Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/02/1987 Park Board Packet AGENDA PARK BOARD MONDAY NOVEMBER 2, 1987 7: 00 P.M. 1 . CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 2. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 7, 1987 3. POLICE DEPARTMENT LETTER - DRAFT LETTER 4. SCHOOL PARK/CONSTRUCTION QUOTES 5. PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE 6. OLD BUSINESS - HELEN MINAR/LOT SPLIT 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. ADJOURN PARK BOARD NOVEMBER 2 , 1987 The regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Park Board was called to order at 7: 00 p.m. by Chairman Ray Johnson Monday, November 2, 1987 at the Lino Lakes City Hall . Members present: Chairman Ray Johnson, Ken Johnson, Bob Williams , Candy Toffoli and John Bauman. Also present were Public Works director, Don Volk and Secretary Connie Husby. Members not present were: Bill Nissen and George Lindy. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1987 Chairman Ray Johnson moved to accept the minutes of the October 8, 1987 Park Board meeting as presented. John Bauman seconded the motion which carried unanimously. POLICE DEPARTMENT LETTER - DRAFT LETTER The draft letter for the Chief of Police regarding more effort on the officers part to open parks up, was okayed by the Park Board. Chaiman Ray Johnson will come in and sign the letter. SCHOOL PARK/CONSTRUCTION QUOTES Don Volk received quotes from two different contractors regarding excavations and grading. From Raco Construction the bid was $16, 200. From Matt Bullock Construction the bid was $18, 900. Don Volk said he' s still missing two local bids. John Bauman suggested getting a quote from B & J Construction company here in town. George Lindy joined the meeting at 7: 08 p.m. At this time because of the expense of the bids, Chairman Ray Johnson made suggestion to ask the City Planner to purchase some park land. The Park Board would like to invite John Miller to their next Park Board meeting to discuss the purchase of park land. Because the Park Board is waiting for two other bids and will be discussing this with City Planner John Miller, Chairman Ray Johnson decided to table this issue. PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE There was lengthy discussion regarding developers doing more than what' s required in our ordinance. Can the Board request more of the developer than what' s in the ordinance? Is all of this legal? The Park Board would like to think of ways to amend this ordinance. A suggestion was made for new developments only; we should negotiate for more than what' s in our ordinance. There was discussion regarding changing the numbers in the ordinance ($160. 00/per dwelling unit to be constructed, and 10% of the fair market land value of the development) . Density was mentioned as the most accurate guideline to use. Chairman Ray Johnson said we must set guidelines for our parks and change our ordinance. Chairman Ray Johnson tabled this issue until the next Park Board meeting or whenever the Park Board members can meet with City Planner, John Miller to discuss this further. OLD BUSINESS Helen Minar/Lot Split Subdivision - 5 acre split - Ms. Minar would like to subdivide another parcel of her land and give it to her daughter. Don Volk just wanted to clerify the lot split . Ms. Minar is not creating a buildable lot . It ' s just a lot split, so Helen Minar won' t have to pay a park dedication fee as per the City Council. Ken Johnson withdraws his motion made on October 7 , 1987 regarding Helen Minar and the cash fee for the subdivision split. Candy Toffoli withdraws her second. Chairman Ray Johnson moved to accept this motion and the motion was carried unanimously. Kent Roessler - As per Don Volk, Kent will be coming before the City Council to present a new proposal regarding his seven acre parcel. Kent Roessler wants to take this seven acre parcel and split it into fifteen lots. Kent' s new preliminary plat map does not include plans for park land as he re-designed the cul-de-sac. Mr. Roessler will be appearing before the Planning and Zoning Board on November 10 , 1987 . Kent is not proposing a land swap for park land on his new proposal . Capitol Improvements Plan - Discussion was made regarding what had been completed and what had not . The archery range was also discussed. We' re waiting yet to hear from our insurance company regarding the archery range. A suggestion was made to use one-half of the fence in back of City Hall for the archery range. There was discussion regarding risk and what it would involve. On the next agenda Don Volk will ; have any changes from the staff and will update the Park Board. George Lindy made a suggestion to draft a letter in outline form to bring before the Council , regarding the Park Boards feeling about general fund monies and dedicated park monies . The Park Board wants to come before the Council to discuss the budget for the Park Board. Park Board members also requested minutes from City Council and Planning and Zoning meetings from now on. Don Volk said, our insurance company wants to check our playground equipment bi-weekly instead of once a month. This is for safety purposes only. The Park Board requested that Marilyn Anderson, City Clerk find out from the Council when the next budget meeting is, and inform them that the Park Board members would like to attend. Connie Husby, Secretary will let Chairman Ray Johnson know when this meeting will be. NEW BUSINESS None The meeting adjourned at 8: 20 p.m. ono ek e s IM - -- -- - - October 291 1987 Dean H. Campbell Chief of Police Dear Dean, The Park Board appreciates the letter you have written them regarding the situation with the parks not being opened! Thank you for being so concerned. We realize that' sOrvice and police calls from the public take precedence over the parks, but we would appreciate it if we could get a little more effort on the officers part to get our parks open! We would like a response to this letter and hopefully we ' ll feel assured that our parks are being opened and taken care of. Thank you very much for your prompt attention. Sincerely, Chairman Ray Johnson Park Board RJ/cjh 1189 MAIN STREET, LINO LAKES, MN 55014 (612)464-5562 1 GROUND LEASE THIS AGREEMENT made this .2Q11f_day of Xw by and between Independent School District No. 12 , a public corporation of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "School District" , and the City of Lino Lakes , a municipal cor- poration, hereinafter referred to as "City" . WITNESSETH: 1 . LEASED PROPERTY. The School District does hereby lease to City the following described property in Anoka County, Section 27 Range 31 and Township 22 (#) (#) 0) Beginning at a point of intersection of the north right-of-way line of CSAH 10 (Birch �v Street) and the north-south centerline of Section 27 . Thence north along the north-south centerline of Section 27 a distance of five hundred (500) feet; then west along a line parallel to and five hundred (500) feet north of the north right-of-way line of CSAH 10 a distance l of nine hundred (900) feet; thence south along a line parallel to and nine hundred (900) feet west of the north-south centerline (, of Section 27 a distance of five hundred (500) feet to a point of intersection with the north right-of-way line of CSAH 10; thence east along the north right-of-way line of CSAH 10; a distance of nine hundred (900) feet to the point of beginning. 2 . USE OF PREMISES. The City agrees that the premises shall be used only for park and recreational purposes . The City shall not have the right to use the premises for any other pur- pose without the express written approval of the School District. The City shall have the right to construct and install park and recreational equipment on such premises and may remove same upon termination of this lease, leaving the property of the School District in substantially the same condition as existed at the time of commencement of this Lease, except for improvements which the School Board agrees to accept in writing. School ' trict resery the right t mi a and/or rqe and all m nerals , n tural gas or o' 1 foun in, n o ulea ed premises dur ng the term of his Luse, a d l sals natura gas o oil sh 11 rema 'n the xclusi e ro-phe chool District unless of se resery t the =Saw. 3. RENTAL PERIOD. The term of this Lease shall be for a a period of five (5) years commencing on March 1, , 1 , and terminating on March 1 , 1997 , unless sooner ter- minated in writing upon mutual consent of the parties . 4. RENTAL CHARGE. The City agrees to pay as rental for the leased premises the sum of One and no/100 ($1 .00) Dollar per year, payable in advance on the first day of each and every year ga- commencing the 1st day of March 194e, at the office of the School District, or at such other places as may from time to time be directed by the School District. 5 . UTILITIES AND ASSESSMENTS. The City shall be respon- sible for payment of all utilities supplied to the leased premi- r� -2- ses , including City water and sewer, and failure of the City to r-� so pay shall permit the School District to do so and recover the same from City in a legal action. -'I#e -shall be ''��nnncihlA "1 -e- ma e agains ._.w„a -a�tz F.nl �nzor 6 . REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE. The City shall inspect the premises prior to the commencement of this Lease and, thereafter, shall have been deemed to accept said leased property in the con- dition found. The City agrees to keep said leased property neat and clean. The City shall repair any damage to the leased pro- perty caused by its negligence or use. Furthermore, the City shall be responsible for all maintenance work and repairs during the term of this Lease for any structures placed upon the leased property. 7 . IMPROVEMENTS. The City shall make no improvements to, or build or place any structures on, the leased premises , except the installation of park and recreational equipment, without the written permission of the School District. 8 . CITY' S COVENANTS. The City covenants and agrees during the term of this Lease: A. To pay the rent on the days and in the manner aforesaid; N t to cause the property eased at a y t me during h term the r of to beco e s bject to ny ien, cha ge r encum ran e wh tsoever it eing agr ed t at exc pt a ma be he einaf r spec' fical y pro v' ded, ' the it shall n t ha v autho ity, xpress or imp ied, to cre a lien, ge or n -3- �S) ncumb a ce upon e state f he Sc oo istri t 'n the 1 ase prope ty. Sho ld i t o Ci y reate y li n , c rge or ^` t/A �� en um ranc in e pro erty the cho 1 tSN �, ' 6 Dis r ct ma d' charge he same a d ecover any amounts paid from th City; R . To keep the leased property in good con- dition and repair; in this connection the �j City shall at all times admit the School /a District' s agents , officers or employees upon the premises to inspect and repair the property, if necessary. D. Upon termination of the Lease, either by �\S lapse of time or otherwise, to surrender, uv yield or deliver up the leased property SG � in as good condition as when received, reasonable wear and tear and damage by the elements or other natural causes beyond the City' s control excepted. E. At any time that City shall fail to keep any of the covenants herein owing to the School District, the City, upon notice by the School District, shall d - surrender to1�( '�the possession ; said property, and such reentr-y� ' - - _8chu shall not operate to defe re right to enforce the terms of this Lease and the specific performance thereof. 9 . ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLEASE. The City shall not , without the written consent of the School District, assign this Lease or its rights hereunder. 10. DEFAULT. If default is made in -.the payment of rent or in any of the covenants and agreements herein contained to be kept by the City, it shall be lawful for the School District , at the School District ' s election, to enter upon the property, or any part thereof, and retake the leased property, either with or without process of law, by using such force as may be necessary -4- so as to repossess _ the leased property as before this Lease, without prejudice to any other remedies . 11 . HOLDING OVER. In the event the City continues to occupy the leased property after the last day of any term herein created and the School District takes no action by notice or otherwise to remove the City from the property, a tenancy for year-to-year only shall be created and not for any longer period and the terms of this Lease shall continue to apply. 12 . INSURANCE. The City agrees , at no expense to the School District, to maintain and cause to be maintained general public liability insurance in the amount of at least $600,000, or any increased amount provided by Minnesota Statutes , Chapter 466 , during the term of this agreement to protect against claims for personal injury, death or damage to property occurring on or n about the leased premises , with the School District as an addi- tional insured. A certificate of insurance or copy of the policy showing the School District as additional insured and covering the period of this Lease, including any holdover period, shall be furnished to the School District at all times during this Lease, and failure to do so may cause a forfeiture of this Lease at the option of the School District. The City agrees to indemnify and keep the School District harmless from and against any and all claims , actions , damages , liabilities , suits and expense (including reasonable attorney' s fees) , in connection with loss of life, personal injury or damage to property of others , in or ram, -5 about the leased premises occasioned wholly or in part by any act .� or omission of the City, its agents , contractors or employees . The City shall not keep, maintain or use any hazardous substan- ces , as defined by state law, upon the premises . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written through their respective officers who have been authorized by resolution of the governing body of both parties to execute this Lease. CITY OF LINO LAKE By M yor By c CVtS c`v� Clerk I nDENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 12 By Chairman Clerk r -6- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS ,•.� COUNTY OF ANOKA ) On this �34 day of 1987 , before me, a Notary Public within and for said C unty, personally appeared and Marilyn G_ AndP sorb to me known to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively , of the City of Lino Lakes , a municipal corporation, described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same on behalf of said municipal corporation. MNIaALL�.Bi�IU�tACHER � .� NOTA1lY SIC•�/NIESOTA Q;yV���yc-C.-�'`J• -VCltwv�aa WASMtNOTON COUNTY M►coe■w. gyp►«,iuy ze,t9ea Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS COUNTY OF ANOKA ) L> On this day of �7 �-'� 1987 , before me, a Not ry Public within and for said County personally appeared �- S ccE�c� and s-� �c,�tL -c,- to me known to be % he Chairman and Clerk, respectively, of Independent School District No. 12 , a public corporation of the State of Minnesota, described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same on behalf of said public corporation. s r.-- .,,v,n�vM�n,•nnvr.:�tivw+n�nnr� � < EL-inE C.Yip",S tau APY PUBLIC P-iIi NESOTA VOKA COU°ITY No tar Pub 1 i c My C ammrssion Expires Oct. 18, 1989 x�bvJwWYVVWVVVVWVVV~ WWVwx -7- CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNTY OF ANOKA n STATE OF MINNESOTA Ordinance No. 14 - 86 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LINO LAKES CITY CODE BY AMENDING PROPERTY DEDICATION PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND REGULATIONS CON- TAINED THEREIN. The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes ordains: Section 1. Property Dedication. The developer shall ded- icate to the City a reasonable portion of the proposed sub- division for public streets , roads, utility easements, water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds and other similar utilities and improvements. In addition, the developer shall dedicate to the City land for public use as parks, playgrounds, trails or other open space. The criterion to be used by the City in determining the park needs is as follows: 1. Proposed development density and use. 2. Proximity of development to existing parks. 3. Open space within the development . 4. Future park needs per the comprehensive plan. For residential , commercial and industrial development the following land dedication shall apply: 10% of the total land acreage in the development. Land site selection is to be made by the City. The City may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land at the time of final approval. This cash equivalent for all residential development shall be $160.00 per dwelling unit to be constructed within such proposed development. For commercial/industrial development, the cash equivalent shall be ten (10%) per cent of the fair market land value of the devel- opment . All cash payments so received shall be placed in a special fund by the City to be used only for acquisition, betterment or debt retirement related to parks, playgrounds, trails and open spaces. This payment is due to the City Clerk-Treasurer before any documents may be filed with the County Recorder' s Office. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its pub- lication. ORDINANCE #14 - 86 Page -2- Passed by he Council of the City of Lino Lakes this A)tJ day of 1986. Benjamin Bens n, Mayor arxlyn Anderson, Clerk-Treasurer ESTIMATES FOR FIVE YEAR PROGRAM OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 1987 through 1991 PARK 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 LINO 500 BMX 2 ,000 general 1 ,000 BMX 5 ,000 well* 5 ,000 irriga- 2 ,500 tot lot (some BMX) tion (some BMX ARENA ACRES 1 ,000 resurface 2 ,000 tot lot 15 ,000 lights courts EAST SIDE 25 ,000 to ac- quire land CITY HALL 2 ,500 nursery, 1 ,000 nursery 5 ,000 playground 2 ,000 nursery, landscape , equipment turf turf 1 ,000 archery range SUNRISE 8 ,000 storage 1 ,500 turf 1 ,000 archery building 6,000 irrigation range 5 ,000 playground SHENANDOAH 2 ,000 field 5 ,000 well* 5 ,000 tot lot backstop 3 ,000 ice rink ERICKSON ' S 2 ,000 ice rink 10 ,000 tot lot 8 ,000 field & PROPOSED 8 ,000 rink lights irrigation ADDITION SOUTH RESHANAU '' _ _ �. 2.,000 ice rink 10 ,000 tot `lot 6 ,000 field LAKE ESTATES f " z 8 ,000 rink lights irrigation PROPOSED ADDI- ---`'� T I 0 N vG' ^?fib ALL PARKS 4 ,500 turf 5,000 landscape :� City may purchase a tank truck ra 2 than install wells . Schilling Environmental Consultants REPORT ON THE ANALYSIS OF PARK DEDICATION FEES OF SELECTED CITIES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA Joel G. Schilling, Principal October, 1987 INTRODUCTION The following report presents an analysis of park dedication fees of fourteen (14) cities selected from within the Seven County Metropolitan Area. The cities included are as follows: r-� Arden Hills Coon Rapids Eagan Eden Prairie Lakeville Little Canada Mahtomedi Oakdale Roseville Shoreview White Bear Lake Woodbury Vadnais Heights White Bear Township The process of selection included in first priority those local governments immediately surrounding Vadnais Heights, second those cities in which a substantial amount of residential and/or commercial-industrial development is occurring (Eagen, Eden Prairie Woodbury) and finally some randomly scattered cities (Coon Rapids, Oakdale, Lakeville, Mahtomedi) . The analysis included both the examination of schedules for land as well as cash dedication formulas or fees. LAND AND CASH nEDICATION Table 1 illustrates the land dedication formulas or fee perc­_�ntage :`or eleven of fou-teen c _es. +lf the local overnments have a land dedication formula based upon a sliding scale depicting a percentage of the dwelling site -3- therefore, a city finds it very difficult to take a :and dedication which is often worth less than half the value of the bare developable property. Instead a n city often receives land which requires the expenditure of considerable funds to fill low areas, remove unstable soils or has steep undevelopable slopes . Example No. 2 is a multi-family residential development of 113 apartment units cn. % .25 acres . it is apparent in this example that there is a much large: spread of park dedication cash amounts. Vadnais Heights is in the lower half of the fourteen cities with a cash dedication equal to 5 154 per unit . while initially this seems quite low, it should be stressed that the City may require an additional expenditure by the developer in the form of a small playlot. in nearly all the cities examined in this study, multi-family developments contribute less cash on a per unit basis than single family residences. While this is certainly not equitable, the Vadnais Heights approach of sometimes requiring an additional play area to be built provides some logic in requiring less cash payment on a unit basis (Some local governments have a similar requirement) . Example No. 3 is a commercial/industrial development consistin-g of a light manufacturing Yiuilding _of 24, 644 S.F. on 1.9 acres. Here is found the greatest disparity among cities in how cash dedication is handled. Two thirds of the cities require a percentage of the land in equivalent cash value on the order of 5 - 10 % . other cities have required a fee based upon a per acre or square footage of development . The former example seems to be logical in that it equates the value of the dedication with the value of a similar amount of land which could be taken. In other words, in the case of Vadnais Heights it would seem impossible to take a land dedication valued at $16,553 when the required cash dedication is only $1,200 . Conversely, white Bear Township could take either land or -cash as they would be equivalent. The requirement for any land or cash dedication for commercial/industrial landuse arises occasionally and should be discussed. First, it would seem that many cities have been requiring a substantial cash dedication for some time with no problems with respect to development (Roseville, Arden Hills) . Second, clearly a commercial or industrial enterprize has no direct need for parks in contrast to police, fire and public works needs, but indirectly its workers may choose co relocate to a city wnw­3e park system is adequate and well maintained. Therefore, the attractiveness a cis I _y is � ^- dent upo^. � �t�ility to ac�u_�- > �^cessary Dark funds its r . _nts . TABLE PARR - LAND DEDICATION STY $E�IDINTIAL COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRTAL vadnais Heights 9 - 20% of site, density based* 10 % of the total site White Bear Lake 10 % of the total site . S % of the total site Shoreview 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site Little Canada 10 % of the total site. 10 3 of the total site Roseville 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site White Bear Twp. 10 - 15 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site Arden Hills 10 - 15 % of site, density based. 0 - 15 % of the total site Oakdale 5 - 17 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site Coon Rapids 5 - 18 % of site, density based. 3 - 5 % of the total site Plymouth 0 - 25 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site Fridley 10 % of the site 3 % of the total site Mahtomedi 7 % of the total site. — 7 % of the total site CITY DENSITY: UNITS/ACRE* LAND DEDICATION M Vadnais Heights 0 - - _=4t3/acre 9 % 2 - 4 11 % 4 - 6 13 % 6 - 8 15 % 8 - 10 ^ 17 % 10+ 17+ - 20 % White Bear Twp. 0 - 3.5 units/acre 10 % 3.5 - 4.5 11 % 4.5 - 6.0 12 % 6.0 - 7 .0 13 % 7.0 - 8.0 14 % 8.0 + is % Arden Hills 0 - 2 units/acre 10 % 2 - 3 11 % 3 - 4 " 12 % 4 ^ 12 - 1` TABLE II PARK - CASE DM I GT I ON CY DENSITY UNITS/ACRE CASH DEDICGTION Vadnaia Seighta 0 - 3 units/acre S 200/unit (Development sites 1 - E S 250/unit of O - 5 acres) 6 - E S 300/unit DENSITY UNITS/ACRE $ OF LAND VALUE (Development sites 0 - 2 units/acre 9 a of 5 or more acres) 2 - 4 11 4 - 6 13 % 6 8 15 % 8 - 10 17 % 10 + n 17 - 20 % * undeveloped land value without utilities. COt4MZRCIAL/INDUSTRIAL $ 200 per 4, 000 S.F. of building or 5 % of value of appraised undeveloped site White Bear Lake Single Family $ 375/unit Duplex $ 750 Apartments, townhouses,condos. $ 250/unit + $75/bed added above the first bedrm COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL $ 1, 500 per acre, excluding streets and roads. Shoreview DENSITY UNITS/ACRE $ OF LAND VALUE 0 - 2 units/acre 4 % 2.1 - 3 " 5 % 3.1 - 4 6 % 4.1 - 5 " 7 % 5.1 + 10 % * undeveloped land value with utilities included on or near the site. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 10 % of the fair market value of the land. White Bear Twp. Single Family $ 175 Multi Family $ 175/dwelling unit OR DENSITY UNITS/ACRE OF LAND VALUE 0 - 3.5 units/acre 10 % * .10111 ' .5 - 4 .5 11 % - 6.0 12 % " 13 % 7 ._ 14 8.1 + 15 * undeveloped land value with utilities not included. TABLE I! (cont 'd) Zagan Single Family or duplex S 440/unit Townhouse S 365/unit Apartments 6 condominiums S 275/unit COIQRRCIAL/IMUS TRIAIL The cash equivalent of S 0 .04/S.F. or development less roadways . Woodbury Single Family S 400/unit Duplex $ 300/unit Multi Family $ 200/unit CON2 aRCIAL/INDUSTRIAL The cash equivalent of $ 1,200iacre - industrial, S 1, 500/acre - commercial, $ 1, 800/acre office. Eden Prairie Single Family $ 420/unit All other $ 320/unit C 60MRCI1►L/IMUSTRIAL The cash equivalent of $ 2,300/acre. Lakeville n Single Family $ 375/unit Duplex $ 750 Apartments/Townhouse/Condominium $ 250/unit + $ 75 above the first bedroom. Note: information on the cities of Mahtomedi, Eagen, Woodbury, Eden Prairie, and Lakeville was acquired from a White Bear Township memorandum of September 15, 1987 from Jan Regan to the Town Board/Park Board. -li- TABLE III (cont 'd) EXAMPLE No . 2 - Multi Samily R*aidantial This example consists of an apartment complex of 113 dwelling units upon. 7 .25 acres (density: 15 . 6 units/acre) . The complex is in the Citv of Vadnais Heiv_hta and hay begun construction in 'late 1987. The park dedication is an estimate based upon an appraised undeveloped land value of $12, 000/acre or a total land value of S87, 00C . 9.= CASH DEDICATION LAND DEDICATION Eden Prairie $ 36, 160 ---- Lakeville S 35,00^ ---- White Bear Lake S 35,006-" 0 .72 acres Eagan $ 31,075 ---- Coon Rapids $ 26, 8%z,- 1.30 " Oakdale $ 24,860 1.81 Woodbury $ 22, 600 ---- Mahtomedi $ 22, 600 0 .50 ^ white Bear Twp. $ 19,775 1.09 ^ Vadnais Heights $ 17, 400 1 .45 " Arden Hills $ 13,040 1.09 " Little Canada $ 11,300 0.72 ^ Roseville $ 8,700 0 .72 " Shoreview $ 8,700 0.72 ^ hECEIVEG OCT 5 1*7 a"of W"n "LAKE Schilling Environmental Consultants October 1, 1987 City of White Bear Lake Attn: Mr. Dennis Welsch, City Planner 4700 Miller Avenue White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Dear Mr. Welsch: Enclosed for your information is a copy of a recent report prepared for the City of Vadnais Heights Park and Recreation Commission regarding the park dedication fees. The Commission has been deliberating a possible amendment of their current fee schedule and hence the need to examine other cities park dedication process. We would be interested in any comments on this matter or major errors you may have discovered in the paper. Also, we would be pleased to provide any assistance to votr city in park and recreation matters- yours truly, Joel G. Schilling Consulting Park Coordinator Enclosure Schilling Environmental Consultants REPORT ON THE ANALYSIS OF PARR DEDICATION FEES OF SELECTED CITIES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA Joel G. Schilling, Principal October, 1987 INTRODUCTION The following report presents an analysis of park dedication fees of fourteen (14) cities selected from within the Seven County Metropolitan Area. The cities included are as follows: Arden Hills Coon Rapids Eagan Eden Prairie Lakeville Little Canada Mahtomedi Oakdale Roseville Shoreview White Bear Lake Woodbury Vadnais Heights White Bear Township The process of selection included in first priority those local governments immediately surrounding Vadnais Heights, second those cities in which a substantial amount of residential and/or commercial-industrial development is occurring (Eagen, Eden Prairie Woodbury) and finally some randomly scattered cities (Coon Rapids, Oakdale, Lakeville, Mahtomedi) . The analysis included both the examination of schedules for land as well as cash- dedication formulas cr fees. LAND AND CASH DEDICATION '^ Table I illustrates the land dedication formulas or fee percentage for eleven of the fourteen cities. Over half the local governments have a land dedication formula based upon a sliding scale depicting a percentage of the dwelling site density versus the development area. -2- Those cities which do not show a land dedication formula, rely instead upon Cash + dedications being adequate for the outright purchase of park property nodded. Table II describes the formula or fee schedules used by all fourteen local governments for cash park dedications . In both Tables I and II the park dedication requirements are shown for both residential (single and multi-family) and commercial/industrial landuses . In contrast to the land dedication table, only four of the fourteen cities make use of a density based cash dedicatior formula for residential landuse. The more common method appears to be a flat fee base for residential landuse. For commercial/industrial landuses, the most common method used by local governments appears to be based upon a percentage of the total site to be required in either land or cash equivalent. A group of five cities use either a fee per acre basis (White Bear Lake, Woodbury, Eden Prairie) or fee based upon either square footage of the building or development site (Vadnais Heights, Eagen) . ANALYSIS Next an attempt was made to provide 'a perspective upon the various local government park dedication fees by using specific development examples. Table III presents three-different examples of actual developments, within the City of Vadnais Heights together with the actual or probable resultant park dedication. Example No.l is a single family residential development of 81 homes upon 42.84 acres. The park dedication for the City of Vadnais Heights was $ 33, 544 which falls in the upper half of the fourteen local governments surveyed. The amount of dedication by Vadnais Heights translates into $ 414 per home which is similar to the flat fee amounts used by a number of cities (Woodbury, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Coon Rapids) . Small residential developments (less than 5 acres, both single family and multi-family) in Vadnais Heights are not treated equitable as are larger similar developments which will be discussed later. The top half of the cities in Table III have cash dedication amounts which are nearly identical to the undeveloped land dedication amounts (equivalent cash values) . The lower half of cities, however, would find it particularily difficult to justify a taking of land instead of cash. A compounding problem for the upper half of cities is the value of the finished land in the above example. In this example, the land when finished with utilities and streets has sold for $ 55 -� 75,000 per acre (less the residence) and $ 150 - 300, 000 with the home! -3- Therefore, a city finds it very difficult to take a land dedication which is often worth less than half the value of the bare developable property. Instead a city often receives land which requires the expenditure of considerable funds to fill low areas, remove unstable soils or has steep undevelopable slopes. Example No. 2 is a multi-family residential development of 113 apartment units or. 7 .25 acres . it is apparent in this example that there is a much larger spread of park dedication cash amounts. Vadnais Heights is in the lower hail of the fourteen cities with a cash dedication equal to S 154 per unit . While initially this seems quite low, it should be stressed that the City may require an additional expenditure by the developer in the form of a small playlot. In nearly all the cities examined in this study, multi-family developments contribute less cash on a per unit basis than single family residences. While this is certainly not equitable, the Vadnais Heights approach of sometimes requiring an additional play area to be built provides some logic in requiring less cash payment on a unit basis (Some local governments have a similar requirement) . Example No. 3 is a commercial/industrial development consisting of a light manufacturing buildin g_of 24, 644 S.F. on 1.9 acres. Here is found the greatest disparity among cities in how cash dedication is handled. Two thirds of the cities require a percentage of the land in equivalent cash value on the order of 5 - 10 % . other cities have required a fee based upon a per acre or scruare footage of development . The former example seems to be logical in that it equates the value of the dedication with the value of a similar amount of land which could be taken. In other words, in the case of Vadnais Heights it would seem impossible to take a land dedication valued at $16, 553 when the required cash dedication is only $1,200 . Conversely, White Bear Township could take either land or cash as they would be equivalent. The requirement for any land or cash dedication for commercial/industrial landuse arises occasionally and should be discussed. First, it would seem that many cities have been requiring a substantial cash dedication for some time with no problems with respect to development (Roseville, Arden Hills) . Second, clearly a commercial or industrial enterprize has no direct need for parks in contrast to police, fire and public works needs, but indirectly its workers may choose to relocate to a city whoose n park system is adequate and well maintained. Therefore, the attractiveness of a city is dependent upon its ability to acquire the necessary park funds from a.0 its residents. -4- Third, there is a need for a growing city to have a competitive edge in the attraction of new development and therefore a lower percentage contribution of cash or land dedication for commercial/industrial development may be in order. MCOMMAT I ON3 1 . It is recommended that the complex density based system for cash dedication for residential properties be dropped and instead be replaced by a simple flat fee basis as follows: Single Family $ 400/unit Duplex - $ 300/unit Multi-Family - $ 200/unit 2 . The land dedication formula should remain as a desity based system as it seems to have functioned adequately. 3 . The cash dedication for commercial/industrial landuse should be changed to a simple percentage fee based upon 2 to 5 percent of the undeveloped fair market value. -5- TABLE PARK - LAND DNDICATION STY RKS I MITiAL Vadnais Heights 9 - 20% of site, density based* 10 % of the total site White Bear Lake 10 % of the total site. 5 8 of the total site Shoreview 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site Little Canada 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site Roseville 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site White Bear Twp. 10 - 15 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site Arden Hills 10 - 15 % of site, density based. 0 - 15 % of the total site Oakdale 5 - 17 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site Coon Rapids 5 - 18 % of site, density based. 3 - 5 % of the total site Plymouth 0 - 25 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site Fridley 10 % of the site 3 % of the total site Mahtomedi 7 % of the total site. — 7 % of the total site DENSITY: Oil TS/ACRE* LAND DEDICATION M Vadnais Heights 0 - 2 units/acre 9 % 2 - 4 " 11 % 4 - 6 13 % 6 - 8 n 15 % 8 - 10 n 17 % 10+ " 17+ - 20 % White Bear Twp. 0 - 3.5 units/acre 10 % 3.5 - 4.5 11 % 4.5 - 6.0 12 % 6.0 - 7.0 n 13 % 7.0 - 8.0 14 % 8.0 + 15 ,$ Arden Hills 0 - 2 units/acre 10 % 2 - 3 11 % 3 - 4 n 12 % 4 + " 12 - 15 % -6- TABLE I (cont 'd) Oakdale 0 - 1 units/acre 5 % 1.1 - 3 10 8 3.1 - 4 11 % 4 .1 - 5 12 % 5. 1 - 6 13 8 6.1 - 7 14 % 7 .1 - 8 i5 % 8 . _ - 9 to % 9 . 1- - 10 17 % 10.1 + 17y % Coon Rapids 0 1 unite/acre 5 % 2 - 3 10 % 4 - 5 12 % 6 - 7 13 $ 8 - 12 14 $ 13 - 16 18 8 16+ 18+ % Plymouth 0 - 2 units/acre 10 % 3 - 4 11 % 5 - 6 " 14 % 7 - 8 15.5 % 9 - 10 17.5 % 11 - 12 20 % -7- TABLE I1 PARR - CASE DM I GT I ON Y DENSITY UNITS/ACRZ CASH ptnICATION Vadaais Heights 0 - 3 units/acre $ 200/unit (Development sites 3 - 6 S 250/unit of 0 - 5 acres) 6 - 8 S 300/unit DENSITY UNITS/ACRE $ OF LAND VALUE (Development sites 0 - 2 units/acre 9 % of 5 or more acres) 2 - 4 11 % 4 - 6 13 % 6 - 8 15 % 8 - 10 17 % 10 + 17 - 20 $ * undeveloped land value without utilities. COW4MIAL/INDUSTRIAL $ 200 per 4, 000 S.F. of building or 5 % of value of appraised undeveloped site White Bear Lake Single Family $ 375/unit Duplex $ 750 Apartments, townhouses,condos. $ 250/unit + $75/bed added above the first bedrm _ CO NF.RCIAL/INDUSTRIAL- $ 1,500 per acre, excluding streets and roads. Shoreview DENSITY UNITS/ACRE $ OF LAND VALUE 0 - 2 units/acre 4 % 2 .1 - 3 n 5 % 3.1 - 4 " 6 % 4.1 - 5 7 % 5.1 + 10 % * undeveloped land value with utilities included on or near the site. M24ERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 10 % of the fair market value of the land. White Bear Twp. Single Family $ 175 Multi Family $ 175/dwelling unit OR DENSITY UNITS/ACRE $ OF LAND VALt7E 0 - 3.5 units/acre 10 % n 3.5 - 4.5 11 % 4.5 - 6.0 12 % 6.1 - 7.0 13 % 7.1 - 8.0 14 % 8.1 + " 15 % * undeveloped land value with utilities not included. -8- Table II (cont 'd) CCNWZRC IAL/nmusTRZAL 10 % of the fair market value of the land. u Little Canada Single Family $ 300/unit Multi Family S 100/unit CONMr.RCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 5 % of the fair market value of the undeveloped land. Roseville RESIDENTIAL/C0MM$RCIAL/INDUSTRIAL The cash equivalent of the undeveloped fair market value of 10 % of gross site area. Arden Hills RES IDBNTIAL/COMMRCIAL/nMUSTRIAL The cash equivalent of the undeveloped land value using the same percentage as land dedication formula. Oakdale DENSITY UNITS/ACRE CASH DEDICATION 0 - 1 units/acre - $ 275/unit 1.1 - 3 $ 275/unit 3.1- 4 $ 250/unit 4.1 - 5 $ 250/unit 5.1 - 6 $ 250/unit 6.1 - 7 $ 220/unit 7 .1 - 8 $ 220/unit 8 .1 - 9 $ 220/unit 9.1 - 10 $ 220/unit 10 .1 + $ 220/unit C 4KERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL The cash equivalent value of the 10 % land dedication required. Coon Rapids Single Family $ 384/unit Two Family $ 326/unit Townhouses $ 286/unit Mobile Homes $ 291/unit Multi $ 238/unit COMMERCIAL 3 % of the fair market value with a maximum of $1152 (3x Single Family) INDUSTRIAL 5 % of the fair market value with a maximum of $1152 (3x Single Family) Mahtomedi Nl ' RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 10 % of the undeveloped fair market value or $ 200/lot whichever is greater. -9- P TABLE II (cont 'd) Eagan Single Family or duplex S 440/unit Townhouse S 365/unit Apartments i condominiums S 275/unit CODDaRCIAL/IMUSTRIAL The cash equivalent of $ 0.04/S.F. of development less roadways. Woodbury Single Family $ 400/unit Duplex $ 300/unit Multi Family $ 200/unit COM4ZAC IAL/IImUSTRIAL The cash equivalent of $ 1,200/acre - industrial, $ 1, 500/acre - commercial, $ 1, 800/acre office. Eden Prairie Single Family $ 420/unit All other $ 320/unit CO6.RCIAL/1=USTRIAL The cash equivalent of $ 2,300/acre. Lakeville Single Family_ $ 375/unit Duplex $ 750 Apartments/Townhouse/Condominium $ 250/unit + $ 75 above the first bedroom. Note: Information on the cities of Mahtomedi, Eagen, Woodbury, Eden Prairie, and Lakeville was acquired from a White Bear Township memorandum of September 15, 1987 from Jan Regan to the Town Board/Park Board. -10- TABLE III PROBABLE PARR DWIGTION SUMARY EXAMPLE No. 1 - Single Tamily Residential This example consists of a single family residential development in the City of Vadnais Heights. Site construction was begun in 1986 and consists of 81 homes or. 4Z .84 acres (density: 1.89 units/acre) . The appraised undeveloped land value is S 8, 700/acre for a total value of $ 372, 708 . The following is a summary table listing eaclh city's probable park - land or cash dedication based upon the information within tables I and II which would be required if the development took place within their corporate boundaries. Y CASH DEDICATION I,BND DEDICATION Arden Hills $ 37,271 4.28 acres* Mahtomedi $ 37,271 4 .28 " Roseville $ 37,271 4.28 " White Bear Twp. $ 37,271 4.28 ^ Eagen $ 35,360-` ---- Eden Prairie $ 34, 020 ---- Vadnais Heights $ 33,544 (actual amount paid) 3.86 "** Woodbury $ 32,400— ---- Coon Rapids $ 31,104 4.28 " Lakeville $ 30,3775 ---- White Bear Lake $ 30,375 4.28 Little- Canada $ 24,300 4.28 Oakdale $ 22,275 4.28 " Shoreview $ 14, 908 4.28 * Value of the dedicated land: 4.28 acres x $ 8,700 = $ 37,236 ** Value of the dedicated land: 3.86 acres x $ 8,700 = $ 33,582 TABLE III (cont 'd) EXAMPLE No. 2 - Multi Family Residential This example consists of an apartment complex of 113 dwelling units upon 7.25 acres (density: 15. 6 units/acre) . The complex is in the City of Vadnais Heights and has begun construction in late 1987. The park dedication is an estimate based upon an appraised undeveloped land value of $12, 000/acre or a total land value of S87, 00C . CA3fl DEDICATION 7,8ND DEDICATION Eden Prairie $ 36, 160 ---- Lakeville $ 35, 000 ---- white Bear Lake $ 35,000 0.72 acres Eagan $ 31, 075 ---- Coon Rapids $ 26, 8U- 1.30 " Oakdale $ 24, 860 1.81 " Woodbury $ 22, 600 ---- Mahtomedi $ 22, 600 0.50 " white Bear Twp. $ 19,775 1.09 " Vadnais Heights $ 17,400 1.45 " Arden Hills $ 13,040 1.09 Little Canada $ 11,300 0.72 " Roseville $ 8,700 0.72 " �� Shoreview $ 8,700 0.72 " -12- TABLE III (cont 'd) EXAMPLE No. 3 Commercial/Industrial This example consists of a light manufacturing building of 24, 644 S.F upon 1.9 acres. The complex is in the City of Vadnais Heights and was constructed in late 1986. The park dedication is an estimate based upon an undeveloped land value of $ 65,340/acre or a total land value of S 124, 146. Y CASH DEDICATION LAND DEDICATION Arden Hills $ 18,295 ,(probable maximum) 0.28 acres Mahtomedi $ 12, 415 0.19 Oakdale $ 12, 415 0.19 " Roseville $ 12, 415 0.19 " Shoreview $ 12, 415 0.19 White Bear Twp. $ 12, 415^ 0.19 Little Canada $ 6,207 0 .19 " Coon Rapids $ 6,207 0.09 " Eden Prairie $ 4,370 ---- Eagen $ 3, 000 ---- White Bear Lake $ 2,850 0.09 " Woodbury $ 2,280 ---- Vadnaia Heights $ 1,200 (actual amount) 0.19 ^ U inn akes October 5, 1987 Mr. Richard Goldade, President Lino Lakes Lions 7801 4th Ave. Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Dear Mr. Goldade, The City of Lino Lakes Park Board members would like to extend their thanks regarding the picnic tables you have donated to our parks. This gesture of the Lino Lakes Lions is very much appreciated! Thank you again! Respe fully, Ray Johnson Chairman/Park Board RJ/cjh 1189 MAIN STREET, LINO LAKES, MN 55014 (612)464-5562 6i cify ino k es October 26, 1987 Mr. Charlie Johnson 2830 orestdale Road New' Brighton, : MN 55112 Dear Mr. Johnson: This is to inform you that at their last meeting, the Lino Lakes Park Board authorized the purchase of 9 lights,. and wooden poles at a price of $500. 00. Said poles were installed in Lino Park by yourself and the BMX association for the purpose of lighting -the track.. Please sign this document and send it back tc City Hall, at which time we will issue you a check. If you should have any questions with regards to this correspondence, please contact Don Volk at City Hall.. Sincerely gRany hum cher, City Administrator RS;dt I find this arrangement with the Lino Lakes Park Board as stated Aove to be satisfactory. -- ------- - --------------------- Charlie Jo n 2830 Fores ale Road New Brighton, MN 55112 1189 MAIN STREET, LINO LAKES, MN 55014 (612)464-5562 C* O ono akes October 51 1987 Mr. Bill Bohjanen, Commander VFW Post 6583 7868 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Dear Mr. Bohjanen, The City of Lino Lakes Park Board members would like to extend their thanks regarding the donations given to us of $300/month. It helps to pay for projects such as ballfield fencing, play ground equipment etc. Again, our sincere thanks for these donations! We t appreciate this gesture very much. Respe fully, Ra Johnson Chairman/Park Board RJ/cjh 1189 MAIN STREET, LINO LAKES, MN 55014 (612)464-5562 Uq of ino ekes October 5, 1987 Wayne Hancock, President Box 13 Circle Pines, MN 55014 Dear Mr. Hancock, The City of Lino Lakes Park Board members would like to extend their thanks regarding the donations for improvement of our parks! These donations have gone towards the Volley Ball Courts at Sunrise Park. Again, our special thanks to the Circle-Lex Lions for your generosity. Resp fully, Ra Johnson Chairman/Park Board RJ/cjh 1189 MAIN STREET, LINO LAKES, MN 55014 (612)464-5562 C2-' z'- IWL or, LANE MARCIA 15, cr- Lf, q E T z w r 6 oo, k" 'y LL) 31 7 1 Q L lc ot�4or v 'g g'o 8 BRADLEY STREET z —�3717 6 :1) LU x ,4 K z 0 W CONNIE —LANE V -j 04 14 1 12 5 (0) -14 w,,or 6