The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-07-07 Parks Commission AgendaAGENDA CITY OF LITTLE CANADA PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION THURSllAY, JUNE 7, 2007 Parks Tour - 6:30 p.m. -Meet at the City Center 1. Call To Order - 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Minutes -May 3, 2007 OLD BUSINESS: 4. Park Charge Recommendation Correspondence Attached. 5. Ice Cream Social PARK CONSULTANT: 6. Update on trail connection to Maplewood 7. Update on Parks Master Plan -including current funds available for parks projects OTHER: 8. Current status of possible location of skateboard park 9. Reschedule July 5`h meeting????? 10. Friends of Parks and Trails -Annual Picnic/Meeting Flyer Attached. 11. Other Business 12. Adjourn MEMORANDUM TO: Park & Recreation Commission FROM: Jim Morelan, Parks & Recreation Director DATE: May 31, 2007 RE: Park Dedication Fee Adjustment As explained to you at our last Commission meeting, our residential park dedication fee is much lower than our neighboring cities' fees and is in need of an increase. Enclosed is a copy of a recent survey conducted by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. that shows how our current rate compares with the other 55 cities that participated in the survey. This survey definitely shows that an increase is warranted. Please note that the average fee for single family homes, as reported in the survey, is almost $2,600 ($2,488 median). After reviewing this information, it is staff's recommendation that we change our residential park dedication fee as follows: An increase in the commercial rate is not warranted at this time. We have calculated a couple of recent commercial developments' park dedication fees using our current rate and they both closely approximate to the new residential fee. n:AKrisPACon'espondeneeAKns' 2007APark Dedication Pecs.doc *multi-family is defined as anything over 8 dwelling units. In February 2007, Hoisington Kocgler Croup Inc. (HICGi) sent a survey on Che use of parlcdedication to ll0 Minnesota cities. A total of 56 cities returned surveys. 91tis doaunent summarizes t'he results of the 2007 Park dedication Survey. 'lhe Survey is parC of an ongoing efl`ort by I IizGi to understand the implications of statutory changes made in 2006 and t'o help cities define besC practices for the use ofpark dedicaCiott. Lacer in 2007, eve will be preparing a set of recommendations for park dedication regulations and the relationship to park planning. Use of Park Dedication Of the 56 cities that rel'ttrned surveys, four of them do not currently require park dedication. The Cabulation of results that follows relates to the i2 responding cities that use park dedication. Not everycity applies park dedication to nturresidenCial development. Eight cities (15°/u) only require park dedication for msidcutial development. Money from park dedication fees is used to both acquire lanc9 and to improve parks. Over 80"/0 (42 cities) use park dedication revenues to develop new parks. 'Thirty-eight cities (73%,) reported using funds for the improvement of existing parks. Most cities eeported using revenues for nniltiple purposes. Only four cities use park dedication monies for a single purpose. The chartin Figure I shows the distribution ofsurvcy responses. Response to 2006 Legislation Figure 1 Use of Monies Collected Frorn Park Dedication Many cities have no[ responded Co the 2006 changes in the statute governing park dedication. Only 25°/n of the cities reported tna]<ing amendments in its park dedication ordinance in response to t'he 2006 statutory changes. Among the sfahrtay changes wade in 2006 were the requiretnenCS to base a park dedication ordinance on an adopted "plan", requirements to give consideration to private "parks" that are open to the public, a determination of need for the dedicated land, and limitations on collecting park dedication from the "resubdivision° of property. Fee Adjustments Cities have worked to keep fees current. Almost half had adjusted fees in 2006 or 2007. "the chartin Figm~e 2 shows the year of the most recent tee adjustment, the number of responses and the percent of survey responses. l~® (c) 2007 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Cities use a variety of criteria as the basis for setting park dedication fees. 'Ihe survey responses were: • Rate of inflation - 11 Increase in property values - 17 • Correlation to other cities - 17 • Relationship to CIIr -11 • Other - 10 The number of responses exceeds 52 because some cities reported using more Yhan one criteria. Collection of Park Dedication The majority of cities (30 cities/58'%) collect park dedication in connection wifh the platting process. Nine cities (17%) collect park dedication fees through the building permit. Another nine cities responded that fees collected both ylatting and building permit. Figure 1 Year o(Most Recent Fee Adjustment 2007 Unknown 23% :y t,~":3i',, 0 ' 29/0 ; ~~ . .~ `+`_: ,r ~ ~ S~ N1 ~ ~ Prior to 2004 ~ ~~_„s;`~ v 9 17^/0 2006 zooa to 0 2005 190/^ 0% 6 12% Residential Property 'the survey did not find a canvnon approach for park dedication requirements. "]he responses suggest that approaches are tailored around the unique conditions in each city. The survey asked the city to select the response ghat matched the current park de<iicaticnt requirements for residential property. The potential responses were: • Cash or land equal to 10% of land value/area • Cash or land equal to _% ofland value/area (fill in percentage) Fired rate per type of dwelling unit. • Fixed rate per acre of ]and. $_/acre • Other method of calculation 'phe chart in Figure 3 summarizes the survey responses. The total number of responses is more than 52 because several surveys checked more thin one method. F,leven cities reported using a land area/vahe f atio other than 10%. Five of these cities use a ratio between 5°o and 8%. Two cities reported ratios between I1% and 16%. 'Ilse other Pour cities did not indicate a specific ratio. Figure 3 Reported Requirements (or Residential Property so I _._. _.... .. _._.. ao 30 ','. ie ~o ~ a ,a i ,~ to , i ° _ ~ _. Cash or land Cash ^rland 4lxetl rare Hxnl rare OiM1m No rcsp^nu eQUalloIDan e9ualW perrYrcof peracre or mcrhoa of Jana other ^.n of dwellin5 rmit land value/area land ~.n^aaren Some of the other reported methods of determining park dedication for residential property include: • ]acre for every 75 residents. 1/25th acre per unit. Per capita measure of city park system. • Variable rate based on density. ~~ Page2 2% of plat area plus amount based on cumber of ofI'-street parking spaces. • Per capita adjusted for type of housing. 929 square feet per single family unit and 666 sf per multi-family unit. 'fable I lists the fixed fee cash dedication for residential property reported in the surveys. the average Pee for single family homes is almost $2,600. For multi-family, the fee averages slightly less at $2,500/unit. Commercial-Industrial Property As noted earlier, eight cities do not au'rendyrequire park dedication for non-residential properly The survey asked the city to select the response that matched the current park dedication requirements for commercial-industrial property. The potential regUlrBlnents Wl're: • Cash or land equal to 10°/u of land value/area • Cash or ]and equal to _% of land value/area (fill iu pet'Celltage~ • Fixed rate per acre of land. $_/aae • Other method of calculation. 'T'he dtart in Figure 4 summarizes the survey responses. The surveys show a generally less complicated approach to park dedication for commercial and industrial property. Thirty cities base park dedication on a specific percent of land area or property value. Fourteen of the seventeen cities that indicated a ratio Fiyure 4 Reported Requirements (or Commercial-Industrial Property su 40 i0 zo io 0 ~~ Table 7 Fixed Fee Cash Dedication -Residential Property Single Family Duplex Townhouse Multi-family Mobile HOme Szs6 Szsb Sts4 S1sn S2s6 475 475 175* 175"- 17S* 625 625 628 313 soo 800 Soo aoo soo 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,100 1,196 792 792 792 1,300 7,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 lsao Lsoo 1500 lsao 1500 7so 7so soo 1,500 1,800 2,000 7,500 1,000 1,550 1,880 7,550 7,550 1,600 3,200 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 2,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,aoo 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,375 2,375 2,375 2,375 2,476 2,475 2,475 2,476 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,800 2,500 2,500 2,515 2,515 2,515 2,575 2,575 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,230 3,230 3,230 3,230 3,230 3,230 3,230 3,230 3,230 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,308 3,258 3,458 3,212 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 4,000 4,000 4.000 4,000 4,000 4,355 3,810 5,800 5,000 3,800 3,800 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 6,300 5,400 4,700 4,900 3,250 to 5,550 "$175/bedroom Page 3 other than 10% used a percentage of3%, to 8%. Only Tabfe2 one city reportedarate above l0%(11"/r~). Three Cities Fixed Fee Cash Dedication-CommercialAndus[i(ol Property did not list the t'ate. Commercial Industrial Other- Other- type amount Table 2 lists the fixed fee cash dedication for commercial-industrial property contained in Che surveys. The overall average fee for cwnmercial property is $10,500 per acre. If the two highest fees ($50,000 and $90,000) are removed, then the average fee drops to $4,900. For industrial yroperty, the overall average is $6,700/acre. 'lhe average drops to almosT $4,600/acre when the high fee ($SQ000) is removed. Next Steps Sonre survey respondents indicated interest in participating in a discussion forum on park dediattion "bestpracCices': I IKGi plans to conduct this forum in this summer. Participants will becontactedviaemail with date an(i schedule for the forum. Participating Cities IIKGi extends its sincere thanks to the following cities Chat participated in the 20(17 Park Dedication Survey. Andover Arden Hills Bloomington Buffalo C10(IU Gt Crystal Eagan Eden Prairie 1',xcC1S]OT Forest Lake Grand Rapids hakevil le Mankato Mound North Branch Owatonna Red Wing Savage St Michael Wayzata Apple Valley Bemidji Brooklyn Center Chanhassen Cottage Grove Duluth East Bethel F,lk River Faribault Fridley hIam Lake Little Canada Minneapolis Mounds View Northfield Plymouth Robbinsdale South St Paul SL Paid Willmar Fee per acre S1,aoa 1,000 t,aoo 1,200 2,aoo 2,300 2,100 3,000 4,000 4,000 4,200 4,738 s,7oo 6,400 6,675 7,000 7,058 7,500 7,800 n,ooo 12,500 so,ooo 90,000 8,125 to 13,875 Fee per 1,000 sf of building 705 1,737 Minnetonka New Brighton Orono Prior Lake Rosemount St. Anthony Stilhvater Woodbury Page 4 SLOOo 1,000 1,000 1,200 NA 2,300 2,500 2,000 4,000 4,000 4,200 3,966 5,475 6,400 2,205 3,600 7,693 7,500 7,600 n,ooo 72,500 NA 50,000 NA NA NA PUD NA NA NA Publid institutional NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Business park 1,200 2,000 85,000 470 Notel 235 437 NA Moorhead New I Iope Otsego Ramsey Roseville St Cloud Victoria Worthington