROUPS\PER ECON\MAw\EDA Memos\Oct 99 Storm.doc
f, .c.fA-- q E__, I i
\))4
REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION e,je COUNCIL AGENDA
\ir-\ , MEETING ITEM #
DATE 9/15/99 / . P. 0 .
PREPARED BY: Administration Ryan Schroeder
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST:
Approve design development of drainage way and updating of comprehensive infrastructure
plan for Cottage Grove Industrial Park in the amount of$8,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve design development of drainage way and updating of comprehensive infrastructure
plan.
BUDGET IMPLICATION: $8,000
BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
❑ MEMO/LETTER: •
❑ RESOLUTION:
❑ ORDINANCE:
❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION:
❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION:
® OTHER: Glengrove Industrial Park landscape concept plan and comprehensive
infrastructure plan synopsis from BRAA.
ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS:
NIIIPty
- 0/cl'c
City Administrator Date
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER
�/ciA„QocAi- A 1.4 CU-6,6 te.,CLL- 17i cl (t.eJ;b1am: `
•
Document2
• • Glengrove Industrial Park
-_-___-----=:-/-:_ n--,71/7.--....",--'...-:;_ .7. --1,- -;:-- _.:•- lam- -rs`1y: 1 -�-����y ~v •-•47:,- --:--z..‘:_. .-:.-_.-. ,z-.4..-
___ . 2---7.‘_‘4.... :.-.. .;.__. - - 4:', i.......7:,., A
i _ __ ____ _______
_. ,_• ________._.. „ ..._,„ •,,,•_. • , a:
L,....0.7-_-_---;--;-:_- .___,_. -__--, ., , _ - -:_ ___:: --- - 1 , -- .—t--..-..::, 7. Isqz):::—-- "..iik__—* ;7....-±--- iii,- i. ' .
/ ,
_ __ - -
_ _ _ _ / r t _ •Y ----_
_ Wit- _. -A'- -----.7.---
�
• he Glengrove Industrial Park is an essential element in the city's
economic development plan. Development of this park requires the
best efforts of the developer, the future tenants, and the City of
Cottage Grove. The city is instrumental in guiding the development of
the industrial park. To aid the city in this role, we recommend that a
landscape concept plan and a comprehensive infrastructure plan be
prepared.
A landscape concept plan and comprehensive infrastructure plan will
assist the city in its role of effectively guiding the development of the
industrial park. Together, the landscape plan and infrastructure plan will
provide the tools that will not only enable the city to make the site more
visually appealing to potential tenants, but also will give Cottage Grove
the accurate infrastructure and planning information necessary to
respond quickly and efficiently to developer proposals.
We have divided the landscape concept plan and infrastructure plan into
three related but separate efforts.
J Develop a Landscape Concept Plan
An attractive landscape is inviting not only to individuals, but to
Cost: S9,400, corporations as well. The city wants to establish a landscape plan for
Funding Source: EDA Glengrove Industrial Park in which the stormwater drainage way sets the
tone for an overall plan that will help attract tenants to the park.
4111 To assist the City to achieve this affect, we will:
• Develop an existing conditions map
• Prepare a draft concept plan that::
j Glengrove Industria/Park
11 .IT .-,',.._7.ta.:P u/oVe
- Incorporates the location and size of new stormwater
management features
•
- Lays out landscape features
- Lays out plant communities
- Describes common elements
Our landscape architect will review and revise the draft concept plan
with city staff, and present the final plan to staff, EDA, and council if
requested.
Design Development of the Drainage Way
The Glengrove Industrial Park drainage way is a major component of the
Cost: S4,000, city's stormwater drainage infrastructure. The development of the design
Funding Source: details for this infrastructure will enable the city to accurately locate and
Stormwater Trunk Fund size the City's overall final stormwater facilities. As an immediate direct
benefit, the design development will:
• Facilitate development planning (building locations and building pad
information) for prospective industrial park tenants
• Expedite easement dedication and/or replatting (combining or
splitting preliminary platted lots)
• Assist in development of a final grading plan for the site
• Add a wetland/water component to the site's landscape architecture
plan
To assist the City in achieving these aims, we will:
• Develop the design of the drainage way sufficiently to establish the •
geometric detail of the facility (develop an accurate location and size).
• Work with the landscape architect to look for opportunities to
enhance the aesthetic characteristics of the drainage way with ponds
and natural stream features
• Look for opportunities to add ponding and minimize erosion
J Update Industrial Park Comprehensive
Infrastructure Plan
The ability to respond quickly to development proposals can be a deal-
Cost: $4,000, winning attribute. Because uncertainty about present and future
Funding Source: Utility infrastructure availability and locations could slow this response, it is
Trunk Funds important that the City have an infrastructure plan that is both current
and accurate. Such a document can:
• Assist with planning to accommodate development proposals
• Assist with planning for City infrastructure changes (e.g. relocation of
sanitary sewer line)
• Assist with proposed infrastructure modifications needed to
accommodate EDA development proposals
To enable the City to carry out these tasks, we will:
• Document all existing municipal utility infrastructure
• Document all proposed municipal trunk infrastructure •
► Illustrate preliminary plat information
► Illustrate preliminary grading plan information
/
Glengrove Industria/Park
1' 14)Of Jof(d.Je Jove
• City of Cottage Grove
i
Memo
To: Economic Development Authority Members
From: Michelle A. Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator
Date: 10/07/99
Re: Livable Communities Grant Application Item 4F
Attached is a copy of the application submitted by the City of Cottage Grove to the
Metropolitan Council on October 1. The concept is to create a Town Square around a
transit hub, with lifecycle housing (including senior housing) and commercial/service
opportunities.
iThe timeline for this grant application process is as follows:
• October 1 through November 15: Staff and Advisory Committee review of proposals.
(Dates for applicant presentations to be announced.)
• November 15: Advisory Committee completes project evaluations and funding
recommendations.
• December 6: Livable Communities Committee receives Advisory Committee
recommendations.
• Metropolitan Council awards grants/loans.
If you have any questions about the proposal, please feel free to ask at the EDA
meeting.
• Attachment
\\CG FS1\SYS\GROUPS\PER ECON\MAW\EDA Memos\Oct 99 Livable.doc
Livable Communities Demonstration Account S
of the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund
APPLICATION - 1999
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
1. PROJECT NAME
Langdon Square Planning District
2. APPLICANT AND CITY
City of Cottage Grove
Washington County, Minnesota
3. AMOUNT OF FUNDING REQUEST
$ 150,000 for Category E
4. CATEGORY •
Category E — Proposal for Planning/Predevelopment Activities
5. PROJECT SUMMARY
Cottage Grove plans to revitalize the Langdon community and its environs, through the
establishment of a transit hub, commercial/service opportunities, development of
lifecycle housing, and parking ancillary to the pending uses. These elements would be
combined to create a central Town Square. The multi-faceted transit depot would
ultimately incorporate pedestrian, bicycling, auto, bus, and future heavy rail
components. Commuter use of the existing rail line and relocation of an existing Metro
Transit Park and Ride lot from its temporary location allow for a variety of future
commute alternatives. The project goal would be an integrated planning process, which
highlights the preservation of existing natural and historic resources, reuse of existing
public infrastructure, creation of a sustainable neighborhood community, and expansion
of transportation opportunities for City residents.
6. PROJECT CONTACT PERSON
Michelle Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator
7516 — 80th Street South
Cottage Grove, MN 55016 •
651-458-2882 Fax: 651-458-2897
• 7.
SITE LOCATION
The Langdon Square District is located at the intersection of Jamaica Avenue and
Highway 61 in the center of Cottage Grove. The southern boundary is 100th Street with
its eastern border being 3M property holdings. A finger of Highway 61 frontage extends
in a northwestern direction. The District is oriented to the Highway 61 corridor located
between the proposed transit hub locations in Hastings and Newport. The project site is
approximately 250 acres and encompasses single family residential, industrial,
commercial, industrial and agricultural land uses. Attachment#1 illustrates the Langdon
Square Planning District boundaries. Some of the existing land uses are non-
conforming. Other uses are conforming, but represent under-utilization of land.
8. THRESHOLD CRITERIA MEASUREMENT—CATEGORIES A, B, C, And D
As a Category E application, we are not addressing this section directly. However, the
threshold criteria will be addressed in other sections of this application to the extent
possible.
9. HISTORY
The Village of Langdon was named after Robert Bruce Langdon (1826-1895). Mr.
Langdon was a resident of St. Paul from 1858, later Minneapolis from 1866, and was a
State Senator from 1873-1885. He was a prominent engineer engaged in the
construction of railroads in Minnesota and other northwestern states.
Langdon was platted in 1871 as one of two rail stops between Hastings and St. Paul for
the line constructed in 1869, which was the same year as the final connection of the first
transcontinental railway. It was platted by railroad interests on both sides of the St. Paul
and Pacific rail line. In its earliest times, trains were scheduled between Langdon and
St. Paul, taking about 59 minutes to make the trip. The rail line was purchased by
Milwaukee and St. Paul in 1872 and was known as the Chicago, Milwaukee and St.
Paul from 1874 to 1926. (The rail line is now operated as part of the Canadian Pacific
Rail system.)
Langdon grew and flourished for a time as a rail hub and a center of commerce. At its
height, the Village had a railroad depot and section house, one or two hotels, a grain
elevator, general store, post office, blacksmith shop, stockyards, lumber yard, two
churches, a public school, and more than a dozen houses.
In 1875, the seat of government for Cottage Grove Township was moved to Langdon,
and in 1881 the township built a new Town Hall on Main Street, next to the grain
elevator. In 1918, the first modern public school in south Washington County was built
in Langdon. The Town Hall and the brick schoolhouse remained in service until the
• early 1960's and remain standing today. Their reuse as part of the Langdon Transit Hub
and Town Square links the rail area's past with its future.
2
•
Langdon's decline was due largely to the automobile. The importance of the railroad
waned as more people relied on cars and trucks to ship goods. When Highway 61 was
rebuilt in 1916-1922, it bypassed the Langdon business district. Economic downturns in
the first half of the 1930's resulted in business closings and population loss. The post
office closed in 1933, and the depot closed in 1940. By 1965, when the school and
township hall closed for good, Langdon had become a small rural neighborhood on the
outskirts of the housing developments in Cottage Grove.
Historically, the District has maintained its mixed-use character within the Village area.
Little new development or redevelopment has occurred so that the fundamental
development pattern of the late 1800's remains to this day. Within the greater Planning
District, low intensity uses such as agriculture are giving way to urban development
pressure. Industrial uses, commercial, and service businesses are being established as
the Highway 61 corridor gains in daily vehicle trips and the community population
increases. See Attachment#2, which depicts existing land uses in the Planning District.
10. PROJECT ELEMENTS
The City of Cottage Grove is facing a number of events in the short-to long- term future,
which will greatly affect the lives of current and future residents. These events include:
• The six-year reconstruction of Highway 61 and the I-494/Wakota Bridge •
• The relocation of the undersized temporary Metro Transit Park and Ride to a
permanent location
• Implementation of the Red Rock Corridor Commuter Rail line
• The community's desire to preserve some historical sites and ambiance of one of
the metro area's oldest communities
• A shortage of senior housing and available rental properties
• A strong desire according to community surveys for additional restaurants and retail
The City of Cottage Grove must plan for the onset of events. The Landgon Square
planning project is designed to establish an effective planning process that allows the
City to capitalize on these events. It is a perfect opportunity to take advantage of the
changes that are about to occur and develop a plan that will help the Langdon
neighborhood meet City and regional quality of life goals.
The City can capitalize on these events through quality redevelopment of the Langdon
neighborhood, which would include lifecycle housing, a multi-faceted transit depot, a
Town Square, commercial and retail opportunities, and providing employment
opportunities at the nearby industrial park. At the same time, the City can address the
needs for efficient transit modes and historic preservation.
The proposed planning study and analysis will lead to a project that is both
complementary and consistent with the Metropolitan Council's Regional Growth •
Strategy. The current concept design for Langdon Square is consistent with the
3
Regional Blueprint, which states goals of fostering growth of local businesses within the
community, revitalizing existing distressed neighborhoods into more desirable places to
live, and integrating environmental quality with economic and residential growth. The
action steps defined in the Regional Blueprint for accomplishing overall Metropolitan
Council policies embody many of the same policies and goals of the City's CITYVISION
21 report. The CITYVISION 21 process was a community-based visioning process,
which was completed in early 1998. The anticipated development project for Langdon is
based upon many of the CITYVISION goals.
The envisioned planning study will permit the City to devise a more creative means to
revitalize the existing neighborhood. The Regional Growth Strategy encourages
coordination of regional services and making maximum use of existing investments. The
project will make use of existing infrastructure improvements and provides efficiency in
government by joint planning with the City, County, and adjoining local communities.
The centralization of the project segments will result in a more efficient use of land,
services, and highway capacity.
Mix of Uses
Types of uses present in the project area or proposed:
X residential X govemment/civic
X office X arts/cultural (historic)
X retail multipurpose/conference center
X restaurant X open space
entertainment X public space
Goals
The City wishes to design an integrated system that promotes neighborhood
sustainability through appropriate planning and study, with guidance from the
community and design professionals. Specific goals for the project include the
following:
• Demographic analysis
• Population, travel, and employment projections
• Residential market analysis
• Evaluation of historic structures
• Economic assessment of the project viability
• Promotion of high quality multi-family development and other lifecycle housing
alternatives
• Photo imaging of design concepts
• Commercial/retail development
• Replicative planning process
•
4
The final goal, designing a process that can be replicated, is especially important. Many
communities face a similar future to Cottage Grove's, with projected development of
commuter rail lines, growing need for transit alternatives, reconstruction of existing
travel corridors, and redevelopment and preservation opportunities within cities.
Therefore, the envisioned planning process would include addressing such questions as
those listed below:
•r How do you best determine the location of a suburban multi-modal transit station to
ensure a future commuter rail component?
❖ How can you make a transit hub mesh into the surrounding built and natural
environment (blending with housing, commercial, historic sites, etc.)?
❖ How do you plan for a multi-modal station, which can be used for immediate park
and ride needs but also serve future expansion needs, such as commuter rail?
❖ How can demographic analysis, market analysis, and photo imaging assist with
planning for re-development of this type? What types of studies are necessary to
properly plan a project like this one?
❖ How do you best utilize the upcoming window of opportunity for project
implementation?
Elements:
The City of Cottage Grove needs to prepare for and capitalize on a combination of
factors— commuter rail, six-year Wakota/61 construction, the need for a larger
permanent site for park and ride, the need for multi-family and senior housing, etc. The •
Metropolitan Council has expressed important goals in the transit area, and through this
project, we plan to meet those goals. In addition, there are housing needs and a desire
to preserve history. This project proposes New Urbanism, village creation, through
creating and restoring elements that previously existed. Langdon historically contained
elements of New Urbanism, but lost many of those in the 1960's. This project would be
planned in a manner that would encourage a return to its previous look and texture.
Elements of this project can be grouped in the following categories: Transit;
Redevelopment/Housing; Commercial/Retail; and Redevelopment of Non-Conforming
uses.
Transit
The City of Cottage Grove must continually reevaluate the existing transit redesign, to
ensure accommodation of current and anticipated needs in all modes of transit. Metro
Transit has already begun this effort. The City of Cottage Grove, through the Langdon
Square project, will be taking the lead in areas that metropolitan planning agencies have
identified as a needed area of endeavor. The proposed transit improvements include a
transit hub or station and a proposed park and ride facility.
The most immediate issue is the temporary Park and Ride lot. There has been success
in increasing ridership with recent bus changes. After months of cooperation between
the Metropolitan Council; Human Services, Inc. (HSI); and the cities of Cottage Grove,
Newport, and St. Paul Park, the new service began in September 1997. Prior to re-
5
• design, services in this area carried approximately 500 riders per day. Since
implementation in September 1997, the number of average daily riders has increased
by 40 percent to over 700 passengers per day. Without effective planning, rider usage
will outgrow the temporary lot.
As the City and ridership grow, Metro Transit will need a permanent Park and Ride site
and transit station. The current site is at capacity (95 to 100 cars). The City is working
with Metro Transit to identify a solution for future growth. The City's goal is to integrate
parking in a pedestrian-friendly way. With other changes in transit, such as the impact
of growth and roadway reconstruction projects and the possibility of future commuter
rail, the site will need to be a multi-modal transit station. See Attachment #3, an excerpt
from the City's draft Comprehensive Plan, which addresses transit issues.
The City feels strongly that these transit issues need to be addressed before 2002,
when the Wakota Bridge/Highway 61 construction begins. Cottage Grove needs to plan
for transit and other commute options for the six-year construction cycle and beyond.
The city believes that this reconstruction provides a perfect opportunity to
positively influence commuter habits.
The City recognizes the significant financial commitment to Highway 61 and the 1-494
Wakota Bridge, but that commitment will essentially be the limit for expanding this
infrastructure. When Highway 61 is complete, it is anticipated it will already be at
capacity. Due to site constrictions, it is not expected that future road improvements
could occur to expand the infrastructure carrying capacity. The City will need other
transit options in the future to overcome these limitations. Now is the time to prepare for
the future. This proposal provides an opportunity to re-train commuters, a benefit
which can be carried on into the future beyond the Wakota Bridge/Highway 61
six-year construction period.
In addition to addressing the specific needs resulting from growth and reconstruction of
existing travelways, this project would also be designed to save trips, long after the
construction projects are completed. The Industrial Park's close proximity to the transit
hub search area promotes reverse commute options and provides easy access to a
previously untapped labor pool.
In terms of commuter rail, this corridor is one of six rail lines being studied for future
commuter use. The Red Rock Commuter Rail communities of Cottage Grove,
Hastings, Newport, St. Paul Park, and St. Paul are meeting along with the rail
authorities for Ramsey, Washington, Dakota and Goodhue Counties, Minnesota
Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Council, Canadian Pacific Rail and the
Burlington Northern Railroad to plan for the future of commuter rail in this corridor. The
State of Minnesota's leadership has placed a renewed focus on rail transit, and this
planning proposal is responsive to that focus. Attachment#4 shows the possible
linkages between the Red Rock Corridor and other commuter rail corridors.
•
6
Redevelopment
Housing
Another element of the project is to plan for re-development of housing in one of the
Metro area's oldest neighborhoods. The anticipated density for the District would
be increased from the current condition; one unit per 14.7 acres. The
redevelopment pattern would mimic concepts from New Urbanism, capitalizing on the
current development pattern within the Langdon neighborhood. The emphasis would be
on community sustainability, and linkages to commercial, retail and services as well as
transit and employment opportunities. See Attachment#5, which is an excerpt from the
draft Comprehensive Plan relating to the redevelopment of the Langdon area.
In regard to the housing component of the project, since the City is in the beginning
planning stages there are no specific unit counts or overall density information available.
(Therefore, Attachment A is not completed.) However, it is anticipated the City will meet
the residential density rates compliant with precepts of the regional blueprint. Further, it
is expected that the City will provide financial incentives to achieve housing goals
consistent with the Livable Communities goals. The City's PUD ordinance provides for
higher density residential development in constrained sites and emphasizes cluster
housing as an option for efficient use of land.
Some of the requested funds for pre-development would be used to conduct a housing •
study, with a focus on senior housing. Cottage Grove recently underwent a public
process through the CITYVISION 21 Task Force. This Task Force, in its report to City
Council, identified the need and desire for senior housing in the City. The City's
standing Human Services Commission is also investigating senior housing issues facing
the community. A housing study as expected in this project would help the City assess
the viability of senior housing in the project area. It should be noted that 90 percent of
owner-occupied housing in Cottage Grove is affordable housing. However, it appears
that the City has a deficiency in the number of affordable rental units. It is possible that
the housing component of the project can address this concern as it incorporates
differing aspects of lifecycle housing into the District. The City wishes to provide both
rental and ownership housing opportunities for seniors. Given the project area's natural
and man-made amenities and its proximity to transit options and employment
opportunities, it is an ideal site for lifecycle housing.
Commercial/Retail
The commercial, retail and service aspects of the Langdon Square project serve as an
important link to both the proposed lifecycle housing and the proposed multi-modal
transit station. See Attachment#6, which updates proposed land uses within the
Langdon Square Planning District. A town square is envisioned, with mature trees and
preserved historical ambiance, carefully designed to serve as a buffer between the
housing area and the transit station. The commercial/retail area would serve the nearby
residents, the employees at the industrial park, and the users of the transit station. It is
7
expected that the various project elements such as transit, housing, and nearby
employment would attract certain commercial uses such as restaurants and other
service businesses. The commercial/retail area itself would provide additional
employment opportunities. This project is truly located in the core of the
community, making it an ideal location for development of a quality town square.
Redevelopment of Non-Conformina Areas
A primary goal of the grant project is to carefully plan future redevelopment to
showcase the historic ambiance of the Langdon neighborhood. This may occur
through replicating the community character of the neighborhood, which occurred in the
1800's. Critical review of existing and proposed land uses would be studied to reconcile
existing non-conforming uses.
11. SPECIAL FEATURES
A. A multi-modal transit hub serving transit alternatives such as commuter rail, park and
ride, bus, pedestrian, automobile, and bicycle.
B. The Town Square will embody concepts of New Urbanism, by meshing housing,
commercial, public, and industrial uses into a more pedestrian scale.
C. This project promotes and depends on multi jurisdictional cooperation. (Participating
agencies are listed in Section 15, Partnerships).
• D. A revitalized historic district with re-created historic ambiance, which includes
preservation of historic sites.
E. A process to manage and capitalize on several regional events, including highway
reconstruction, commuter rail, and senior housing demand.
12. LINKAGES WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO ADJACENT
NEIGHBORHOODS
The area surrounding the District is generally designated for industrial uses. See
Attachment 7 for land uses in the surrounding neighborhoods. To the east and south,
3M has substantial land holdings. A portion of this property is currently in agricultural
use but has the ability, through zoning and land use designation, to be incorporated into
the existing industrial complex. Activity and construction consistently occur within this
complex. The Planning District will provide a development that complements both the
long- and short-term use of the eastern land. Property to the north is developed as
commercial and provides community and sub-regional services. The project site is
separated from this area by Highway 61, although access is available to accommodate
future residents. Due to the District's central location within the community, the
area is in close proximity to needed services, employment centers, and other
residential neighborhoods.
12. HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT AND TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIONS
The City's goal is to design a livable community with seamless transition from the
various uses, one to another. Life-cycle housing would be linked to the commercial/
8
retail/service area (the Town Square), because of its proximity, by walking or biking. •
Residents of the housing area could also walk or bike to the transit station, thus linking
them to other transit options for travel outside Cottage Grove. Residents from Cottage
Grove and potentially adjoining townships would be able to use the new park and ride
facility. Initially, bus service would be provided, but eventually, commuter rail. With this
project, the reverse commute options create additional pedestrian and transit
connections. Non-local employees who are employed in the industrial park can take the
train or bus to the Langdon Transit Hub, then walk or shuttle to work. This labor pool
will also have easy access to the commercial/retail/service area, again by walking or
taking a shuttle. The industrial park has begun to develop and is now home to the pilot
plant and division headquarters of Renewal by Andersen. This facility alone is projected
to employ 300 people, who will all have access to the transit options and commercial/
retail/service facilities in close proximity. 3M has a significant presence in Cottage
Grove with land holdings of approximately 2,047 acres. The 3M Cottage Grove complex
is the largest employer in the community and attracts a labor pool from beyond the City
borders. Given the wide range in labor skills needed for the complex, the transit hub
locations and service will link City residents with suburban jobs. In addition, construction
will soon begin on a regional Postal Service facility. It is estimated that 3,470 jobs, or 60
percent of the jobs located within the community, are within one mile of the Langdon
Square Planning District.
The central location of the Transit Hub also permits ready access to a variety of natural
resources of regional interest within the community. In close proximity is Grey Cloud
Island, a 1,400-acre island that is slated as a regional park by Washington County and •
the Metropolitan Council. The Department of Natural Resources has also expressed
interest in land acquisition for a state park. The recently acquired Grey Cloud Dunes
Scientific and Natural Area will be linked to the Transit Hub through a planned local
trailway system. To the north, the Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park provides
passive recreational opportunities for residents and visitors.
14. PLANNING PROCESS
The City recently undertook a community based strategic planning process,
CITYVISION 21. The visioning process led to a series of recommendations relating to
issues facing the community in the next decade. The issue topics included land use
and housing, economic development, civic center, our future on the river, schools, and
natural resources. This process led to a series of discussions by the City's standing
commissions and was used as the basis for updating the City's comprehensive plan.
Cottage Grove has worked with Metropolitan Council staff over the last several years on
a transit redesign for the cities of Cottage Grove, St. Paul Park, and Newport. The
program was implemented in 1997 and has been met with great success. During the
course of these discussions, the future of the existing park and ride and capacity issues
associated with the site were raised. The City continues to be interested in changes to
the existing transit station and expansion of the current transit redesign.
9
The City, as well as other governmental agencies located along the Highway 61
corridor, have worked together to promote infrastructure improvements to the Wakota
Bridge, 1-494, and Highway 61. In part, out of that coalition came discussions relating to
commuter rail. The Red Rock Corridor Commission functions as a Joint Powers
Authority that has received funding from the State and Federal Government for planning
and engineering within the Highway 61 transportation corridor. The City's involvement
in this Commission has led to discussion of transit station locations, ancillary benefits of
a commuter rail system, and the ability to increase economic vitality within the
community.
The City, in recognition of resident concerns over efficient use of land, recently revised
City ordinances to more closely reflect community desires. The PUD ordinance, with
cluster housing provision, is one way the City seeks to promote unique design elements
to mixed-use projects.
The Langdon Square proposal stems from these activities. The City has formally
recognized the need for a cohesive planning approach to these issues, as well as
others noted throughout this application. The City will continue to participate in the Red
Rock Corridor Commission and will work through appropriate channels regarding future
transit changes.
15. PROJECT TEAM
Ryan R. Schroeder, CityAdministrator
Michelle Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator
Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
John McCool, Senior Planner
John M. Burbank, Associate Planner
Robert Vogel, Historic Preservation Officer
Steve Barrett, Management Analyst
Dan King, Management Analyst
Boonestro Anderlick Rosene & Associates, City Engineering Firm
16. PARTNERSHIPS
Existing cooperating agencies for establishment of the Langdon Square Transit Hub
include:
• Red Rock Commuter Rail communities of Cottage Grove, Hastings, Newport, St.
Paul Park, and St. Paul
• Ramsey, Washington, Goodhue, and Dakota County Rail Authorities
• Prairie Island Reservation
• Canadian Pacific Rail
• Burlington Northern Railroad
• ■ Minnesota Department of Transportation
• Metropolitan Council
10
Anticipated future partners include:
• Corporate partnerships
• Landowner partnerships
• Non-profit housing developers such as Presbyterian homes, Common Bond,
Ebenezer Social Ministry, Accessible Space
• State Historical Society
The City's Economic Development Authority and the Chamber of Commerce officially
support the City's application for funding of the Langdon Square Project.
17. USE(S) OF DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDS
a. Planning $ 150,000
b. In terms of planning funds, we believe the value of the Demonstration Account funds
is to develop a process for dealing with a variety of events that are likely to confront
other metropolitan cities. The envisioned process would be able to be replicated by
other cities facing similar situations. Further, many of the transit and housing issues,
which will be addressed through the process, are being promoted by the
Metropolitan Council. Funding would assist regional and local planning to meet
those Metropolitan Council and City goals.
18. FINANCIAL SUMMARIES •
See Attachment B.
19. PROJECT SCHEDULE
See Attachment D.
20. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
See Attachment E.
21. ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS
Attachment#1 — Langdon Square Planning District Boundaries
Attachment#2— Existing Land Uses in the Planning District
Attachment#3— Excerpt from.City's Draft Comprehensive Plan re: Transit
Attachment#4— Excerpt from Commuter Rail Study/Final Summary Report
Attachment#5— Excerpt from City's Draft Comprehensive Plan re: Transition Zone 3
Attachment#6 — Proposed Land Uses in the Langdon Square Planning District
Attachment#7 — Land Uses in the Surrounding Neighborhoods
Excerpt from September 14, 1999 Minutes of Economic Development Authority
•
11
City of Cottage Grove
Memo
To: Economic Development Authority Members
kjj
From: Michelle A. Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator nnn
1 '
Date: 10/07/99
Re: EDA Strategic Plan Item 4G
We had a preliminary discussion about updating the strategic plan at the September
EDA meeting. There were a few general conclusions:
• We need to update the EDA Strategic Plan during the year 2000
• • While both the 1990 and 1995 processes were good, most felt the 1990 process was
better
• We need to hire a good facilitator
• We need to complete some steps prior to the actual facilitated session
I mailed a copy of the 1995 plan to you right after the September EDA meeting. I hope
you have had time to look through it and familiarize yourself with it. At this time, I am
just looking for some input as to some of the initial steps you would like to take, so that I
can put together a timeline. Also, we will begin looking for possible facilitators. I would
anticipate starting the process after January 1, with the facilitated session happening in
late winter or even fall of 2000.
•
\\CG_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\PER_ECON\MAW\EDA Memos\Oct 99 Strategic.doc
•
City of Cottage Grove
•
Memo
To: Economic Development Authority Members
From: Michelle A. Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator /(/
Date: 10/07/99 I r
Re: Senior Housing Item 4H
Attached are some items related to recent discussions about Senior Housing. Included
are the following:
• Agenda for the September meeting of the Cottage Grove Human Services
• Commission.
• Unapproved minutes from the above-referenced meeting.
• A section of minutes from Public Comments regarding the comprehensive plan,
highlighting the issue of senior housing.
• A memo from Community Development Director Kim Lindquist, addressing some
questions raised by Councilmember Kohls regarding senior housing.
At this time we are presenting this to the EDA for information only. However, this may
be a good time to discuss how involved the EDA would like to be in Senior Housing.
For example, do we want to devote some resources to pursuing this, or wait and see
what the market does on its own?
Attachments
S
\\CG_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\PER_ECON\MAW\EDA Memos\Oct 99 Sr House.doc
AGENDA
•
HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
ADMIN CONFERENCE ROOM
7:00 P.M.
1. Approve minutes of the meeting of:
May 26, 1999
July 28, 1999
2. Review draft recommendation to the Planning Commission concerning the
Housing and Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
3. Presentation by Don Pelton concerning the Common Ground Teen Center
Project
4. Presentation by Alan Black of Presbyterian Homes concerning Senior
Housing Issues in the City of Cottage Grove
UNAPPROVED
Human Services Commission
Minutes of the meeting of September 22, 1999
Members present: Barb Taylor, Grace Krumm, Bruce Schmidt, Rod Beyer,
Kathy Hayes, Wally Todd
Members absent: None
Others present: Doug Hanneman, Washington County Bulletin
Don Pelton, Common Ground Teen Center Project
Allen Black, Senior Housing Partners
Sandy Shiely, City Councilmember
Cheryl Kohls, City Council liaison
Elizabeth Johnson, staff liaison
Meeting called to order at 7:04 p.m
1. Approve minutes of the meeting of May 26, 1999
Motion by Wally, second by Barb to approve the minutes of May 26, 1999.
Motion carried 6-0
Approve minutes of the meeting of July 28, 1999
Motion by Kathy, second by Rod to approve the minutes of July 28, 1999.
Motion carried 6-0.
• 2. Presentation by Don Pelton of the Common Ground Teen Center Project
Mr. Don Pelton of the Common Ground Teen Center Project stated that the
group is in the process of developing a one-year and three-year project
development calendar. An architect is scheduled to talk to the teens to
discuss the size, type and what they want in a facility. Common Ground has
sub-committees studying the issues of building needs, media needs, and
youth needs. The Building Sub-Committee has made a $750,000 funding goal
if it determines that a building is needed and a funding goal of$300,000 if
remodeling an existing building is needed. Pelton stated that the idea for a
Teen Center arises from the fact that not all teens are involved in athletic or
academic programs. Membership by teens to the Center would be through
community service of approximately five hours to the center. There would be
no cost to teens to use the center. Common Ground is using as a model the
Graffitti Center in Stillwater, which is a 4,400 square foot facility. The funds
raised for this Center came through grants, fund raising and community
support. Pelton stated that between 150 to 200 teens use this center every
Friday and Saturday night and that the target age is 12-17. He further noted
that the Center is also used for other community functions such as family
reunions. Bruce asked if Common Ground has determined a site yet. Pelton
stated that the primary goals for a site include one that is central and
accessible to teens, who may or may not have access to transportation.
Common Ground has looked at various sites behind MediaOne, by the Youth
UNAPPROVED
Service Bureau and other sites along Highway 61 corridor. Pelton stated that •
Common Ground is looking for property that is zoned properly, away from
residential areas while being sensitive to the needs of local businesses.
Pelton also stated that Newport, St Paul Park and Cottage Grove (Councils)
have all indicated support for the project. Common Ground's goal is to
provide a safe, drug and alcohol free environment where teens can watch
movies, play video games or play pool or who are looking for a quiet place to
study. Barb stated that siting is an issue and that Common Ground will be
holding a dance at the Rodeo on October 18, 1999 from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. for
ages 16 and up that is open to the public as a fund raising event. Pelton
stated that he has written some grants, but has not yet received a response
back. The target date to open a center is August 1, 2000, but that is a
preliminary date subject to change. Bruce asked what kind of action Common
Ground is looking for from the Human Services Commission. Pelton stated
that Common Ground is looking for support of the concept. He plans to
approach the CG City Council to ask for in-kind help and that they are not
asking for tax dollars. Pelton indicated that in the end, the goal is to create a
non-profit organization that is directed bythe citizens and managed byteens.
P 9 9
Barb stated that the local businesses have been supportive of the idea. Grace
asked if there would be any concession sales at the Center and Pelton
indicated that yes, there would be. Barb discussed the idea of a teen center
versus a community center and made the comment that teens would be the
priority and that any community type reservations would not conflict or •
supercede teen activities. Wally felt that the group would have a hard time
marketing it to the community. Grace stated that she felt that teens would be
safer in a controlled environment like a teen center rather than walking back
and forth to city parks. Motion by Barb, second by Grace to support the teen
center in principal. Motion carried 6-0. Staff was further directed to provide
copies of the recommendation to the City Council and the Washington County
Bulletin.
3. Presentation by Allen Black of Senior Housing Partners.
Mr. Black gave an overview of the services that Senior Housing Partners
offers. The company does development and marketing for organizations
involved in developing senior housing. SHP develops approximately 1,000
units per year, which is a combination of assisted living and independent
living. SHP develops projects over time. Their philosophy is a "hub" and
"spoke" continuum of care. SHP tries to avoid free-standing facilities. The
continuum of care encompasses a range of needs, from townhouses,
apartments, assisted living, sub-hospital facilities, adult and child day-care
facilities, which allow people to progress through a range of care needs.
Black discussed their typical financing arrangements in developing senior
housing. SHP has used Tax Increment Financing in developing a qualified
housing district. The requirements of a qualified housing district is that 40% of410
the units must be at 60% of the median income of the metro area or that 20%
UNAPPROVED
of the units are affordable at the 50% of median income level. They have
used a "pay as you go" financing, which relates to a certain negotiated
percent of tax increment receipts that are distributed to the developer, with
the remainder retained by the city. Sandy Shiely asked if SHP has used any
other financing than TIF. Black responded that they have used Section 8 or
tax credits, but noted that is difficult to obtain. Sandy asked about livable
communities grant monies. Black responded that "livable communities" does
help to re-develop an existing area.
Black discussed some of their projects in Oakdale and Stillwater. They have
tried to develop a "benevolent fund" which would provide funds for people
whose private funds have run out. SHP is using this "benevolent fund" to
assist individuals to age in place.
Black discussed some of the entrance fees to the above facilities. Most of
their development is not HUD or low-income, but that they do try to match
project to the communities needs. The Oakdale project has lower rents than
the Stillwater project, at about $.95 to $1.00 per square foot. At the higher end
project in Stillwater, the fees may be $1.25 per square foot, with or without an
entrance fee. An entrance fee may be a downpayment of 30% of market
value. This is typically used for townhomes as equity to SHP. The owner
would get this deposit back when they leave.
Kathy Hayes asked how SHP picks a site. Black stated they SHP determines
needs of the community and if there is an opportunity to work with the city. It
depends on whether they have an interest and if a site is available. He stated
that in Cottage Grove there is a need but have not identified a site. He went
on to note that seniors prefer a site that has services readily available and
that occupancy rates are lower at those facilities that do not have services
readily available. Services would include shopping, pharmacy and
transportation. He was asked how many acres are necessary and stated that
SHP generally puts in approximately 15 units per acre and that they need
about 6 to 7 acres in total. Cheryl Kohls asked how a community does a
project if they do not have a nursing home or hospital in the community. Black
responded that nursing homes that they have developed have vacant spots
because the population moved from the initial needs assessment. He could
not comment on how critical it is to have a hospital or nursing home in the
community. He stated that the city would typically write a request for proposal
and that they usually have a site in mind. Cheryl Kohls asked how long it
takes to complete a project and Black responded that it takes about 1 '/ to 2
years if the community has a site available.
4. Review the draft recommendation to the Comp Plan
The commission reviewed the draft recommendation. Barb wanted to add
wording concerning low-income housing to the recommendation. Rod
disagreed and didn't think that the City of Cottage Grove had a problem
UNAPPROVED
concerning the availability of low-income housing. Grace and Barb both •
discussed certain circumstances of individuals who either live in or have a
difficult time finding low-income housing. Cheryl made the comment that
Cottage Grove historically has a higher per capita low-income subsidized
housing in Washington County but recognized that there is a shortage of low
income housing in the metro area. The commission discussed the
recommendation as worded. Motion by Rod second by Wally to amend the
second sentence in the recommendation that discusses the Housing Element
to distinguish between senior housing and affordable housing to break it into
two sentences to separate the issues. Motion carried 6-0.
Motion by Kathy, second by Wally to adjourn. Motion carried 6-0.
Adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
7)‘-‘6if-
Elizabeth Johns n
Staff liaison
•
•
Public Comment Response °
September 22, 1999
Page 2
isize of 1 '/ acres. The Mississippi River corridor Critical Area Overlay District has
additional density restrictions. While the density, four dwelling units per quarter/quarter
section, would apply to Grey Cloud Island, this restriction is derived from the Critical
Area Overlay found within the zoning ordinance and not the rural residential land use
designation found within the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
• The Parks Commission has also recommended a rewording of the Parks and Open
Space section, Site 22 and 23 located on Grey Cloud Island. The new wording would
add, "to ensure consistency with the adopted Regional Park Plan."
2. An e-mail was received from Mary A. Marty of 9905 Military Road commenting against
expansion of business uses into the County Road 19 and Military Road area. Staffs
response is also included. Staff Comment: As the Commission is aware, the land
designated commercial in the southwest quadrant of 70th Street and County Road 19
has been designated commercial in the last comprehensive plans. (1994) As part of the
comp plan discussion on provision of some additional neighborhood commercial, the
commercial within this vicinity was expanded.
3. A map was submitted and a verbal request from Gordon Glendenning requesting
clarification of the land use for the property north of 95th Street between the west side of
the industrial park and the east side of the low density residential area. Staff Comment:
The property in question has been zoned for residential development since 1979. Staff
• was unable to find any information relating to the change in zoning. The 1982
Comprehensive plan had this property designated as medium density residential along
with additional property to the west and south. When the existing residential subdivision
was approved, this portion was not included. It is difficult to make a strong
recommendation in favor of changing the land use designation or keeping it the same. It
seems reasonable for the City to encourage some type of buffer between the industrial
uses to the east and the single family to the west. However, given the topography and
the shape of the residentially designated land it would be unable to be combined with
the western residential development. Perhaps this issue can be explored more closely
when the Commission reviews citywide rezonings to achieve compliance with the
comprehensive plan.
4}fhe Human Services Commission reviewed the Draft Plan on September 22, 1999 and
made the following two comments:
• Within the Housing Element Goals (pages 101 and 102), the Commission would like to
strengthen the need for senior housing and affordable housing.
Staff Comment: The provision of senior housing is not specifically stated within the
Housing goals but rather would be encompassed within the second goal relating to the
provision of"a diversity of housing types, sizes locations, and price ranges that are
affordable to all individuals, in order to provide for housing opportunities for persons in
all stages of the life cycle." Staff is recommending adding an additional policy that
• states:
Public Comment Response
September 22, 1999
Page 3
The City will promote the construction and provision of a variety of senior •
housing opportunities to service community residents.
5. A memorandum was received from the City's Historic Preservation Officer, Bob Vogel in
response to 3M's request to remove their property under World War II and Postwar
Development.
At the last Commission meeting, staff questioned what the land use designation for the
islands surrounding Grey Cloud Island should be. The Commission requested we come
back with a recommendation. We are recommending that they be guided rural residential,
consistent with the larger island. A memo from John Burbank explaining his discussion with
the City Attorney is attached for your information.
There have been some minor changes to the Plan, which relate to punctuation and
capitalization. The one exception is on page 81. This change reflects the Commission's
direction to staff, in response to Kevin Snow comments about inclusion of a community
center in the Draft Plan.
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Human Services/Human Rights Commission
Liz Johnson, Finance Director
FROM: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
DATE: September 22, 1999
RE: Senior Housing
A while back, Councilmember Kohls drafted several questions related to the provision of senior
housing within the community. The following is an attempt to answer those questions.
However, you will note that better information would be available if discussion with senior
housing providers and marketing consultants took place. Ultimately, I believe some type of
market analysis should be done so that the City has a better understanding of their short and
long-term senior housing needs. The city is currently in the process of applying for a Livable
Communities grant, and if awarded, funds would be allocated towards senior housing market
• analysis.
1. Where will it be in the City?
It is expected that senior housing would locate in the same locations as multi-family
housing within the community. The city has areas designated for medium density
development along major roadways that would provide ample access and would not unduly
cause negative roadway impacts. Often these areas are located in close proximity to
property designated for some commercial/service uses, which would be beneficial to senior
housing residents. Also, as bus routes are located predominately on major roadways, the
potential for mass transit opportunities is greater.
Along with the question of where, is the question of when. Again, senior housing, similar to
other housingoptions, is generallymarket driven. There are cases where a localitymay
provide some type of financial assistance to 'buy down' the cost of the project. A listing of
three communities and their senior housing projects has been forwarded to the Human
Services Commission. In most cases, the communities provided some type of financial
assistance to attract the housing. Further, the assistance resulted in senior housing for
moderate-income residents.
2. Definitions of assisted living, senior housing, nursing home, etc.
• All housing related to seniors is called senior housing. Within that general category, there
may be rental or owner occupied. There may also be straight rental or one that provides an
array of services. Generally, those units that have services available, anywhere from
housekeeping or congregate dining to medical assistance, would be termed assisted living.
Human Rights/Services Commission
Senior Housing
September 22, 1999
Page 2
•
I have also heard the term assisted living refer to housing which is made more affordable
through some type of financing program. There are federal programs for very low-income
seniors, and a locality can create a TIF housing district that has certain affordability criteria.
In my brief discussions with staff from other cities regarding senior housing, it appears that
the lines have blurred regarding the definitions. For example, some of the senior projects
were set up basically as senior rental housing; however, in some cases, services, house
keeping, meal preparation, or transportation may be made available for an additional fee.
One such case is in Minnetonka, where additional services were made available to
residents, on a monthly fee basis, by the organization that financed the project. I was told
that these organizations, Presbyterian Homes, Twin City Christian, etc., have more
experience with providing this type of service rather than contracting with a private vendor.
Another example of how the lines may blur between different uses is also found in
Minnetonka. One of their projects, while built predominately for able-bodied seniors, had
provisions for additional services built into the design. I was told that there were provisions
made along the halls so that nurse's stations could be installed in the future, if desired.
3. What levels of service will we need?What services will need to be provided at the site or
nearby?
These two questions will be more readily answered from senior housing providers.
Although similar to other multi family projects in that it makes sense to locate near retail
and commercial services, a more distant location could be mitigated by providing transit
service or being located on a public transit line. It would also seem that the need for
nearby services would be dependent upon the type of senior housing proposed. If some
services are available within the complex, the need for nearby commercial may not be as
great.
4. How many units are necessary?What levels of service will the City need? What will our
seniors be able to afford?
These are all questions which need to be answered. When Tom Melchior, Maxfield
Research, spoke to the CITYVISION Task Force, he explained that often a market analysis
is conducted. It would seem that this type of study should be conducted to get a better
handle on the City's needs now and into the future. As part of the City's proposal for a
Livable Communities grant, one of the tasks to be accomplished is a market analysis.
Similar to any multifamily residential project, the number of units per project will be
dependent upon the economics of the project. According to Tom Melchior, Maxfield
Research, the minimum number of units is around 50-60. For multi-unit rentals, often seen
as a three-story (or greater) building, around 60 units is needed due to the need for
inclusion of an elevator and costs associated with the expense.
5. Will there be conflicts if someone wants to build in Cottage Grove, perhaps on land
designated for single family or commercial? Who should head up the drive to get senior
housing in Cottage Grove?
Human Rights/Services Commission
Senior Housing
September 22, 1999
Page 3
i
If the City were a financial partner in the provision of senior housing, it would seem that
land use conflicts could be mitigated. Often the City working with a provider chooses the
preferred site and is involved in the land purchase.
Who would be the appropriate vehicle to entice senior housing to the community is
somewhat dependent upon the Council's level of commitment. If the City is interested in
providing some financial incentive, and therefore providing some affordable senior housing,
staff and consultants involved with TIF would need to be a primary player. Meanwhile, a
Commission or task force could review potential providers to determine level of interest.
However, prior to initiating the above process, some type of market analysis is
recommended. This would be the basis for future decision-making in terms of size,
provision of services, and potential site location.
•
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elizabeth Johnson, Finance Director
FROM: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
DATE: September 17, 1999
RE: Senior Housing
Last week I forwarded a memo to you about several senior projects in
Minnetonka and Shoreview. I have since received information on several
projects in Woodbury.
Summer Hills is a 77-unit senior housing project done by Presbyterian Homes.
There is a component of affordable housing units within the complex, and $1.6
million TIF was used in a 25-year district.
•
Cobble Hill Apartments is also located within Woodbury but was done by
Washington County HRA. The City did not have very much information on this
project.
Woodbury Estates is a private senior housing project that complements
another private senior facility, Woodbury Villas. The Villas is a 75-unit complex
and is similar to nursing home care. The Estates, a 64-unit complex, is more of
an assisted living project that dovetails with some of the services offered by the
Estates. The staff person I spoke to did not state that there was any city
subsidy for either of these projects.
HOUSING ISSUES
Oil ;
Senior Assisted Living i
For Carver County alone, the senior population 65 and older is projected to increase by 1,244 persons
by 2003. These numbers are expected to double by 2020. The number of people in Carver County
ages 65 to 69 are projected to increase 129.8 percent from 2005 to 2020.
By Margaret Lemke
is news many adult children of senior to increase by 1,244 persons by 2003. These
parents fear. Your mother or father has numbers are expected to double by 2020.
fallen, or has had a stroke. After hospitali- The senior population in Carver County
zation or surgery and rehabilitation he or (65-69) is projected to increase 130 percent
she will recover, but may not be able to j from 2005 to 2020.
care for themselves anymore. What are ! Seniors ages 75 and older are the most
your options? likely to use assisted services because of health
With most adults working today, problems or other issues. While some may use
caring for them in your home is usually out i nursing home facilities at that age. most still
of the question. Nursing home care is expensive want to be located in their hometown area
and may not be needed. That leaves the choice or close to their families.
�of obtaining some degree of assisted living for j "Its nems many eft childrenof may not need special services at
sour parent. You begin to explore the availabil- ! senior b Yat first, but many do later," Pesch said.
icy of this type of living arrangement, wanting But the study revealed that the present
your parent as close to you as possible. If you mother or father has tales, and projected housing for low or moderate
live in western Carver County, and if your a stroke.After senior assisted facilities was lacking in this area.
or has hadparent has a low or moderate income, you I "People were relocating out of the area
will find your options limited. hospitalization or $r6Kl because of the lack of service," Pesch added.
That's why Peace Villa Apartments of and rehabitation he or she Peace Villa Apartments, a senior citizens
Norwood Young America, with assistance apartment complex in Norwood Young
from the city of Norwood Young America, d recover,bUt may not be America, has seen the age of residents slowly
the Ridgeview Medical Center of Waconia abie to tare for themselves increase since its opening in 1977, said Clinton
(RMC), and a few other players have been Kurtz, who helped get that apartment built and
looking into senior assisted living for the past more.What are still serves on the board of directors.
several months. After identifying needs, the par opts?" "In 1977, the average age of Peace Villa
groups have been working together to provide residents was 67 years. Now it's 83 plus.'•
assisted living for seniors from the surrounding Kurtz explained. There has been a waiting
communities. Last fall, a study by Peace Villa list for apartments almost since the building
Apartments and RMC identified the senior opened, he added.
population in the Norwood Young America Many residents of Peace Villa are currently
area and the present and projected needs for using home care services offered by Carver
senior needs for senior housing. County and RMC. Some need additional
"We wanted to work with the community services, the study showed. This aging popula-
and provide any help we could," said Theresa tion prompted Peace Villa directors, RMC,
Pesch, RMC director of community services. and the city of Norwood Young America to
The study showed a senior population, age look for ways to provide this service.
65 and older, in the market area (encompassing Working together
Norwood Young America, Cologne, Hamburg,
New Germany, Green Isle, and Plato) that is I When Lakeview Clinic, Ltd. decided to
projected to increase from 1,480 in 1998 to expand its Norwood Young America clinic.
401 1,595 in 2003. For Carver County alone, the Peace Villa, RMC, and the city saw a way
number of seniors 65 and older is projected to work together to develop needed senior
facilities.
I
i
AUGUST 1999 MINNESOTA CITIES 9
"It started as a vision and expanded to water ponding area, and permit the clinic and •
include Lakeview, Peace Villa, assisted living assisted living residence to be located near each
in partnership with the community," Pesch other. Kurtz foresees the assisted living complex
explained. to be connected to Lakeview Clinic by side-
Lakeview Clinic and Peace Villa own walks. It could also be connected to Peace
adjoining land on Faxon Road near Highway Villa via a hallway or wing.
212. With the help of the city acquiring a little Terry agrees the location is a good one for
more land, a senior complex could be created. a senior living campus. "It's a good location
The groups have met several times. The with facilities seniors need (banks, drug stores,
Norwood Young America City Council, retail stores) nearby," he said. "It is also a good
planning commission, and economic develop- It started as a vision location for future development."
ment commission also met and gave their expandedincludeThe proposed 30-unit residence would
andapproval to the proposed plan. Norwood provide medical, nutritional, recreational and
Young America Community Development Lakeview,Peace Via,assisted housekeeping services, depending on the needs
Director Tom Terry sees the project as a of the residents. Kurtz sees medical and nutri-
rnitg in pastorship with
unique opportunity for the groups to work tional services as the most important for aging
together. A development district and tax the Wit." seniors. "People live a lot longer with good
increment financing district have been seta rd medical and nutritional care," he added. The
art dew r a MILK _
upto aid the construction of Lakeview's �h assisted livingresidence would provide 24-hour
new clinic and to help the assisted living medical and nursing care, as well as a dining
i' project in the future. room for seniors' meals.
"The city's role is to help coordinate the Since Lakeview Clinic is prepared to begin
project," Terry explained. This includes using their project soon, this will be the first phase
TIF money and helping with land acquisition of the senior campus, Terry said. Once these
and zoning and code concerns, he added. j plans are in place, the senior assisted living
"The city wants to help to develop senior project will proceed with its development plans.
assisted living and also to look at the long range Kurtz expects the assisted living project could 40
planning for 15 to 20 years out," Terry added. begin sometime this year. "We are working
Kurtz said Peace Villa wanted all these on development and financing," he explained.
groups involved with the project from the Future plans, already briefly discussed, could
beginning. He said there has been great support include an expanded senior housing campus
from RMC, local businesses, community with different types of housing available.
members, the city council, mayor, and city staff.
"We've added 100 percent support from
everyone," Terry said.
• Plans proceeding Margaret Lemke is staff writer with the Norwood
Currently the city is working on negotiations Young America Times. This article is reprinted
to purchase additional land that will aid both with permission from the July 1, 1999, issue of
projects. The extra land will allow for a storm the Norwood Young America Times.
OLDER ADULTS i PLANNING
There is no better way to ensure that the concerns of older adults are met—and that local plans reflect their needs and perspectives—
than by having them actively participate in the local planning process.This will require schMuling meetings during the day so that
night time travel can be avoided and choosing locations that are accessible.
Sturdy chairs with arm rests and an adequately functioning sound system are a must. Handouts should be legible. Meetings should be
limited to I to 2 hours with breaks or explicit freedom to move about during the meeting. An orientation to the facility should be
included in the opening remarks. Of perhaps greatest importance is a relevant,interesting agenda that addresses issues that are of
concern to seniors.
Resources
A series of resource papers for planners covering a wide range of aging issues is available from the Institute on Aging, Portland State
University, PO Box 751, Portland, OR 97207; (503) 725-3952 ($15 cost). Among the topics covered: the demographics of aging;
physical changes with age; aging and single-family residences; site planning transportation and mobility; and the participation of older
adults in public meetings.
Reprinted with permission from the Placating Commissioners Journal, the nation's kading publication for citizen planners. For more information about
the Journal, either call(800) 475-3328;fax: (802) 862-1882;e-mail:pcj a)ogether.net; or visit their Web site at: www.pls. nersweb.com
1 0 MINNESOTA CITIES A u c U S T 1 9 9 9
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator
FROM: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
DATE: September 17, 1999
RE: Senior Housing
To address some of the questions relating to financing of senior housing options, I contacted
three communities within the Metro Area. I choose these primarily because I was aware of the
projects. I don't necessarily believe these three cities are similar to Cottage Grove in either
economic base or senior population.
SHOREVIEW
• • Scandia Shores, (by Twin City Christian Homes) a 108-unit senior housing project located
approximately in the southwest quadrant of the Hwy 96/Hwy 49. Forty percent or 44 units
are designated for low-income seniors, otherwise the project is market rent. Approximately
$2 million TIF money was spent on the project for land write down and to write down the
cost of the individual units. A bus was also purchased with TIF money. Additionally, $6.3
million in housing revenue bonds were sold for the project. Although it is a rental facility, it
was constructed with congregate dining facilities and provisions were made to the building
interior if additional services, such as nursing stations would be required. This project
location is dose to retail and services.
• Summer House, (by Presbyterian Homes) is a 72-unit, 3-story market-rate senior housing
project. It is generally located within the town center area of the community. TIF funds were
used as a land write down and to demolish the pre-existing structure, the old city hall.
Approximately $850,000 of TIF was used. This location, within the town center, means it is
dose to the community center.
MINNETONKA
• West Ridge senior housing (by Town City Christian Homes) is a 106-unit senior rental
project with 40 percent of the units affordable to 60 percent of the median income.
Estimate that the TIF used, approximately $300,000 directly for the senior building, created
a $7,200 per unit subsidy. Housing revenue bonds were also used. Although market rate
rental, does allow individual tenants to purchase services such as housekeeping or meal
preparation for extra. Also, within the West Ridge project, there is a 46-unit senior rental,
Liz Johnson and Ryan Schroeder
September 17, 1999
Page 2
which is for the very low-income. All financed by federal program. This project is within a
•
much larger redevelopment area that contains a family rental project, condominiums,
townhouses, and extensive retailing.
• Beacon Hill project (by Presbyterian Homes) is a 110-apartment project with an additional
46-unit assisted living building. The project is located within the Glen Lake area of the
community along Excelsior Boulevard, and is close to many retail services. Approximately
$1.3 million was used in TIF, mainly for land write-down. Housing Revenue Bonds were
also used.
I am also awaiting some information from Woodbury and would have that prior to your Human
Services Commission meeting.
•
i
City of Cottage Grove
Memo
To: Economic Development Authority Members
From: Michelle A. Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator ri*
Date: 10/07/99
Re: Wakota Bridge/Year 2000 Road Improvements Item 41
WAKOTA BRIDGE
The cost for the Wakota Bridge project has increased by $50 million. On October 13, a
meeting of the Coalition will be held at St. Paul Park City Hall. City staff and
representatives of the City Council will be in attendance. The Coalition expects to
address the various approaches for dealing with the increased cost of the project.
YEAR 2000 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
A Public Hearing for the 2000 Pavement Management Program will be held on October
20, 1999. The two projects include:
• 110th Street (east of ideal) and Ideal Avenue (south of 100th)
• Jamaica Avenue, 100th Street, 90th Street, East Point Douglas, and Inwood.
Neighborhood meetings were held in September. Four households were represented at
the meeting regarding 110th & Ideal; two businesses sent representative to the meeting
for the Jamaica etc. improvements.
•
\\CG FS1\SYS\GROUPS\PER ECON\MA\MEDA Memos\Oct 99 Roads.doc
111
Wieumo
TOWARD A COMMON GO AdOlift MOMMUlliw
1-494 i • r. * IDLE C = =
OCT_ _
_ ---
6
MEETING NOTICE -^
Wednesday, October 13 , 1999
St . Paul Park Community Center* (Please Note Location ! ! ! )
7 : 30 a . m.
(Directions to St . Paul Park Community Center : Take Hwy 61 to St . Aft
Paul Park Road exit (there is a water tower at this exit) , go MII
right on St . Paul Park Road to a four way stop , turn left at the
four way stop for one block, the Community Center is right there
at 600 Portland Avenue)
I . CALL TO ORDER - Yolitz
II . CONSIDER MINUTES OF THE 9/8/99 MEETING
III . MN/DOT EXPLANATION FOR INCREASED COST ESTIMATE & PROJECT
IMAPCTS
IV. AESTHETIC DESIGN COMMITTEE UPDATE
V. OTHER BUSINESS/FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
VI . ADJOURN
I Cl/
August 26, 1999 / v
iSubject: Cost estimate for the I-4947.H. 61 project(Wakota Bridge)
This estimate was developed using the`Metro Highway Construction Cost Estimate Improvement Project'
method. This method uses a_Length Width Depth(LWD)pavement factor and a project cost factor to
provide a historic perspective for cost estimating.
A review of several similar projects shows a cost multiplier range from$75,200 to$115,400 per LWD. For
this estimate,the T.H.212 and Prairie Center Drive project,with a cost multiplier of$99,500,appears to be
the most comparable. For those roads being reconstructed inplace,a multiplier of$42,900 was used.
Costs NOT included in this estimate are right of way and handling of potential hazardous materials.
The following is an estimate of what this project should cost to construct as well as a comparison with the
estimate developed in 1997.
CATEGORY 1997 ESTIMATE 1999 ESTIMATE DIFFERENCE
Roadway $32,900,000 $75,364,000 +$42,464,000
Bridges $80,800,000 $80,475,000 (-$325,000)
Retaining Walls $4,000,000 $7,677,000 +$3,677,000
Railroad Relocation - $520,000 +$520,000
Signals - $1,650,000 +$1,650,000
• Traffic Management Sys - $150,000 +$150,000
English Conversion - $2,473,000 +$2,473,000
TOTAL $117,700,000 $168,309,000 $50,609,000
In reviewing the 1997 cost estimate,it appears a cost factor of$1,000,000 per mile was used to arrive at
roadway construction costs. The range of values recommended in the 1992 estimating guide was between
$800,000 and$3,500,000 per mile for major construction.
•
I194/T.H.61 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN WASHINGTON,RAMSEY AND DAKOTA COUNTIES•paps 1
Roadway jjnof fabs) Averaoe Wild CeMbielz LWD FaUor C4911.43221 caz •
T.H.61 Roadways
T.H.61 South Bound Roadway 3.97 33.02 0.92 120 17 $99.500 $11,956.445
T.M.61 North Bound Roadway 3.97 32.85 0.92 119.55 599.500 611,694188
Total for T.H.61 Roadways $23,151,333
T.H.615164 Intarchanps ramps•Roadways
T.H.61 N.B.to 1.894 E.B.ramp
T.M.81 N.B.b ramp split 0.23 11.78 017 1.62 599,500 $160,622
Marc spat to 1494 LB 0.31 11.82 017 2.46 599,500 $244,274
T.M.61 N.B.to 1494 W.B
T.M.61 N.8 b ramp split 023 14.63 0.67 229 $99,500 $227,388
ramp spit to T.M.51 Midge 0.32 11.83 0.67 2.54 599.500 5252.367
T.M.61 bridge to railroad bodge 0.05 11.82 067 0.40 699.500 639.399
Railroad bndpa to Mansell Ave 0.15 18.97 0.67 1.91 699.500 1189.695
Total for TX 61 N.B.to 4194 ramps $1,133,7415
1494 LB.to T.M.61 N.B.loop ( 0.25 ( 11.82 ( 0.67 I 1.98 I $99,500 ( $194,995
1494 W.B.to T.H.61 5.8.ramp
1.494 W.B.lo bridge oar ramp 0.05 11.62 0.67 0.40 $99,500 539,399
Bridge/ramp to Bridge/7.H.61 0.10 11.82 0.67 0.79 999.500 578.798
Bridge F T.H.61 to T.M.61 5.5 025 11.82 0.67 1.98 599,500 6196.995
Total ler 1194 W.B.to TX 61 S.B.ramp $315,162
1194 E.B.to T.M.61 S.B.ramp
1494 0.8.to Railroad Bndge 0.13 11.62 0.67 1.03 599,500 9102,437
Railroad Bridge to T.M.61 5.5 0.22 13.19 0.67 1.94 599,500 6193.448
Total•4494 W.B.to T11.6I LB.ramp $215,986 ill,
T.K.61 1,3,101.494 W.B.ramp ( 021 ( 11.82 ( 0.67 I 1.66 I $99,500 ( $115,476
4414 West Bound Roadway
Hardman Are to River Bridge 0.25 51.62 0.92 11.68 699,500 $1,181,604
River Bridge to Maxwell Aa021 49.46 0.92 9.52 599.500 $647,344
Maxwell Ave.to Railroad Trade 0.12 35.44 0.92 3.90 191500 6387,891
Railroad traces to T.hi 61 0.02 35.15 0.92 0.64 $99.500 $64,119
T.M.61 to 61.494 ramp 0.13 3524 052 420 $99,500 $417,944
61194 ramp to Caner Aa. 1.04 38.92 0.92 37.10 599.500 63,691,821
Caner Ave.b end or loa 0.35 35,49 0.92 11.39 199,500 51,132,944
Total td 1194 Vest Bound $7,923,568
4494 East Bound Roadway
Concord Ave to Hardman Ave 0.37 11.73 0.92 3.98 $99,500 $395.653
Hardman Ave.b River Bndpe 035 50.09 0.92 11.48 199.500 61,142.156
River Bridge To Maxwell Ave. 023 49.86 0.92 10.51 199.500 11.045.959
Maxwell Ave.b Railroad dace 0.12 47.26 0.92 520 699,500 6517361
Railroad dad to T.H 61 0.02 57.42 0.92 1.00 199,500 $99.506
T.M.61 to 61194 ramp 0.15 50.46 0.92 6.94 699.500 1690,356
61194 ramp to Caner Ave. 1.05 36.00 0.92 34.65 699.500 $3,447,675
Carver Ave to Century Ave. 0.79 35.36 0.92 25.61 699.500 52,547,850
Century Ave.to VaSsy Crook Rd. 0.34 29.57 0.92 _ 922 199,500 $916,990
Tat Mr 4494 East Bound $10,803,606
Total for 1-494 Roadways 119,627,174
1494 1 Hardman Ave.ramps/bops
1494 E.B.to Hamman Ave.loop 0.19 22.13 0.67 2.82 $99,500 6280,306.33
Hardman Ave.7°1494 E.B.ramp 0.32 28.97 0.67 621 899.500 1515,01122
Hardman Ave.to 1494 W.B loop 0.16 33.36 0.67 3.58 699,500 $355.831.10
4494 W.B b Hardpan Ave.Ramp 022 22.77 0.67 3.36 899,500 6333,951.65
Total for 1494 and Hardman Awl.ramps and loops•roadway 11,666,100
I-4.94/T.H.61 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN WASHINGTON,RAMSEY AND DAKOTA COUNTIES•peg.2
ill .
Bridges area-Sq Ft post/Sq.Ft cost
•
42900-Bailylta:nell over T.H.61 13649 160 $1,091,920
42901•Bailey/Maswel over RR tracks 34950 160 92.796.000
82025-St Pad Park Rd.over T.H 61 14208 $80 $1,136,640
62026•St Pad Park Rd over RR tract 9924 $100 1992 400
12027-Stn Ave.Conn.over RR backs $417 185 1715,445
62028•Sourr,Bike/Ped bridge 12055 $105 $1265,775
12029-Glen Rd.over Hastings Ave. 14079 $80 $1,126,320
12030-Glen Rd.over T.M.61 21130 185 $1,796.050
$2031-Glen Rd over RR tracks 31657 185 12,690.845
12032.11011 BikarP.d bridge 12055 8105 81265775
12033.61 NB to 494 WB over T.H.61 9633 $75 $647,475
42034.61 NB to 494 WB/RR reeks 18763 $85 81,596.555
82035.494 W1461 SB/61N8-494 W8 3240 $100 1324,000
12036.494 WB-51 SB over T.H.61 8321 $75 $624.075
12037-444 EB-61 SB over RR trace 12249 190 91,102 410
42855-East bound 4494 River Bridge 171469 1125 821 433.625
62856•West bound 1.494 Rink Bridge 202000 1125 825250.000
62857-494 E.B.over Maxwell Ave. 17222 175 11291,650
12658•494 W.B over Maxwell Ave. 16414 $75 $1,156.050
82659•494 E.B.over RR Tracks 21474 185 11,825290
82860•494 W B over RR Tracks 19590 185 $1,665.150
62661.494 0.B over T.M.61 18008 $75 11,350,6001
62862-494 W.B.over T.H 61 12631 $75 $962,325
62863.494 013/61 NB to 494 WB 4645 $100 6964.500
62864-494 WB/61 NB to 494 WB 6405 $100 1640.506
82865•Bailey Rd.over 4494 23519 975 $1,763.925
99169•Temporary-494 W.B./T.H.61 17222 $45 $774,990
19896•Widen-494 WBi Hardman Ave 6589 $85 1560,065
19898-Wxten 441 EB/Hardman Ave. 8236 165 1700 060
9682-Widen•4494 W.&Carver Ave 3118 $85 $265,030
9881 -Widen-4494 E.B./Caner Ave. 3118 165 $265,030
9776•Widen-1-494 E.BJCentury Ave 5118 165 8435.030
• Total Bridge Cost $$0,475,505
Glen Road Roadways
East Bound to Masbngs Ave.Conn.
West Fr.Rd.to RR Bridge 0.25 26.79 0.67 4.49 $99,500 1446,409
RR Bridge to T.H 61 Bridge 0.02 38.65 0.67 0.52 899.500 $51,799
T.M.61 Bridge to Hastings Ave Br. 0.01 29 54 0.67 0.20 899,500 $19,693
Masbngs Ave &.To Hastings Ave.C 0 13 24.27 0.67 2.11 $99,500 1210,335
West Bound To Hastings Ave.Conn.
West Fr.Rd to RR Bridge 0.23 24.49 0.67 3.77 199,500 1375.504
RR Bridge to T.M 61 Bridge 0.02 27.03 0.67 0.36 899,500 136,039
T.H 61 Bridge to Hastings Ave.Br. 0.01 39.37 0.67 026 199,500 126,246
Hastings Ave.Br.To Masbrgs Ave C. 0.13 3225 0.67 2.81 $99,500 $279493
Hastings Ave.Conn.to be to nplaee 027 65.12 0.59 6.78 $99.500 $873.671
To to"space to Century Ave 0.45 24.00 0.59 6.37 199,500 $634.014
Total for Glen Rd.roadway 12.153,282
Glen Road Intarchang.Ramps-Roadway
T.H.61 N.6 is Glen Road 0.19 16.56 0.67 2.11 899,500 1208 755
Glen Road to T.M.61 S.B. 021 15.11 0.67 2.13 $99,500 1211,535
Glen Road to T.M.61 N.B. 026 14.67 0.67 167 199.500 1195,595
T.M 61 SE to Glen Road 0.18 17.43 0.67 2.10 199,500 $209.155
Total for Glen Road Interchange Ramps•Roadway $129,039
•
•
•
I-494/T.H.61 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN WASHINGTON,RAMSEY AND DAKOTA COUNTIES•page 3 •
Langh(mss) Average Wtd11 Depth factor LWD Factor Cost Factor Coat
12nd Street In Newport 1 0.34 ' 24.00 I 067 I 547 I $42,900 I $234.8431 4.
West Frontage Road Roadway
St.Paul Park Rood to Railroad bridge 0.16 40.11 0.67 4.64 999,500 1481,308
RR bridge to St Paul Partniewpon line 041 29.65 0.67 8.14 199,500 6810413
City kne to Glen Road Interchange 1.27 26.01 0.42 14.94 942,900 $640.949
Glen Rd.Interchange to 17th St 023 43.71 0.67 6.74 199,500 1670.203
1716 St to 21st 51 026 47.10 0.67 8.61 591500 9879,178
Optics 21.1 St 013 47.50 0.67 4.14 642.900 9177,488
inp.21st St lo Railroad Trace 0.14 44.34 0.67 4.16 999,500 $413.630
Railroad trach lo south 1-494 ramp 0.14 45.19 0.67 424 999,500 6421.763
Souh 149 ramp to North 6494 ramp 0.10 54.42 0.67 3.65 199,500 $362,791
North 1.494 ramp to Railroad bridge 0.41 62.36 0.67 17.13 199100 $1,704,464
Railroad bridge to T.M.61 bridge 0.02 60.56 0.67 0.81 999.500 180.745
T.M.61 bridge to 149 bridge 0.30 64.54 0.67 12.97 $99.500 91290 768
149 bridge to and of project 020 57.50 0.67 7.71 $99,500 $766,648
Total for West Frontage Road Roadway $1,700,547
Maawer Ave/1494 ramps
1491 0e to Maxwell Ave 0.23 25 18 0.67 368 $99.500 $386.084
MaxwetlAve.to 1494 W.8 023 35.09 0.67 6.41 999,500 3538,033
Total for Maxwell Ave./I.464 Ramps-Roadway $924,117
Marwe6-Bailey/7.1.1 61 ramps
T.M.61 6.111 to Maxvw(Bailey ramp 0 18 23.39 067 2.82 999,500 1250.673
Maxwell-Bailey to T.M.61 N.B.ramp 0.23 30.64 0.67 4.72 $99,500 $469,802
Total for Maxwell Ave.-Bailey Ave.I T.H.61 Ramps-Roadway $750,475
Batey Road/1-491 ramps
1494 W.B.to Bailey Road ramp 020 16.71 0.67 224 999,500 $222.79 •
Bailey Road to 1494 E.B ramp 026 12.54 0.67 5.67 999,500 $564,013
Total for Bailey Rd./I-494 ramps•Roadway $796,607
Hastings Avenue Roadway
St.Paul Park Road to 6561 St 029 32.39 0.67 6.29 $99,500 9626.191
65th St to 12th St 0.97 37.95 0.67 24.66 999,500 92,454.039
1211 St to Glen Road 0 45 45.94 0.67 1365 999,500 91,378,166
Glen Road to Bailey Road 1.06 44.64 0.67 31.70 199,500 $3,151,481
Total for Hastings Avenue Roadway 67,612,876
St Paul Park Road
West bound road ay
begin to T.M.61 badge 029 30.23 0.67 5.87 999,500 $564432
T.M.61 bridge to RR wage 0.03 26.34 0.67 0.53 999,500 652,679
RR bridge to Broadwey Ave 0.15 32.59 0.67 328 999,500 $325.992
East Bound Roadway
Connection to inplace CSAJ4 22 0 44 32.96 0.67 9.72 999.500 9966.502
West Bound to T.M.61 bridge 028 _ 13.7 0.67 2.57 999,500 6255,727
T.M.61 bridge to RR badge 0.03 45.92 0.67 0.92 999,500 991,838
RR bridge to Broadway Ave 0.14 28.58 067 2.68 999.500 $266.740
•
Total for St.Paul Park Road Roadway 92.344,110
•
•
• I<94/T.H.61 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN WASHINGTON,RAMSEY AND DAKOTA COUNTIES•page 4
Lengbi(miles) Average Wean Depb factor LMA Factor Cost Factor Cost
St Paul Park knarchange Ramps
T.M.61 14.9 b SI.Paul Park Road 0.18 17.96 0.67 2.17 199,500 1215,755
St.Paul Park Rd to T.M.61 5.8. 0.22 13.53 0.67 1.99 $99.500 1198,435
T.M.61 5.6 to St Paul Past Road 0.20 18.38 0.67 2.19 199.500 1218.395
a Paul Park Rd to T.H.6/N.B. 0.21 13.61 0.67 114 199.500 $193,335
Total for St.Paul Park Road Interchange Ramps 1125119
(Red Rock Road Relocation 1 0.38 1 42.88 ( 0.67 ( 10.92 1 $99.500 1 51,016,2111
(Point Douglas Rd.Relocation ( 0.19 1 29.56 1 0.67 1 3.76 1 $99,500 1 1374,4171
155th SL Relocation I 0.14 1 33.29 1 0.67 1 3.12 1 $99,500 1 $310,6991
13rd Street Relocation ( 0.19 ( 29.30 ( 0.67 ( 3.73 1 199,500 ( 1371,1241
(4th•5th St.Connection ( 020 1 23.63 ( 0.42 1 1.98 (_ $42,900 ( $16,1531 ••
(Pleasant Ave.Connection ( 0.09 ( 39.53 ( 042 1 1.49 1 $42,900 ( $14,1031 ••
Vlllanue Ave.Relocation
East Bound Lanes 0.07 33.94 0.67 1.59 999.500 9181,383
Wast Bound Lanes 0.07 16.91 0.67 0.79 $99.500 171,911
Total•Vlllanue Ave Roadway 1237294
21st St.connection 0.03 42.60 042 0.54 942.900 123.027 ••
1st Ave connection 0.03 27.57 042 035 642100 814,103 ••
(17th St.connection I 0.06 1 4021 ( 042 1 1.01 1 $42,900 1 $43,4701 e•
114astings/Glen connection ( 0.14 1 43.50 1 0.67 1 4.08 1 199,500 1 8405,9901
• Retaining walls Sq.Ft Cost/Sq.Ft. Cost
Glen Road Inbrelunpe-vest 14350 $50 $717,500
Glen Road Interchange-east 6880 $50 $294.000
T.M.61 S.B.m Glen Rd.ramp 15120 $50 1756.000
Glen Rd to T.14 61 St ramp 15120 150 $756.000
T.H.81 N.B.to Glen Rd.ramp 15120 $50 1756,000
Glen Rd b T.H.61 H.B.ramp 15120 150 1756,000
RR bridge by A/Nund Refinery-NW 2956 $50 $147,600
RR bridge try Astlund Refinery-NE 1148 150 157400
RR bridge by AsNun d Refinery-SW 1190 $50 159.500
RR bridge by ASNund Refinery-NE 462 $50 144,100
Between Hastings i T.M.61 N.B 4560 $50 $229,000
BebayMasbngs-west 11420 $50 $571,000
Baiyn4astings-east 5700 150 1265.000
Bailey-Hastings over T.M.61.east 1528 $50 $76,400
Bailey-Hastings over T.M.61.weal 1396 $50 969.600
Baily-MasMps over RR.east 1122 $50 $56.100
Bailey-ttastmps over RR•west 1182 $50 159,100
Baily-Matings over RR-NSS 1174 $50 168,700
1.14 61 5.6 to BaieyMastings ramp 15120 $50 $756,000
BalleyMastirgs to T.M.61 14.6 ramp 7590 $50 1379,500
Marwell to 6494 W.B.ramp 7924 $50 1391200
between 6494 W.B.and power pole 4620 $50 $231,000
TM 61 S.B.to 1.484 W.B ramp-east 2510 $50 $125,500
T.M.61 S.B.to 6494 W.B ramp-west 990 150 $44,500
Total•Retaining Walls $7,677,100
i
•
l444/T.H.6/RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN WASHINGTON,RAMSEY AND DAKOTA COUNTIES•page •
Traffic signals
• SI,Paul Park single point $150,000
Sar Ave i St Paul Park Road 5150,000
3rd St i Stn St connection
St Paul Part Road and Hastings Ave. $150,000
6541 St and Hastings Ave.
Hastings Ave S Glen Road Conn. $150,000
Glen Road Com.i Glen Road
Hastings Ave i Bailey Road 5150,000
NPS W.B.i Baia Road 5150,000
Point Gaups Road i Bailey Road
BailryMaxwe i T.H.61 $150,000
Maxteet Ave.i Red Rock Road 5150,000
Wxtsei Ave.41494 W.B.ramp
(150,000
Maxied Ave&1.494 E.B.ramp 5150,000
West Fr.Rd.I Glen Road Inlerrhange $150,000
Ngo W.B.at Hardman Ave.
1-494 0.5.at Hartman Ave.
Total Signal costs $1,550,000
Length S i to Ft.
(Railroad relocation costs j 4000 I 5130 I I I I S520,0001
Traffic Management Systems $150,000
Total T74.30 $165,821,667
mnverai0n lo English units•1.5% $2,487,325
GRAND TOTAL $168,308,992
•
•
City of Cottage Grove
•
Memo
To: Economic Development Authority Members
From: Michelle A. Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator
Date: 10/07/99
Re: Fiscal Impact Analysis Item 4J
Attached is a copy of the draft Fiscal Impact Analysis. This is the analysis of the city as
a whole (the City received a draft for the Grey Cloud Island study, which was separate,
several months ago). At this time, staff is reviewing the draft for possible changes and
corrections. In addition, City Council has received a copy. If the EDA wishes to provide
comment back to staff about any of the information in the draft, they are welcome to do
. so.
Attachment
•
\\CG FS1\SYS\GROUPS\PER ECON\MAW\EDA Memos\Oct 99 Fiscal.doc
I t
f
r
[ . •
[ .
t'.
•
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
_ GROWTH SCENARIO COMPARISON
LAND USE PROTOTYPE STUDY
I
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Prepared for:
City of Cottage Grove, hiNie
I & the Metropolitan Council
INOM
1 September 13, 1999
I
IZ
1_ ., ,
, _
..
....aPrepared by:
l ?
r Tischler and Associates,Inc.
I. k Bethesda, Maryland
' " Pasadena, California
1
."
•
r
r
I "I'iscfiter& Associates, Inc
• riFk. TABLE OF CONTENTS
TISCHLER& L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
ASSOCIATES,INC. A. DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS AND LAND USES I
4701 Sangamore Road B. LEVEL OF SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS 1
Suite N210 C. FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS 2
Bethesda,MD 20816 1. Average Annual Scenario Results 2
i (301)32o-goo 2. Land Use Prototype Results 3
Fax:(301)320-4860 3. Explanation of the Results 4
D. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 5
80 Annandale Road II. BACKGROUND 7
Pasadena,CA 91105-1404
(818)790-6170
790-6235-60
Fax:(818)790-6235 III. SCENARIOS EVALUATED,LAND USES,AND FISCAL ANALYSIS ZONES 8
(800)424-4318 A. CURRENT CITY CHARACTERISTICS 8
B. SCENARIO PROJECTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT DENSITY 8
tischlerassociates.com C. AFFORDABLE HOUSING ESTIMATES 1 1
IV. GENERAL METHODOLOGY 13
V. GROWTH SCENARIO FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS 15
A. AVERAGE ANNUAL RESULTS 15
1. Citywide Comparisons 15
• 2. Fiscal Analysis Zone Comparisons 16
B. ANNUAL RESULTS 17
1. Citywide Comparisons 17
2. Fiscal Analysis Zone Comparisons 18
C. GENERAL FUND COST AND REVENUE DETAILS 19
I. Net Operating Revenues 19
2. Operating Revenues 21
3. Operating Expenditures 22
4. Capital Expenditures 24
VI. PROTOTYPE FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS 27
A. LAND USE PROTOTYPES 27
1. Residential Prototypes 27
2. Nonresidential Prototypes 27
B. METHODOLOGY 28
1. Annual Operating Costs and Revenues 28
2. Annualized One-Time Revenues 30
3. Annualized Capital Costs 30
4. Threshold and Timing Related Cost Reduction 30
C. FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS 31
1. Annual Revenues 31
2. Annual Costs 32
Fiscal Impact Analysis 3. Annual Net Revenues 33
•
Capital Facility Analysis
Asi Impact Fee Systems
411, Growth Policy Planning
Economic and Market Analysis
MUIVIES,FISCALS 8 CRIM
Fiscal impact systems tailored
for each community
•
r I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under contract with the Metropolitan Council and the City of Cottage Grove,
TiSC:HLER& Tischler& Associates Inc. (TA) has analyzed two growth scenarios -- trends
Associ S j development versus more compact development. Fiscal impacts by land use
prototype have also analyzed as part of the study. The prototype analysis
4701 Sangamore Road evaluates the independent fiscal impacts of each residential and nonresidential
Suite ND 2 land use,whereas the growth scenario analysis evaluates andcompares the
Bethesda,MD 20816y
(301)320-6900 overall fiscal impacts of the two growth scenarios of all land uses combined to
Fax:(301)320-4860 the year 2020.
80 Annandale Road
Pasadena,CA 91105-1404 A. Development Scenarios and Land Uses
(818)790-6170
Fax:(818)790-6235 Currently in Cottage Grove, there are an estimated 32,633 residents living in
(800)424-4318 10,344 housing units. There are also an estimated 5,770 employees working in
the City. The table at the top of the next page summarizes this current level as
tischierassociates.com well as the land use projections by land use type to 2020 for the two projection
scenarios. In general, the Trends/Slow Growth scenario represents the
historical growth pace and pattern in the City and the High/Compact Growth
scenario represents a faster pace of growth at a generally higher residential
density.
•
For the Trends/Slow Growth scenario, the total population in the City increases
by about 12,300 residents, a 38 percent increase over the analysis period.
Housing units increase by 4,000 over the 21 year period. Most of these, 3,300.
are single family units, and the remaining 700 are townhouse units. Total
employment increases by 2,841, a 49 percent increase over current levels.
For the High/Compact Growth scenario, the total population in the City
increases by 18,912 residents, a 58 percent increase over current levels.
Housing units increase by 6,248 over the 21 year period, with a larger
proportion on these units being higher density townhouses compared to the
Trends/Slow Growth scenario. Total employment increases by 11,660 under
this scenario, a 202 percent increase.
Refer to Section III for further details on the scenarios including development
densities, affordable housing percentages, and geographic distribution by Fiscal
Analysis Zones (FAZ).
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Capital Facility Analysis
Impact Fee Systems •
Growth Policy Planning
Economic and Market Analysis
MUNIES,FISCALS 8 CRIM
Fiscal impact systems tailored
1 for each community Page 1
•
• 1999 to 2020 Residential and Nonresidential Growth by Scenario
City of Cottage Grove Fiscal Analysis
1999 to 2020 New Growth Net Additional
1999 Slow/Trends High/Compact Under High/Comp
Land Use Level Scenario Scenario Vs Slow/Trends
Residential
Single Family Urban ' 8,551 3,244 4,468 1,224
• Single Family Rural 403 36 208 172
Single Family Agric. 41 20 40 20
Total Single Family y 8,995 3,300 4,716 1,416
Townhouse Units 1,349 700 1,532 832
Total Units 10,344 4,000 6,248 2,248
Total Population 32,633 12,229 18,912 6,683
Nonresidential
Retail Jobs 1,507 1,023 720 (303)
Office Jobs 2,361 68 540 472
Light Ind. Jobs 545 950 8,000 7,050
Heavy Ind. Jobs 1,357 800 2,400 1,600
• Total Jobs 5,770 2,841 11,660 8,819
•
B. Level of Service Assumptions
As part of the fiscal study process, TA interviewed the City of Cottage Grove department heads
and staff and reviewed the FY99 City budget and other relevant financial documents. A Service
Level, Cost, and Revenue Assumptions (LOS) report was then written. The LOS report, dated
March 10, 1999, outlines all cost and revenue assumptions and the land use projections used to
determine future fiscal impacts on the City of Cottage Grove to the year 2020.
C. Fiscal Impact Results
1. Average Annual Scenario Results
The chart below summarizes the average annual General Fund net revenues (revenues minus
operating and capital costs) for the two projection scenarios over different time periods. The
results include all operating costs and revenues in addition to capital costs as defined in the Level
of Service document. Overall, both scenarios generate positive results for all time periods. The
High/Compact scenario produces better results than the Trends/Slow scenario, generating about
$2 million compared to about$1.3 million in average annual net revenues over the entire 21 year
analysis period.
•
Page 2 Tischier & Associates, Inc.
General Fund Average Annual Net Revenues7 ..
• Scenario Comparisons
City of Cottage Grove Fiscal Analysis
$3,000 0♦ti' V Ws:7sA ♦� ♦ \ ; 2 7
: . + ` � \ ti ♦ 67
in � \ \$2,500 � . v y
..\.
�• '`y \ \ \ x : \.a \ , tia\ \,� ,k�o �` ? \` \ av1 \\ n\ \ \ <�$2 000 " L .w \
P#"9S1
O s
$1,500 \: \�' �\Vs \t ;:.,,,j..
$1 000 ♦ v - -
a: t
z
E
$500 t
$0
Trends/Slow High/Compact
D Years 1 to 10 'Years 11 to 21 II Years 1 to 21 1
2. Land Use Prototype Results
As discussed further in Section VI, the land use prototype results reflect a point in time applying
the costs and revenues to discrete land uses. The chart below summarizes the fiscal results by
land use prototype. The single family rural prototype generates the best fiscal results with $821 in
annual net revenues. Single family urban units generates the next best results with $476 in annual
net revenues. Results for single family agricultural and townhouse units also come out positive,
generating $147 and $267 in net revenues, respectively. Of the four nonresidential prototypes,
retail space is the only one generating annual net deficits of$36 per 1,000 square feet. This
compares to net annual revenues of$74, $78, and $189 for light industrial, office, and heavy
industrial space,respectively.
•
j Page 3
Tischler & Associates, Inc.
I
i:
i
•
General Fund Net Revenues
City of Cottage Grove Prototype Fiscal Analysis
(per Unit for Residential and per 1,000 SF for Nonresidential)
V4
4
$T4
t
e .. ;
I; ''..:0" I � U
} eyf : iiaie
lg@ � Fieaktni iai lrdi biange :.., �< . • " iy($200) hefhiiyFamily
Rral Agin Urban
i3. Explanation of the Results
The following points highlight the major reasons for the results.
•
• The High/Compact development scenario performs better than the Trends/Slow scenario
because more development occurs. Given that each residential prototype generates net
positive results, more residential development results in more in net revenues over the
analysis period. Furthermore, much more industrial land isi developed under the
High/Compact scenario, and the industrial prototypes, particularly heavy industrial, also
generate net revenues because service costs are low relative to property tax revenues
received. The amount of office development is also higher and retail development is lower
under the High/Compact scenario compared to the Slow/Trends scenario. This further helps
the fiscal picture because, like industrial, office generates net surpluses, while retail generates
slight net deficits.
I • For both scenarios the average annual net revenues are greater during years 1 I through 21
compared to the first ten years because of the accrued development. This occurs because
annual revenues increase at a faster rate than annual expenditures. Expenditures do not
increase as fast as revenues because: 1) assessed values for new residential development are
higher than the current Citywide average generating relatively higher levels of accrued
property tax revenues to offset expenditures based o current service levels, and 2) a portion
• of current expenditures are fixed on a marginal basis (for example, the City does not need to
build any more fire stations to handle new growth).
I
Page 4 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
• •
• The primary reason new residential units generate positive results is because their assessed
values -- $280,000 for Single Family Rural, $160,000 for Single Family Agricultural,
$170,000 for Single Family Urban, and $115,000 for Townhouses -- are significantly higher
• than the current Citywide average of about$100,000 per unit. Assuming current service
levels, net revenues from new units are therefore relatively greater compared to the current
base.
• The results for retail space are slightly negative primarily because of the higher costs
associated with Public Safety and Public Works, which are based on higher vehicle trip
generation rates and associated activity. These higher costs more than offset the higher
property tax revenues from comparatively higher assessed value -- $95 per square foot for
retail space compared to$75, $40, and $35 per square foot for office, light industrial, and
heavy industrial, respectively.
• Heavy industrial space generates the best results of all the nonresidential prototypes primarily
because the local roads serving the development are assumed to be private. There are
therefore no public costs for street maintenance.
The above results reflect the General Fund only. Operating costs and revenues for utilities and
capital costs for major roads are not included given that the costs are recovered either through
self-sustaining enterprise funds, in the case of utilities, or MSA and assessments, in the case of
major roads. Cost impacts for water and sewer utilities, storm drainage, and roads are to be •
evaluated in a separate analysis conducted by the local engineering firm, Bonestroo, Rosene,
Anderlik &Associates.
D. General Conclusions
The following major conclusions can be drawn from the analysis:
• Given that new residential units have much higher market values compared to the current
Citywide average (including townhouses), they are able to more than pay for their associated
General Fund service needs assuming current levels of service.
• The greatest residential prototype results occur for new rural single family units, which have
a high market value of$280,000. Only 36 of these units are planned under Trends/Slow
scenario, however, and 208 under the High/Compact. The next best results occur for single
family urban units with a market value of$170,000. Given that most of the future
development in the City will be these types of units -- 3,244 under Slow/Trends and 4,468
under High/Compact -- the City will fair well from a fiscal perspective.
• Higher density development does not necessarily generate better fiscal results, as is apparent
when comparing the prototype results for townhouses to single family units. Reasons for this
include: 1)the property taxes generated from the higher valued homes more than pay for •
their associated General Fund costs, and 2) developers pay for the local road costs, so the
capital cost savings for roads from higher density is not realized by the City (although road
Page 5 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
• • maintenance costs are less once the roads are built).
• Nonresidential development also generates positive results, with the exception of retail space,
• which generates slight deficits. Retail space is necessary, however, to support the residential
growth in the City. This necessity outweighs any potential negative fiscal results, which is
inconsequential when retail space is built in combination with the other land uses.
• Of the four nonresidential prototypes, heavy industrial, which represents an expansion of the
3M facilities, generates the most positive fiscal results for the City. This needs to be weighed
against environmental, quality of life, and other issues to create sound policy objectives
regarding future nonresidential development.
• Given the positive fiscal findings, residents and policy makers are put in the fortunate
position to be able to develop with a certain degree of independence future plans and policies
addressing other important issues such as quality of life, local job creation, transportation,
broader regional objectives, housing affordability, open space, and environmental quality.
•
•
Page 6 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
• •
• II. BACKGROUND
Tischler& Associates, Inc. (TA) is under contract with the Metropolitan Council to conduct
fiscal impact studies of eight communities. For this assignment, TA is using the case study-
marginal cost approach to analyze the fiscal impacts of the eight cities in the Metro area. The
eight cities serving as prototypes include two developing cities (Cottage Grove and Shakopee),
two maturing cities (Coon Rapids and Apple Valley), two fully developed cities (Roseville and
Richfield), as well as Minneapolis and St. Paul.
As part of the study,two growth scenarios are to be analyzed for each city--trends development
versus more compact development or redevelopment. The results will help provide the
Metropolitan Council with a better idea of the fiscal impacts of these two patterns of
development in the suburban areas versus the central cities and fully developed communities.
The results will also be beneficial for each of the participating cities. The city-specific reports
serve as stand-alone documents containing valuable information to assist with growth and
finance related policy decisions at the local level. This particular report discusses the results for
Cottage Grove.
The study analyzes capital costs, operating costs, and revenues associated with providing public
services under each scenario. As a first step in the fiscal analysis, TA prepared the "Service
Level, Cost and Revenue Assumptions" (LOS) document, which discusses the City of Cottage •
Grove services and facilities that would be impacted by new growth. The impacts from both
residential and nonresidential development are evaluated. All projection methodologies built
into the customized fiscal impact model are described in LOS document dated March 10, 1999.
A growth scenario analysis as well as a prototype analysis have been conducted. The results of
both studies are described in this report. The growth scenario analysis evaluates the overall fiscal
impacts of the two growth scenarios of all land uses combined to the year 2020, whereas the
prototype analysis evaluates the independent fiscal impacts of each land use.
The fiscal results discussed in this report include all General Fund costs and revenues. Cost
impacts for water and sewer utilities, storm drainage, and roads are to be evaluated in a
separate analysis conducted by the local engineering firm, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik &
Associates.
•
Page 7 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•
III. SCENARIOS EVALUATED, LAND USES, AND FISCAL ANALYSIS ZONES
Two growth scenarios have been analyzed as part of this study for the City of Cottage Grove:
1) a Trends/Slow Growth scenario, and 2) a High/Compact Growth scenario. These scenarios
are described in detail in the January 8, 1999 memorandum prepared by the City entitled, "City of
Cottage Grove,Fiscal Impact Analysis." Both the methodology and the projection rationale are
described in this memo. In general, the Trends/Slow Growth scenario represents the historical
growth pace and pattern in the City and the High/Compact Growth scenario represents a faster
pace of growth at a generally higher residential density and more employment growth compared
to the Trends/Slow Growth scenario.
A. Current City Characteristics
The table below shows the current 1999 demographic and employment levels. For purposes of
the analysis, the City has been divided into four Fiscal Analysis Zones (FAZs). These zones are
contiguous geographic areas based on typical development characteristics in the City and are also
described in the January 8 memo. Projections for two residential land uses (single family and
multifamily) and four nonresidential land uses (retail, office, light industrial, and heavy
industrial) are included in the analysis. Currently, there are 32,633 residents living in 10,344
dwelling units in the City and 5,770 employees working in the City.
• FISCAL;ANALYSIS ZONES
k"- FAZ i`- -" .'.,FAZ2 ?td FAZ3 " ' FAZ 4 TOTAL
Population 1,298 113 19 31,204 32.633
! Total Dwelling Units 403 35 6 9,900 10,344
9 Single Family Units 403 35 6 8,551 8,995
9 Multifamily Units 0 0 0 1,349 1,349
9 Total Emp 50 22 1,357 4,341 5,770
Retail Emp NA NA NA NA 1,507
Office Emp NA NA NA NA 2,361
Light lnd Emp NA NA NA NA 545
Heavy Ind Emp NA NA NA NA 1,357
Source: Cottage Grove Community Development Department, TA
B. Scenario Projections and Development Density
The chart and table on the next page summarize the residential and nonresidential projections for
each of the two scenarios from 2000 to 2020. Please refer to the LOS document and the City's
January 8 memo for details on growth patterns by Fiscal Analysis Zone (FAZ) for each of the
scenarios.
•
Page 8 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
Cottcge Grove F is cd Inxi�ict S oena ios7
21 Yea Growth by lrnd Use
,,,,,..:..,:...,..„..:::::.:::.„..:..,..,..„.„,,,„,::„.,,.:...:::,,,.,„,..,„.,,,,„,..:;," , ...".,.....„.....:::::.....,.,:„....„....„,„.„.,....„, ,,. ,. . ,.,. .2
17,500 <�e t ♦ - *'' :`,<` t \ _ _ • _ - _ - _ _ - -
•>\ `,:w,`- �` ,�`ks:,.,\eK r< `< % .` � ,�i:i : _ _ _ :11,660 1
12.500 ��\,` .`« a t t x��,;# ,, {�, .: r, . , -
10,000 ��K•'ttiA:<��<-ft:> >^•t*‘.4 • i <�hl
; �7,500 hfi � «««8,248 : \ � ti
5,000 : P� ` :::::;:.!.."?.4"...:3:;;;,...4C,...4,'` . < <\�` inn Z8
2,500 '!,0230 "950 800
48
0
•) • •)(% •c \fa"<°c �°-� �°�� °may �° 1)
•
a a a
5� �y� °tea °Q 'ZS'
OC" \<• •% °•
■TrerXislSlow I I-GgIYCompact 1
•
1999 to 2020 Residential and Nonresidential Growth by Scenario
City of Cottage Grove Fiscal Analysis
1999 to 2020 New Growth Net Additional
1999 Slow/Trends High/Compact Under High/Comp
Land Use Level Scenario Scenario Vs Slow/Trends
Residential
Single Family Urban 8,551 3,244 4,468 1,224
Single Family Rural 403 36 208 172
Single Family Agric. 41 20 40 20
Total Single Family 8,995 3,300_ 4,716 1,416
Townhouse Units 1,349 700 1,532 832
Total Units ' 10,344 4,000 6,248 2,248
Total Population 32,633 12,229 _ 18,912 6,683
Nonresidential
Retail Jobs 1,507 1,023 720 (303)
Office Jobs 2,361 68 540 472
Light Ind.Jobs 545 950 8,000 7,050
Heavy Ind. Jobs 1,357 800 2,400 1,600
Total Jobs 5,770 2,841 11,660 8,819 •
Page 9 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
• For the Trends/Slow Growth scenario, the total population in the City increases by about 12,300
residents, from 32,633 residents in 1999 to 44,933 residents by 2020. This represents a 38
percent increase over the analysis period. Housing units increase by 4,000 over the 21 year
period. Most of these, 3,300, are single family units, and the remaining 700 are multifamily
units. Total employment increases by 2,841, from 5,770 employees in 1999 to 8,611 employees
by 2020. This is a 49 percent increase.
For the High/Compact Growth scenario,the total population in the City increases by a much
larger 18,912 residents, from 32,633 residents in 1999 to 51,545 residents by 2020. This
represents a 58 percent increase over current levels. Housing units increase by 6,248 over the 21
year analysis period, with a larger proportion on these units being multifamily compared to the
Trends/Slow Growth scenario. Under the High/Compact Growth scenario, total employment
increases by 11,660 employees, from 5,770 employees in 1999 to 17,430 employees by 2020.
This is a 202 percent increase.
The table below summarizes the residential densities for each of the two growth scenarios.
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
SF Urban DU per Acre 2.66
. TRENDS! SF Rural/Ag.DU per Acre (1) 0.025
SLOW 1F DU per Acre 7.00
OVERALL URBAN RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 2.99
HI(:11/ SF Urban DU per Acre 2.66
COMPACT SF Rural/Ag. DU per Acre (2) 0.20 /0.025
\IF DL' ier Acre 7.00
OVERALL URBAN RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 3.16
(1)Or 40 acres per unit in Agricultural and Rural Areas. Only 56 of these types of units
are to be built in FAZ 1 (Rural) and FAZ 2 (Agricultural)over 20 years. This is not
included in the Overall Urban Residential Density calculation.
(2)Or 40 acres per unit in Agricultural Area and 5 acres per unit in Rural Area. Only 208
• of these units are to be built in FAZ 1 (Rural)and 40 are to be built in FAZ 2 (Agricultural)
over 20 years. This is not included in the Overall Urban Residential Density calculation.
For the Trends/Slow scenario, the overall average residential g tial density of new units to 2020 is 2.99
units per acre. This includes 3,244 single family urban units built in FAZ 4 at a density of 2.66
unit per acre and 700 multifamily units built in FAZ 4 at a density of about 7.0 units per acre.
The 56 rural and agricultural units built in FAZ's l and 2 at a density of 40 acres per unit are not
included in the overall urban density calculation. Most of these multifamily units will be
• townhouses and will thus be taxed at the single family rate.
For the High/Compact scenario, the overall average residential density of new units to 2020 is a
slightly higher 3.16 units per acre. This includes 4,468 single family units built in FAZ 4 at a
density of 2.66 units per acre and 1,532 multifamily units built at a density of about 7.0 units per
1 Page 10 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•
acre (townhouse units). The 208 rural units built in FAZ l at a density of 1 unit per 5 acres and
the 40 agricultural units built in FAZ 2 at a density of 1 unit per 40 acres are not included in the
overall urban density calculation. This scenario therefore builds more units overall, but since a
higher proportion of the units are townhouses the overall residential density increases.
C. Affordable Housing Estimates
The table below indicates the projected average market values for each housing unit by type for
each scenario. According to the City,the benchmark for housing affordability is units priced
below $128,000. Units that fit in this category for both scenarios are the townhouse units, which
are $115,000 under the Trends/Slow scenario and $110,000 under the High/Compact scenario.
This represents 17.5 percent of total future units under Trends/Slow and 24.5 percent of total
future units under High/Compact.
•
Residential Land Use Prototypes
City of Cottage Grove Fiscal Analysis
Affordable Housing Level:(1) $128,000
• TRENDS/SLOW HIGH/COMPACT
Residential Market New Units Percent Market New Units Percent
Prototype Value 1999-2020 Affordable Value 1999-2020 Affordable •
Single Family Rural(FAZ 1) $280,000 36 0.0% $230,000 208 0.0%
• Single Family Agricultural(FAZ 2) $160,000 20 0.0% $160,000 40 0.0%
Single Family Urban(FAZ 4) $170,000 3,244 0.0% $165,000 4,468 0.0%
Townhouse(FAZ 4) $115,000 700 17.5% $110,000 1,532 24.5%
Average/Total $161,315 4,000 17.5% $153,646 6,248 24.5%
(1)Based on information provided by the City.
Based on discussions with and data provided by the City, as of 1996 about 90 percent of all units
in the City are considered affordable. It is the intention of the City, with the realization of the
dictates of current market conditions, to lower this percentage into the future based on the
Housing Goals Agreement under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act.
The table on the next page shows the resulting percentages in 2020 based on both the
Slow/Trends and the High/Compact. By 2020,based on the projections the total percent
affordable will be 69.8 percent under the Trends/Slow scenario and 65.3 percent under the
High/Compact scenario.
Note that these values are based on all new units being ownership units. Rental units and
associated affordability rates are not included given that for purposes of the analysis, all future
multifamily units are considered owner occupied townhouses. This was decided during the
scenario development phase because City staff foresaw only a small number of new rental
apartments. This is consistent with the City's goal of having 9 percent rental units by 2010 •
compared to 7 percent in 1996 as indicated in their response to the Metropolitan Livable
Community Act in 1996.
1 ., _ _ , , Tischler & Associates. Inc.
•
Current and Future Housing Affordability Percentage
City of Cottage Grove Fiscal Analysis
Scenario Trends/Slow High/Compact
Current Housing Affordability 90% 90%
Current Units 10,344 10,344
Number of Current Affordable Units 9,310 9,310
New Affordable Units 700 1,532
Total 2020 Affordable Units 10,010 10,842
Total 2020 Units 14,344 16,592
Percent Affordable in 2020 69.8% 65.3%
•
•
Page 12 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•
IV. GENERAL METHODOLOGY
The analysis projects the fiscal impacts of growth based on current levels of service in Cottage
Grove. The FY99 budget was used as a baseline since it is representative of current fiscal year
operations. Constant 1999 dollars are used throughout the study. The 1999 population, housing
unit and employment levels are used to calculate unit costs and service level thresholds.
In order to provide an understanding of the overall methodology used in this fiscal impact
analysis, a brief explanation of the FISCALS process follows. The FISCALS software utilizes
three types of input data. The first category of demographic-economic projections is called
Demand Base data inputs. These numerical projections include data such as population, housing
units, employment, and commercial and industrial space.
The second general type of input data focuses on property taxes. Market values of new
residential and nonresidential property in the City of Cottage Grove, expressed in constant
current dollars, are multiplied by the tax class rate and City tax rate to calculate property tax
revenues from new development. The assessed values have been provided by the City based on
new residential and nonresidential development. Fiscal disparities, HACA, and Local
Government Aid have been included in the methodology given that these revenue sources are all
interdependent.
The third type of input data relates to the government service levels, costs and revenues. The •
government service level cost and revenue data used in the fiscal analysis have been determined
and agreed upon by TA and the City of Cottage Grove personnel. This data will be used by TA's
FISCALS system designed for the City to calculate the annual costs, revenues and capital
facilities by department or function, where appropriate. These assumptions are outlined in this
report.
The last step in the fiscal process is to use customize FISCALS to calculate budgets and related
fiscal impact statements. The following major assumptions regarding the fiscal methodology
should be noted.
Marginal, Growth-Related Costs and Revenues For this analysis, costs and revenues which are
directly attributable to new development are included. Some costs are not expected to be
impacted by demographic or land use changes, and may be fixed in this analysis, such as some
administrative functions. In other cases, there is a realization that the costs are semi-variable. A
best estimate was then made by the department personnel and TA using proxy percentages. Both
personnel and other operating costs are projected. In addition to operating expenses, capital costs
are also included. Projections of capital costs are based on discussions with City personnel and,
in most cases, are accounted for as one-time lump sum costs incurred at particular population or
employment threshold levels.
Level of Service The cost projections are based on the assumption that the current level of •
spending, as provided in the FY99 budget, will continue through 2020. The current level of
spending is referred to as the current level of service (LOS) in this type of analysis. Given this
Page 13 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
• methodology, any services that are currently insufficient, although they will increase based on
growth, will remain at their"insufficient" level in the future. Increasing service levels are not a
part of this analysis. This "snapshot" approach is necessary to maintain consistency for all City
Departments. Furthermore, speculation of what the "proper" service level is for particular
departments is avoided and a more realistic picture is presented based on actual services provided
and funded by elected officials. Should the fiscal results show net revenues, then a judgement can
be made of how and to what extent existing deficiencies may be reduced in various departments.
Cost and Revenue Structure Costs and revenues are projected assuming that the current budget
structure, as defined by the FY99 budget, will not change during the analysis period.
Inflation Rate The rate of inflation is assumed to be zero throughout the projection period, and
cost and revenue projections are in constant 1999 dollars. This assumption is in accord with
current budget data and avoids the difficulty of forecasting as well as interpreting results
expressed in inflated dollars. In general, including inflation is very complicated and
unpredictable. This is particularly the case given that some costs, such as salaries, increase at
different rates than other operating and capital costs such as contractual and building construction
costs. And these costs, in turn, almost always increase in variation to the appreciation of real
estate. Using constant 1999 dollars reinforces the snapshot approach and avoids these problems.
Non-fiscal Evaluations While a fiscal impact analysis is an important consideration in planning
4111 decisions, it is only one of several issues which should be considered. Environmental and social
issues, for example, should also be considered when making planning and policy decisions. The
above notwithstanding, this analysis will enable interested parties to understand the fiscal
implications of future development. (Note that non-fiscal issues will be addressed as part of the
overall study effort. Metro Council staff are preparing materials to address these issues, which
will be analyzed and summarized in conjunction with the fiscal results.)
•
•
Page 14 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
V. GROWTH SCENARIO FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS
•
•
The fiscal impacts are discussed in terms of average annual and annual results. The average
annual results are discussed first in Part A below because it provides a good way of comparing
multiple scenarios and geographic zones. Annual results are then discussed in Part B. Both
Citywide results and results by FAZ have been analyzed and compared for each growth scenario.
• All results are those accruing from new growth only, and do not include costs and revenues from
the existing population and employment base of the City. Cost and revenue details are discussed
in Part C.
A. Average Annual Results
1. Citywide Comparisons
The chart below summarizes the average annual net revenues (revenues minus operating and
capital costs) for the General Fund for three time periods of the 1999 to 2020 projection
timeframe: 1) Years 1 to 10, 2) Years 11 to 21, and 3) Years l to 21. The results for the two
scenarios are shown and include all operating costs and revenues in addition to capital costs as
defined in the Level of Service document.
Note that the fiscal results discussed in this report include all General Fund costs and revenues.
Impacts on water and sewer utilities, storm drainage, and roads are to be evaluated in a •
separate analysis conducted by the local engineering firm, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik &
Associates.
General Fund Average Annual Net Revenues
Scenario Comparisons
City of Cottage Grove Fiscal Analysis
$3,000
:32 577
$2,500 e t t
$1,981
$2,000 P�i i v i`tt`.7� � � ' 3 i ► 0 _
$1,500 , : . : ^` $14319 < 11,it�'.f ',: -
" $1,000 • , x&47
$500 .
$0
Trends/Slow High/Compact •
O Years 1 to 10 IN Years 11 to 21 IN Years 1 to 21
Page 15
Tischler & Associates, Inc.
f'
!•
i Overall, both scenarios generate positive results for all time periods. The High/Compact scenario
produces better results than the Trends/Slow scenario, generating about $2 million compared to
= about $1.3 million in average annual net revenues over the entire 21 year analysis period.
For both scenarios the average annual net revenues are greater during years 11 through 21
compared to the first ten years because of the accrued development. That is, the accumulation of
developed land over time cumulatively increases the property tax base to offset the increase in
expenditures. This occurs because expenditures do not increase as fast as revenues. As will be
explained further below in Part C,the major reasons expenditures do not increase as fast as
revenues are: 1)assessed values for new residential development are higher than the current
Citywide average generating relatively higher levels of property tax revenues to offset
expenditures based on current service levels, and 2) a portion of current expenditures are fixed on
a marginal basis (for example,the City does not need to build any more fire stations to handle
new growth). Please refer to the discussion on housing affordability in Section III, Part C above
for further understanding of current versus future residential assessed values.
The major reason the High/Compact development scenario performs better than the Trends/Slow
scenario is because more residential and nonresidential development occurs. Given that all the
residential prototypes each generate net positive results, the overall results are better.
} Furthermore, much more industrial land is developed under the High/Compact scenario, and the
• industrial prototypes also generate net revenues given service costs are low relative to property
• tax revenues received. The amount of office development is also higher and retail development
is lower under the High/Compact scenario. This further helps the fiscal picture because, like
industrial, office generates net surpluses, yet retail generates slight net deficits. Refer to Section
VI for details on the fiscal results by land use prototype.
2. Fiscal Analysis Zone Comparisons
The chart below shows the average annual net revenue results for each FAZ under each
• projection scenario for years 1 through 21. It is clear that FAZ 4 produces the best fiscal results,
generating about $1.2 million and $1.5 million in average annual net revenues for the
Trends/Slow and the High/Compact scenarios, respectively. This is because most of the growth
occurs in this zone.
• The next greatest result occurs in FAZ 3 where $94,000 and $415,000 in average annual net
revenues are generated for the Trends/Slow and High/Compact scenarios, respectively. Light and
heavy industrial development is projected in this zone, both of which generate positive results.
FAZ 1 produces the next best results, generating $32,000 and $76,000 in average annual net
revenues for the Trends/Slow and High/Compact scenarios, respectively. A small number of
• more expensive rural homes and retail growth is projected in this zone. For FAZ 2, where only
20(under Trends/Slow) and 40 (under High/Compact) single family agricultural units are built,
modest average annual net revenues of$3.0 and $3.9 million are generated for the two scenario,
respectively.
Page 16 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
i
f
• .
General Fund Average Annual Net Revenues (Years 1-21)
FAZ Comparisons
City of Cottage Grove Fiscal Analysis
E `« i ... �
3t.46
67$1,600 .�� . ••x 4'` `�$1,400 4 • 1,1902 v T .`. " A z ' . ::..•>• tkto� t s ` ytt�trh Y51 200 ii bt .� ♦`� '` t `
"ki
;� yt\ �`c4 �4 � � t f « t +,r tA$1,000 t t • a ,
� G�...S � i , `. ..♦` fit _avt
,r
.
-���`bVa;+„,tO '1 ` � w414
5800 '�A.�4 ♦ t� �'t< C' : om` tt\ e . � \i •
v . ;V t• ,4� ` �`k\'1:4�t ari
. .X �`.' $6 0 0 Jt .0so ' °4. ` . . .` `s s.�S ' •Y � . -.. ♦ t
?A 4 fTfT "E .5400 4`` ..k �.` ` . 4�` �4� `♦ ` .t . ` :,&.` C�` ` .$200 .Y33 �47fi ` `
1 X9..0 ��� .. ' i$o
FAZ 1 FAZ 2 FAZ 3 FAZ 4 •
OTrends/Slow ■High/Compact
B. Annual Results
•1. Citywide Comparisons
The chart below shows the Citywide General Fund annual net revenues over the 21 year analysis
period for the two scenarios.
General Fund Net Revenues
Citywide Results -- High/Compact Vs. Trends/Slow
. City of Cottage Grove Fiscal Analysis
$4,000 -
$3,500 r r
• 53,0001. «
... $2,500 •
Q
$2,000
I. $1,500 .4.,.;4':::..:,,...;:.:.:.„:7,,:.,:i'..,,:- Z,...:.:',......:,::;!.:.:,::,7.:::::::.:_1;.:',..•:,:,,,-.:.•. .�`
f
.3
$1,000 — r
n.�
50 �}p
'` re ti�, ef.' . ti ti�y �L ti�� e- ep tiz. ,tory (t) �,p iz. ep �LN4. 1CD o,� , ,,, ,,oho
411
—a--Trends/Slow (High/Compact
1
1 Page 17 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•
Annual net revenues start out positive and continue to increase as growth continues for both
scenarios. The High/Compact scenario generates greater annual revenues for each year compared
to the Slow/Compact scenario for the reasons stated earlier. By 2020, annual net revenues for the
High/Compact scenario reach about $3.5 million. For the Slow/Compact scenario annual net
revenues are $2.5 million by 2020.
The "bumpy" nature of the trend lines result because capital costs are incurred for particularyears
due to thresholds being met. For example, when a certain population threshold is reached over
time, a new neighborhood park is "built" by the fiscal model. The same effect occurs when new
staff are "hired" by the fiscal model at certain thresholds. Operating and capital costs are
discussed in more detail in PartC below.
2. Fiscal Analysis Zone Comparisons
The tables below summarize the net annual General Fund revenues by fiscal analysis zone for
each of the two scenarios.
General Fund Net Revenues
Zone Comparisons -- Trends/Slow Scenario
City of Cottage Grove Fiscal Analysis
$2.50° - .,. ...
$2,000 f
$1,500 - - - -
nV
$1,000 ?j ; ; - - - • - - -
i.
cffs
($500)
-. -FAZ1 $FAZ2 -1a-FAZ3 -11-FAZ4
•
Page 18 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
• •
General Fund Net Revenues
Zone Comparisons — High/Compact Scenario
City of Cottage Grove Fiscal Analysis
$2 5W ♦ w r aE�< . ♦ {. .,e}. } t r7 7. r
52,000 } } Y .;. t-ni`>.<\ `.. < .,fir w c.} r J k .
5� 500 ``}, f << �, a\` r \• f.:.-.. G<b
/yam < , ` .. <<`. i . . .
�' $1,000 '�` �``'�v<'� .'^<<<. \«~�i`<`.``<``�� \1E+�!�� <r^c�,.� s.�. - -
$500
$0 w ww N w If w w
.,Q. �� 41 1� ,z,6rho
($50 . - .' `'� ' LLlI,'', : ..�o,..; ..,rp 44).... 45) do zo .E)
�-FAZ1 $FAZ2 --A-FAZ 3 -f-FAZ 4
It is clear under both scenarios that FAZ 4 generates the greatest amount in net revenues. As
•
stated earlier, this is because this zone has the most growth projected. FAZ 3 generates the next
best results, followed by FAZ 2 and then FAZ 1.
The biggest difference between the two charts is the amount of annual net revenues generated,
with the High/Compact scenario producing more annual net revenues for each zone. Another
apparent difference is for FAZ 3 in particular, which shows large increase in annual net revenues
under the High/Compact scenario compared to the Slow/Trends scenario. The reason for this is
because under the High/Compact scenario, 10,400 industrial employees are projected compared
to only 1,750 industrial employees under Slow/Trends. Most of this difference is from 8,000
heavy industrial employees projected under High/Compact compared to only 800 heavy
industrial employees under Slow/Trends. This is based on the assumption that 3M will
significantly expand. Given that new local roads serving an expanded 3M would be private,
heavy industrial employment generates a greater amount of net revenues compared to light
industrial. Refer to Section VI for further cost and revenue details by land use prototype.
C. General Fund Cost and Revenue Details
1. Net Operating Revenues
The charts below show the annual operating revenues, operating costs, capital costs, and
resulting net revenues for both scenarios. The net revenue line is calculated by subtracting the
operating and capital expenditure lines from the revenue line. 411
Page 19 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•
General Fund Net Revenues
Citywide Results -- Trends/Slow Scenario
City of Cottage Grove Fiscal Analysis
$5,000 's \..kAt k
$3,000
$2,000 t \ '.:V**•e:•••• �. er.. r4 ` :
\,�'�qQ(�
�. 'sirr
$1,000 `
moo► _ � ,
• a �' t„ . h � e o 0
($1,000)
--♦-Revenues -4-Operating Costs —a—Capital Costs —II—Net Revenues
General Fund Net Revenues
410 Citywide Results -- High/Compact Scenario
City of Cottage Grove Fiscal Analysis
•
$7,000 - - - . .
S.
$6,000 r
$5,000
$4,000 ♦ �.. ` � . - -
h ,
$3,000 `
A '
$21000 � :.�`vt\�4 S ♦ 4 / :••.
\ t
1$1 N.*. �� :,6 N . ,� NA do
—a—Revenues —S—Operating Costs -A—Capital Costs -Net Revenues
It is apparent for both scenarios that the operating costs and revenues generally grow over time as
development occurs from 1999 to 2020. Operating revenues increase at a faster rate than
• operating expenditures resulting in increasing annual net operating revenues over time. Revenue
and expenditure details are discussed further in Parts 2 and 3 below.
Page 20 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
t
•
I The capital costs occur when certain thresholds are met as explained
pin the LOS document. For
example,when a certain population threshold is reached over time, a new park is "built" by the
Ifiscal model. Capital costs are discussed in more detail in Part 4 below.
2. Operating Revenues
The chart below shows the General Fund operating revenues from 1999 to 2020 for the
1 Trends/Slow scenario. Results for the High/Compact scenario are not shown, but the same
general relationship occurs,with only differences in magnitude and/or minor variations of the
relative differential between revenue types. The revenues shown are in constant 1999 dollars.
I
r General Fund Revenues
1 low/Trends Scenario
•
$3,500 t - - ._. _
$3,000 ��
$2,500 ', �`,.,
•
$2,000 E�4 ,,: 44 ' 5 k,C\
8
p A 4 �\i`
$1,500 :..>:•,:•',',:--:•:::,w,-
...„.
I $1000 _ _.
�.,
f
$500 . ... } ,o
$0 ‘, .4.p...',_-.4i4P.:4,41°...4. 7.74...:;t,'.4 ,::i.r. -4....-..,:".:.„./1 -1 II 1 -IT 1 1 i — I
'fw
1 ', f tt t `c. `` `"`..* � .411 Property Taxes
1 �w e.4���`-'••t s''`�' Licenses/Permits
,A %i %`4 u . t= :' Fiscai Dis Danoes
1 of' -,,,:.,,,,,,,:w.,,... :.:: :.,...::." _ ailliP 1nYrpo.emmental
'Y ,, �p,ev, ASsceuaneous
ti1, t,44 Flnes
PubliC Safety
,Lo, �,� ^6 ,'� a Charges'0 Se ce
43
IPage 21 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
i
3
i
I0
As expected, the greatest amount of revenue comes from Property Taxes. This is followed by
I License and Permit and Fiscal Disparity revenues. These three revenue sources make up about
90 percent of the total General Fund revenues in year 2020 at the end of the analysis period. The
remaining five revenue categories make up the remaining 10 percent of the total revenues. The
Iannual numerical values and percentages for each revenues category are summarized in the table
below at five year increments beginning in the year 2000. The average annual revenues over the
21 year analysis period are also shown.
I
General Fund Revenues(X 1,000)
1 City of Cottage Grove Fiscal Analysis-Slow/Trends Scenario
21 Year
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Average
Revenue Category Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount ' Percent Amount ' Percent Amount I Percent Annual
Property Taxes $109 23.3% $693 53.5% $1,443 61.8% $2,258 66.8% $3,0991 69.9% $1,503
Fiscal Disparities ($39) -8.3% $42 3.3% $152 6.5% $253 7.5% $349 ! 7.9% $149
Licenses/Permits $321 68.7% $354 27.4% $450 19.3% $499 14.8% $539 12.2% $439
I Intergovernmental $68 14.6% $158 12.2% $197 8.4% $232 6.9% $267 6.0% $193
Charges for Service $4 0.8% $23 1.8% $44 1.9% $67 2.0% $88 I 2.0% $45
Public Safety $1 02% $6 0.5% $12 0.5% $19 0.5% $25 0.6% $13
Fines $30.6% $16 1.3% $32 1.4% $47 1.4% $63 1.4% $32
1 Miscellaneous $0 0.1% $2 0.1% $3 0.1% $5 0.1% $7 0.2% $3
TOTAL $466 ; 100.0% $1,294 I 100.0% $2,333 100.0% $3,380 i 100.0% $4,436 100.0% $2,377
1 •
Property Tax revenues represent about 62 percent of General Fund total revenues in 2010, half
way through the development process. The percentage increases to almost 70 percent in 2020 at
an annual amount of approximately$3.1 million. Licenses and Permits ($539,000) consist of
about 12 percent of total annual revenues in 2020, followed by Fiscal Disparities ($349,000)
representing about 8 percent of the total. Intergovernmental revenues, which includes Local
1 Government Aid, Local Performance Aid, and Police and Fire Aid account for about 6 percent of
total revenues in 2020($267,000). Charges for Service, Public Safety, Fines, and Miscellaneous
revenues account for the remaining 4 percent of total General Fund revenues.
When compared to the FY99 General Fund revenues, where Property Taxes and Fiscal
Disparities combined account for about 53 percent of the total, it is clear that property taxes and
fiscal disparities from future growth (representing almost 78 percent of total revenues in 2020)
play a more significant role. This results primarily because of two reasons: 1) the assessed
. valuation of new residential units is significantly greater than the current Citywide average, and
2) Inter-governmental Aid, representing 31 percent of the FY99 budget, is reduced given that the
projection methodology assumes that HACA does not increase in the future (since a snapshot
approach is used, and HACA did not increase from 1998 to 1999.) For further understanding of
the first point,please refer to the discussion on housing affordability in Section III, Part C above.
3. Operating Expenditures
• The chart below shows the General Fund expenditures that would be required over time from the
development under the Trends/Slow scenario. Expenditures shown are in constant 1999 dollars.
1 Page 22 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
I
t
i The greatest expenditures are for Police, followed by Public Works (General Fund portion only)
•
and General Government. Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Other Public Safety expenditures
make up the remaining costs, respectively. The lumpy increases that occur in certain years occur
' when new staff are "hired",when new capital facilities are "built" requiring additional operating
expenditures, and are tied to the residential and nonresidential five year incremental growth
patterns as described in the LOS.
The annual numerical values and percentages are summarized in the table below the chart at five
year increments beginning in the year 2000. The average annual expenditures over the 21 year
analysis period are also shown.
General Fund Operating Expenditures
Slow/Trends Scenario
.:,!::.!:::.i.i.:i 7?:7::.1 i;::.:0.,'-7,.:f.:!:.t•-•A 1:7'....',,i;:;..;7:'.;:i.i;k.:1.1:: :;,'::.:.2::1 '.' I .'. ." ' ;
• $800 �: 11 , ..„.„....--..,.....„,,,......„„,„:::::••77,7. `�-
$700 t
$600 :ii..," , \ ,_
$500 ��
$400 >
300
r
$200 k' � `. .
v � 4 v' e" -i,- 4n' i�fad 7+ b
e
$100 :.r. Id
Police
"llR�� �Q � PuDlk Work
General
Ge rnmant
,� bb ;' Parua and Racraatron
l 1
40, a OtMr PuDI¢Sataty
s
Page 23
Tisch
& Associates, Inc.
t•
'i • General Fund Operating Expenditures(X 1,000)
City of Cottage Grove Fiscal Analysis-Slow/Trends Scenario
21 Year
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Average
{ Revenue Category Amount Percent Amount ' Percent Amount Percent Amount ' Percent Amount i Percent Annual
General Government $12 27.0% $67 21.1% $139 17.7% $254 17.8% $429 21.3% $180
Police $6 14.1% $98 30.6% $297 37.8% $570 40.0% $783 38.9% $345
Fire $8 18.5% $48 15.1% $96 12.3% $152 10.7% $207 10.3% $101
Other Public Safety $1 2.5% $7 2.1% $13 1.7% $19 1.4% $25 1.3% $13
Public Works $13 29.3% $77 24.0% $195 24.8% $314 22.1% $432 21.5% $205
Parks and Recreation $4 8.7% $23 7.1% $45 5.7% $114 8.0% $136 6.7% $61
TOTAL $44 100.0% $320 100.0% $784 100.0% $1,425 100.0% $2,013 , 100.0% $906
Police operating expenditures account for about $783,000 of the total $2 million in General Fund
operations in 2020. This represents about 38 percent of the total. Public Works and General
Government costs are $432,000 and $429,000 in 2020, respectively, accounting for about 21
percent of the total each. About 10 percent of the total revenues in 2020 are for Fire Operations.
Parks and Recreation costs are about 7 percent of the total, and Other Public Safety costs
1 (Animal Control and Emergency Operations) account for the remaining 1.3 percent.
For the current FY99 budget, General Government accounts for 26.8 percent of the total budget.
This compares to the 21 percent of the total in 2020 from new growth. General Government
includes the primarily administrative functions such as Finance and Administration. (Refer to
• the LOS document for details.) Total Public Safety, including Police, Fire, and Other Public
Safety, accounts for 44 percent of the FY99 budget. This compares to about 50 percent of the
2020 projected budget. The FY99 percentage for Public Works is 19 percent (not including
utilities which are enterprise funds), compared to 21 percent for the 2020 marginal growth
budget. For Parks and Recreation, the FY99 percentage is 10 percent compared to 7 percent in
2020. Although generally consistent, any differences result because of: 1) the marginal ratio of
residential to nonresidential growth compared to the current ratio, and 2) fixed costs for some of
the primarily administrative functions.
4. Capital Expenditures
The chart on the next page shows the annual General Fund capital expenditures for the
Trends/Slow scenario from 1999 to 2020. Capital costs include those for Public Works, Public
Safety (Fire and Police), and Parks and Recreation as outlined in the LOS. The various costs are
incurred when population, employment, or other threshold levels are reached based on the
particular projection methodology being utilized.
Capital costs for Public Works include major vehicle and equipment costs to maintain new major
and local roads. Costs for water and sewer utilities are not included in this category given that
these are enterprise funds. Costs for major road construction are also not included, and are
shown as zero in the chart, because these costs are anticipated to be fully recovered through non-
• General Fund MSA's and special assessments. Local roads are typically paid for by developers,
also resulting in no Genera] Fund cost. (Maintenance costs are incurred, however, once roads are
built and are accounted for under Public Works operations.)
Page 24 Tischler & Associates, Inc
i
•
Capital costs for Public Safety include all vehicles and equipment and building space needs as
indicated in the LOS. Most of these costs are for the Police Department, given that the City does
not need any additional fire stations and equipment from new growth. (As indicated in the LOS
f three of the four fire stations are relatively new being built within the last 5 years.) There are
some new ambulance costs, however, associated with the Fire Department.
I Parks and Recreation costs include the construction of new neighborhood and community parks
triggered when population thresholds are reached based on the current service levels. Marginal
costs for the Ice Arena are also incurred. The costs shown in the chart are net of any impact fees
1 collected as described in the LOS.
General Fund Capital Expenditures
Slow/Trends Scenario
.:•..,,:,',„::..::,;',f;i.:.•..'..'.;:.%:.,-.,:•,.:7:,.,i..::.:::,„:
$450 -,, `
_.._
$400 .j
t - ___
$350
$300 ,t •
8 $250 } --._' „
$200
$150
$100
$50 +'!+. .
— . 1
i'r► � a '+C�:'
($50) .r. ..► .'� .'
i
j,II
41 e\ io 1 PuDbc worts
' Public S\bty
b e Par and R.crrlsbon
�` ,`'% a ��sp Major Roads
M1 44 ,p,9 ti
i
1 The table below shows the cumulative capital costs from 2000 to 2020 at five year increments. •
In addition, the cumulative percentages of the total are also shown.
I
1 Paee 25 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
General Fund Capital Expenditures(X 1,000)
City of Cottage Grove Fiscal Analysis—Slow/Trends Scenario
Expenditure To Year 2000 To Year 2005 To Year 2010 To Year 2015 To Year 2020
Category Amount` Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent
Parks and Recreation $15 100.0% $170 80.8% $668 73.9% $1,216 49.7% $1,341 42.9%
Public Safety $0 0.0% $17 8.0% $92 10.2% $814 33.3% $930 • 29.8%
Public Works $0 0.0% $24 11.2% $145 16.0% $415 17.0% $853 27.3%
• Total $15 100.0% $211 100.0% $904 100.0% $2,444 i 100.0% $3,124 100.0%
By 2020, at the end of the projection timeframe, about $3.1 million in total capital expenditures
are incurred. About 43 percent of these total costs, or$1.3 million, are for Parks and Recreation.
This is net of$600,000 in impact fee revenues (at $150 per housing unit). Public Safety
accounts for about 30 percent of the total, or$930,000 over 21 years. Public Works (non-
utilities) accounts for about 27 percent of the total, or$853,000 over 21 years. Refer to the LOS
document for details on how each of the costs is projected. Also, note that the minor operating
capital expenditures, such as computer equipment and supplies, for the various departments are
included in their operating budgets based on FY99 spending levels.
1
i
i
Page 26 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
VI. PROTOTYPE FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS
For the prototype analysis, costs and revenues are determined for the residential and
nonresidential land uses to understand the impacts each land use independently has on the City
budget. Whereas the scenario analysis, discussed in Part V above, showed the overall fiscal
impacts based on projection scenarios of all land uses combined to 2020, the prototype analysis
is a snapshot approach that evaluates the fiscal impacts of each land use.
A. Land Use Prototypes
1. Residential Prototypes
Four residential prototypes were evaluated and are shown in the table below. They include:
1) single family rural, 2) single family agricultural, 3) single family urban, and 4) townhouse.
•
For purposes of the analysis, the market values that were estimated for the Slow/Trends scenario •
are used. Persons per unit estimates are also based on 1999 levels.
Residential Land Use Prototypes
City of Cottage Grove Prototype Fiscal Analysis
1 Market Persons
Prototype Value (1) per Unit (2)
•
Single Family Rural (FAZ 1) $280,000 3.22
Single Family Agricultural (FAZ 2) $160,000 3.22
Single Family Urban (FAZ 4) $170,000 3.22
Townhouse (FAZ 4) $115,000 2.72
(1) Estimated by City. All values based on the Slow/Trends scenario.
(2) Persons per Unit data represent 1999 levels. The growth scenario
analysis reduces Single Family rates by 5 percent over 20 years
as projected by Metro Council.
2. Nonresidential Prototypes
Four nonresidential prototypes were evaluated including retail, office, light industrial, and heavy
industrial. The market values and square feet per employee factors for each are shown in the
table below.
Nonresidential Land Use Prototypes
City of Cottage Grove Prototype Fiscal Analysis
Market Value Square Feet Average
Prototype per Sq. Ft. per Employee Bldg. Size
Retail $95.00 350 5,000
Office $75.00 300 2,500
11111 Light Industrial $40.00 500 20,000
Heavy Industrial $35.00 500 50,000
Source: City of Cottage Grove
Page 27 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
• B. Methodology
1. Annual Operating Costs and Revenues
Annual costs and revenues are determined for each prototype by applying the applicable cost and
revenue factors as outlined in the Level of Service document to each prototype. In general, four
• different methodologies are used to do this depending on the factor type. In some cases, a unique
methodology must be used. These methodologies, along with accompanying examples, are
described below.
Per Capita/Employee Factors
Many of the factors as described in the LOS document use a per capita or per employee
approach. To translate the per capita or per employee cost and revenue factors into associated
costs and revenues per land use prototype, the factors are multiplied times either the number of
persons per dwelling unit for residential prototypes, or divided by the total square feet per
employee for non-residential prototypes. In many cases per employee and per capita factors are
used.
For example, the existing level of service for the Finance Department (non-personnel costs) is
$1.02 per capita and job. This cost factor is multiplied times 3.22 persons per single family rural
• home for a total cost of$3.28 for that land use prototype. The associated annual cost for each of
the other residential prototypes are calculated in the same manner using the applicable persons
per dwelling unit factor. The associated costs for the nonresidential land uses are calculated
using the above factor in conjunction with the square feet per employee factors.
Trip Generation Factors
As indicated in the LOS, residential costs for Police are calculated on a per capita basis, whereas
nonresidential costs are calculated using nonresidential vehicle trips, given that this is the best
indicator of nonresidential police activity. Trip generation rates are highest for commercial
developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial developments. For the
prototype analysis, the number of trips per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space is multiplied
times the cost per trip. For example, the non-personnel costs for the Police Department are $2.25
per nonresidential trip. This is multiplied times the trip ends and trip factors for each
nonresidential land use to determine the cost per 1,000 square feet.
Staffing Factors
As indicated in the LOS, for many of the departments, new staff are added when a particular
growth threshold is reached based on the current level of service. For the prototype analysis, the
current level of service is applied for each non-fixed staff position. For example, there are
0.1302 non-fixed Finance Department staff per 1,000 residents and jobs. Using the estimated
• salary of$41,995 for a new Finance Department position, this translates into an annual cost of
$5.43 per new resident and per new job.
Page 28 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•
For Police staffing costs, the nonresidential share of the costs are determined by multiplying the
number of staff per nonresidential trip times the trips per 1,000 square feet for each
nonresidential land use.
(These staff cost estimates are then reduced to reflect true 20 year marginal cost impacts, a
necessary step to accommodate threshold and timing aspects associated with the 20 year
combined land use projections. Refer to Part 4 below for further details.)
Marginal Calculations (not factor based)
Direct Property Tax. Property tax revenues are calculated on a marginal basis, and do not use
the existing FY99 base budget to derive LOS factors. For example, to calculate the annual
primary property tax revenues for a single family urban unit, the market value, $170,000, is
multiplied times the class rates (1.0 percent for the first $75,000 and 1.70 percent for the rest).
This results is then multiplied times the projected tax rate in Year 10 of the scenario projection
(the midpoint of the analysis timeframe). Refer to the LOS document for further details on the
property tax calculations and annual rate determination.
Fiscal Disparities. The calculation of fiscal disparities revenues are related to the amount of
property tax revenues generated per prototype. The marginal fiscal disperaties revenues are .
distributed to each land use prototype based on the percentage fiscal disperaties is of total
property taxes (direct to the City plus fiscal disparity revenues.) For example, under the
Trends/Slow scenario, the cumulative fiscal disparity revenues from new growth is about 9
percent of total cumulative property tax revenues from new growth. This percentage is used to
calculate the fiscal disparities revenues per land use prototype based on the amount of direct
property tax revenues generated.
This methodology assumes that nonresidential development should get some fiscal disparities
revenue because 40 percent of the property tax revenues derived from nonresidential
development goes into the areawide pool, part of which is received back by the City. Therefore,
the marginal fiscal disperaties revenues for the prototype analysis are distributed to all land uses
based on the percentage fiscal disperaties is of total property taxes (direct to the City plus fiscal
disparity revenues.)
Unique Cases
Unique methodologies apply as required in particular cases. For example, costs for street
maintenance are based on new lane miles generated for each prototype. Major road lane miles
per prototype are calculated based on trip generation rates and local road lane mileage is based on
front footage estimates of residential and nonresidential development. Another unique case is for
park maintenance costs, which are based on additional park acres generated by the number of
persons per household. •
Pan 29 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
s.
• 2. Annualized One-Time Revenues
License and Permit revenues are collected once at the beginning stage of each new development,
and for purposes of the average prototype analysis, they are annualized by dividing the one-time
revenue amount by 21 years to get an average annual amount for the 1999 to 2020 analysis time
period.
3. Annualized Capital Costs
Similar to one-time revenues, capital costs are also annualized by dividing capital cost per land
use prototype by 21 years. This methodology applies to parks and recreation, public safety, and
public works. For example, the total capital cost per new neighborhood park acre is $15,044.
This is multiplied times the new neighborhood park acres generated per residential unit based on
the number of residents per unit. The result is then divided by 21 years to determine the average
annual capital cost per unit.
A similar methodology is used for Public Safety and Public Works vehicles and equipment. For
Public Safety, the number of residents and the number of nonresidential trips per vehicle type as
described in the LOS are multiplied times the cost per vehicle to determine the associated capital
cost per person and per nonresidential trip. These factors are then multiplied times the number of
residents per unit and the number of trips per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space to
determine the associated cost per residential and nonresidential prototype, respectively. The
I •
result is divided by 21 years to determine the average annual capital cost per prototype. Police
building factor costs are also based on per capita and per trip level of service standards as
indicated in the LOS document.
For Public Works, costs for street maintenance vehicles and equipment are based on new lane
miles generated for each prototype. Major road lane miles per prototype are calculated based on
trip generation rates and local road lane mileage is based on front footage estimates of residential
and nonresidential development.
(The resulting annualized cost estimates are then reduced to reflect true 20 year marginal cost
impacts, a necessary step to accommodate threshold and timing aspects associated with the 20
year combined land use projections. Refer to Part 4 below for further details.)
4. Threshold and Timing Related Cost Reduction
The scenario analysis uses the marginal cost approach. For example, new population thresholds
based on the current level of service need to be reached before a new park is built. It may be that
three parks are built under trends,but that the additional threshold population beyond that is
never met, so a fourth park is not built. The same type of methodology applies to staffing, where
a new staff is hired at a certain growth threshold level. These methodologies are outlined in the
LOS document.
Page 30 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
}
i For the prototype analysis, as explained in Parts 1 through 3 above,the direct cost factors are ill
initially applied to the land use prototypes. For example, if there are 0.01 acres of neighborhood
park land per person, then this factor is multiplied times the number of persons per housing unit
type and the cost per new park acre to determine the neighborhood park capital cost per housing
unit type. The same would apply to staffing levels for all non-fixed staff. This "overestimates"
I the actual costs per unit, however,compared to the scenario projection because under the
scenario projection some of the thresholds are never reached and/or the timing occurs late in the
projection period so that cumulative costs are minimized.
1 Therefore, to remain consistent with the scenario projections, which reflects the marginal cost of
growth rather than the average cost of growth, the costs calculated as described above are
1 reduced by the percentage amount overestimated for each operating and capital cost line item.
The amount overestimated is determined by comparing the initial costs to the results generated
under the Slowfrrends scenario.
C. Fiscal Impact Results
1. Annual Revenues
1 The table below shows the revenue factors in constant dollars for each of the residential and
nonresidential prototypes.
1 Revenues-Prototype Analysis(Per Unit for Residential and Per 1,000 SF for Nonresidential) •
City of Cottage Grove Prototype Fiscal Analysis
• Single Family 1 Single Family Single Family Light Heavy
• Revenues Rural Agricultural Urban Townhouse Retail Office Industrial Industrial
Property Taxes $1,190.82 $617.20 I $665.00 $402.10 $507.82 I $336.58 $222.91 I $201.36
Fiscal Disparities $118.29 $61.31 $66.06 $39.94 $50.44 $33.43 $22.14 $20.00
HACA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Local Aid(1) $32.61 $32.61 $32.61 $27.54 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 I $0.00
Other Intergovernmental $33.92 $33.92 $33.92 $28.65 $30.09 � $35.11 $21.07 $21.07
Licenses and Permits $124.76 $81.52 $89.38 $74.09 $90.42 $83.08 $19.37 $16.98
Charges for Service $18.89 $18.89 $18.89 $15.96 $16.76 $19.56 $11.73 $11.73
Public Safety $5.42 $5.42 $5.42 $4.58 $4.06 $4.74 $2.84 $2.84
Fines $13.42 $13.42 $13.42 $11.33 $11.90 $13.89 $8.33 $8.33
Miscellaneous $1.43 $1.43 $1.43 $1.20 $1.26 $1.48 $0.89 $0.89
Park Impact Fees $7.14 $7.14 $7.14 $7.14 $0.00 • $0.00 $0.00 ! $0.00
Total Revenues $1,546.68 , $872.84 , $933.25 j $612.53 $712.77 I $527.86 , $309.28 $283.20
(1)Includes Local Government Aid and Local Performance Aid
Of all the prototypes,the single family rural prototype generates the greatest amount of annual
revenues ($1,546), most of which comes from property taxes from its relatively high $280,000
assessed value. The single family urban prototype generates the next greatest revenue amount of
$933 per year. This is followed by the single family agricultural prototype with $872 in annual
revenues. Townhouses generate $612 per year.
III
Page 31 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
s
..
', ei
Of the four nonresidential prototypes, retail space generates the most in annual revenues ($712
# per 1,000 square feet), followed by office space ($527 per 1,000 square feet), light industrial
space ($309 per 1,000 square feet), and heavy industrial ($283 per 1,000 square feet). Like the
residential prototypes the majority of the revenues for the nonresidential prototypes come from
F property taxes. The nonresidential property tax revenues shown in the table is based on the 60
i percent of the tax capacity that goes to the City. (The remaining 40 percent goes into the
areawide fiscal disparities pool.)
As indicated in Part B above, fiscal disparities revenues are related to the amount of property tax
revenues generated per prototype. The marginal fiscal disperaties revenues are distributed to
each land use prototype based on the percentage fiscal disperaties is of total property taxes (direct
to the City plus fiscal disparity revenues.) For example,under Trends, the cumulative fiscal
disparity revenues from new growth is about 9 percent of total property tax revenues. This
percentage is used to calculate the fiscal disparities revenues per land use prototype based on the
amount of direct property tax revenues generated.
i There are no additional HACA revenues for the residential prototypes because there were no
HACA increases to cities from 1998 to 1999. Since a snapshot approach was used, it is assumed
I
that there is zero marginal HACA revenues allocated to new residential development.
• License and Permit revenues, a large portion of which is from building permit fees, are also a
fairly significant revenue source to the City. Building permit fees are collected once at the time
of building permit, although they are calculated as annualized revenues in the table above over
the 21 year projection period.
1 2. Annual Costs
1 The table below shows the cost factors in constant dollars for each of the residential and
nonresidential prototypes. Both operating costs and annualized capital costs are shown.
Reduced Costs-Prototype Analysis(Per Unit for Residential and Per 1,000 SF for Nonresidential)
City of Cottage Grove Prototype Fiscal Analysis
Single Family Single Family Single Family Light ' Heavy
Costs Rural Agricultural Urban ,Townhouse Retail Office Industrial Industrial
Operating Costs I
General Government $90.97 $90.97 $90.97 $76.84 $76.70 1 $88.24 $52.72 ; $52.61
Police $16629 $16629 $166.29 $140.47 $293.38 , $131.18 $40.38 $22.13
Fire $31.91 $31.91 $31.91 $26.96 $179.46 i $80.25 I $24.70 $13.54
Other Public Safety $6.25 $6.25 $6.25 $5.28 $1.16 $1.36 $0.81 $0.81
Public Works $330.55 $330.55 $85.18 $34.84 $165.37 $130.94 $104.95 $3.72
Parks and Recreation $34.85 $34.85 $34.85 $29.43 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 $0.00
Total Operating Costs $660.81 1 $660.81 $415.43 5313.82 $716.09 ' $431.96 5223.56 $92.82
Capital Costs
Public Safety $9.87 $9.87 $9.87 $8.34 $12.65 $5.66 I $1.74 ' $0.95
Public Works $31.19 $31.19 $8.04 $3.06 $15.60 $12.35 $9.90 $0.35
• Parks and Recreation $23.75 $23.75, $23.75
$41.66 $20.06 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Tota!Capita/Costs $64.81 i $64.81 $31.47 $28.25 $18.01 i $11.64 $1.31
TOTAL COSTS I $725.62 I $725.62 I $457.10 i $345.29 I $744.34 $449.97 $235.21 $94.13
i Page 32 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
• .
Total costs are greatest for new retail space at $744 per 1,000 square feet annually. The primary
1 reason for this is because of public safety capital and public works (road maintenance) costs
which are based on trip generation rates. Retail space generates the most trips compared to the
other categories, and therefore has a large impact on police and fire calls as well as roads.
ISingle family rural and single family agricultural units incur the next highest annual cost amount
at$725 each. The costs are equal given that the both are projected to have the same number of
Iresidents per unit and share the same road front footage based on similar density. The costs for
these low density units are higher than single family urban units ($457) and townhouses ($345)
I primarily because of increase in road maintenance costs. Costs for townhouses are even lower
because they are projected to have less residents per unit compared to single family units. As a
result, impacts on Parks and Recreation, Public Safety, and General Government are reduced.
Annual costs for office space, light industrial space, and heavy industrial space are $449, $235,
and $94 per 1,000 square feet, respectively. In general, costs for light and heavy industrial space
I is less than office space because of the relatively lower employment density and trip generation
rates. Heavy industrial costs (representing expanded 3M facilities) are significantly less at $94
dollars per year because it is assumed that the local roads that serve this prototype are private.
Hence, there are no public road maintenance costs.
I
3. Annual Net Revenues .
The chart below compares the annual net revenues (revenues minus operating and capital costs)
for each of the prototypes.
l
General Fund Net Revenues
City of Cottage Grove Prototype Fiscal Analysis
(per Unit for Residential and per 1,000 SF for Nonresidential)
! $1,600 IL547
$1,400
4 O
$1 200 s t'''''''Z''''':. :•'..":%:,;::';',.;.: ':t ar a
$1.000 c� _ 0 5i'� •`� oVe
t `
` \tom * ._.` �4..
$800 72 X'\ z s yt titi-` �AT1i34
$600 t.— ,J.-:--.;:::.A`1"
Y Ki • *528
j. `� tiµ' ` 1 •
$400 r 34� .AS :: •-;;::<` 0
267 :. 9 23b $283
$200 14 k` t: 1199
' 4. $74
�,: 94
SO
i79
r '':';:::*-k!, i� array;: £ igIs F Ity 7ownbowo A�ts)t 2
gir
($200) f►n�! .,< :"flip Light industrial Heavy intluairi�l
ar
■Revenues ■Expenditures 0 Net Revenues
Page 33 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•I
The Single Family Rural prototype generates the best fiscal results with $821 in annual net
revenues. This is because of its$280,000 assessed value. There are only 36 of these units
planned under the SlowTTrends scenario, however. Single family urban units generates the next
best results with $476 in annual net revenues. Given that most of the future development in the
City will be single family urban units, 3,244 additional units under Slow/Trends, the City will
fair well from a fiscal perspective. The reason these units come out positive is because their
estimated$170,000 assessed value is significantly higher than the current Citywide average of
about $100,000 per unit.1 Keeping service levels constant, net revenues from new units are
therefore relatively greater compared to the current base.
Results for single family agricultural and townhouse units also come out positive, generating
$147 and $267 in net revenues,respectively. Agricultural units have a market value of$160,000
and are built at a lower density resulting in higher road maintenance costs. Therefore, net
revenues from these units are the lowest of all the residential prototypes. The market value of
townhouses are a lower$115,000,but they are built at a higher density and house less residents
resulting in relatively less costs. They therefore fair better than single family agricultural units.
Of the four nonresidential prototypes, retail space is the only one generating annual net deficits of
$36 per 1,000 square feet. This compares to net annual revenues of$74, $78, and $189 for light
• industrial, office, and heavy industrial space, respectively. Even though retail space has a higher
assessed value compared to office and industrial space, the higher costs associated with Public
Safety and Public Works for retail space more than offset the revenues. Heavy industrial space
generates the best results of all the nonresidential prototypes primarily because of the absence of
public costs for the assumed private local road system.
It should be again noted that the above results reflect the General Fund only. Operating costs and
revenues for utilities and capital costs for major roads are not included given that the costs are
recovered either through self-sustaining enterprise funds, in the case of utilities, or MSA and
assessments, in the case of major roads. Cost impacts for water and sewer utilities, storm
drainage, and roads are to be evaluated in a separate analysis conducted by the local engineering
firm,Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik& Associates.
1
1
I
I .
1 Based on dividing$1,011,299,449 estimated 1999 total residential market value by 10,344 residential units in
1 1999.
Page 34 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
City of Cottage Grove
•
Memo
To: Economic Development Authority Members
From: Michelle A. Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator
Date: 10/04/99
Re: Miscellaneous Business Items Item 5
EDA members should be aware that the Chamber has scheduled two meetings on the
topic of Grey Cloud Island. At the first meeting, which was held on September 28, a
presentation was made by Sienna. Those of you who were in attendance can provide a
• verbal update at the EDA meeting.
The second meeting will be held on October 18 at the Mississippi Dunes. A
presentation will be made by the DNR. If you are interested in attending, you can call
the Chamber office at 458-8334, or let me know.
F:\GROUPS\PER_ECON\MAW\EDA Memos\Oct 99 Misc.doc