HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/2001 Park Board Packetr 12001
&a.mer 4°)10-4;7
6)a• Cd'4€t' j4s44./L.
`ftela-. 4f4i>6 ruk.4440i.
;-Ykw •4,1e<,,,14‘ tai-4€41d-
docua�
Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439
May 8, 2001
TO: Park Board Members
FROM: Rick DeGard�le"r, Public Services Director
SUBJECT: Calling Sandie if Not Attending Meeting
As you know, last night's Park Board meeting was cancelled due to lack of a quorum. I
need to stress the importance of notifying Sandie in advance if you cannot attend. All
members who weren't able to attend the Park Board meeting didn't call in until the day
of the meeting. I didn't know we weren't going to have a quorum until a message was
left on my voicemail at 5:10pm.
I understand that unforeseen circumstances surface at the last minute resulting in
members not being able to attend. However, if we know in advance a few members
aren't able to make the Park Board meeting, we can check with the other Park Board
members to make sure we have a quorum. If we determine in advance that we won't
have a quorum, we can consider scheduling the Park Board meeting on a different date.
By canceling the Park Board meeting just prior to the scheduled time, the City incurs
unnecessary expenses such as the transcription service fee and the cable operator's
salary.
Thanks.
Cc: Linda Waite Smith
•
5/8/01
RD /Park Board /notify in advance
Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439
CITY OF LINO LAKES PARK BOARD MEETING
Monday, May 7, 2001
** *AGENDA * **
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes from April 2, 2001
3. Setting Agenda
4. Open Mike
5. Review Possible Skate Park
6. Recreation Department Update
7. Parks Department Update
8. New Business
6:30pm
6:35pm
6:40pm
6:45pm
6:50pm
7:20pm
7:25pm
7:30pm
9. Old Business 7:35pm
A. Trapper's Crossing Trail Update
B. Review Park Dedication Fund Balance
10. Next Park Board Meeting — June 4, 2001 6:30pm 7:55pm
11. Adjourn 8:OOpm
If you are unable to attend the meeting please call Sandie at 651 982 -2442.
sw /parkbrd/4 -2 -01 Park Board Agenda.doc
•
Park Board Meeting - April 2, 2001
Minutes
• The April 2, 2001 City of Lino Lakes Park Board meeting was
called to order at 6:30pm, by Chair Lindy.
•
•
Roll call was taken, members present were Pam Taschuk, Paul
Montain, George Lindy, and Chris Welsand, Pat Huelman, and Bill
Kusterman. Members absent were Michael O'Connor.
Also present were Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director,
Sandie Wood, Office Manager.
APPROVAL OF MARCH 5, 2001 MINUTES:
Paul Montain made a motion, seconded by Chris Welsand, to approve
the March 5, 2001 minutes. The minutes were approved.
SETTING THE AGENDA:
The agenda was passed as presented.
OPEN MIKE:
No one was present for open mike.
DISCUSS DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Rick advised a few weeks ago all members of the various advisory
boards received a copy of the revised draft comprehensive plan.
The City Council has requested the advisory boards review the
latest draft and provide input at their next regular board
meeting.
Chair Lindy referred to page 39, item 6 regarding the
administration goal to promote open space. He stated the Park
Board presented this idea to the Council earlier this year
relating to programs being funded from the General Fund. He
stated the Park Board should keep this in mind. Historically,
the Park Board did sit down every year and look at the CIP.
Rick stated he does look at the CIP every year for equipment.
There have not been any funds to make it come to fruition.
Chair Lindy noted the City Council has agreed to look at it this
year.
Pam asked if the 2000 census date would be implemented into the
draft plan. Rick advised he would have to check with the
Planning Department regarding that issue.
Paul stated he has several questions relating to when the plan
was originally written up to now. He stated there are some
pieces missing and he needs to review it in detail. He stated
1
•
•
Park Board Meeting - April 2, 2001
Minutes
his main concern is the greenway corridors and maintaining the
rural atmosphere. He indicated he would speak to the City
Planner.
Rick referred to the attached memo that indicates the plan is a
work in progress. The plan is not complete and no maps were
attached. He stated he understands that the Council will look at
the various Boards' comments and then schedule a public hearing.
Chair Lindy noted the plan does address the land acquisition for
the athletic complex.
REVIEW 200 -2001 WARMING HOUSE REPORT:
Rick stated another winter season has come and gone. This winter
was more of a traditional Minnesota winter. Most of the shelters
were ready for skaters by winter break and closed in late
February due to an unseasonable warm temperature and rainstorm.
In calculating attendance figures this year, Rick indicated he
chose not to add organized team practices in the final numbers.
By doing this, it was possible to obtain some true figures on how
much the rinks are being used by the general skating public.
There were several organized practices conducted by the
Centennial and Forest Lake Youth Hockey Associations. The
primary rinks used for organized practices are City Hall, Sunrise
north rink and Birch Park. As in the past, it was attempted to
schedule organized activities on the rinks during the later
hours.
Rick referred to a copy of the Warming House Report and noted
that this time, there are not any proposed changes for next
season.
Bill clarified that the rink numbers are up and do not include
numbers from organized sports.
Chair Lindy asked if City Hall Park is programmed for hockey.
Rick advised City Hall Park is programmed on a limited basis for
youth hockey.
Bill inquired about the savings if the City only opened some
parks on the weekends. Rick stated the savings would be minimal.
The City has not yet considered if some of the rinks should only
be open on weekends. If Necessary the City may just look at
unsupervised rinks. This issue will be reviewed further in
October or November 2001.
2
Park Board Meeting - April 2, 2001
Minutes
• RECREATION DEPARTMENT UPDATE:
Rick referred to the Program Highlights Flyer from March 2001.
He noted a week of filed trips is scheduled for April 9 - 13.
Currently, the City has at least 20 participants signed up for
each trip except the Underwater Adventures and Hayride trip.
Winter sessions of the Toss, Kick and Catch, Soccer Mini Camp,
Floor Hockey Mini Camp and Dance programs have ended.
Registration is currently going on for the spring sessions of the
Floor Hockey Mini Camp and Soccer Mini Camps programs.
The Recreation Department is now offering a youth tackle football
program. The local youth tackle football organization approached
the department last fall and after several meetings decided to
turn this program over to the Recreation Department.
Registration for many of the spring outdoor activities, such as
golf, T -ball, tennis and softball have been slow due to the late
spring weather. It is anticipated that registration numbers will
pick up with the warmer weather and match past registration
numbers.
The City is currently hiring for a variety of seasonal staff
positions including Playground Leaders, Options Leaders,
Maintenance and Athletic Program Instructors.
Rick noted the Spring Activities Guide, which includes spring and
summer programs, was delivered to homes the last week in
February. The Summer Activities Guide is scheduled to be in
homes the last week of May.
Pam asked where the youth tackle football program will be
located. Rick stated the football program will primarily be held
at the Centennial Middle School and Centennial High School. The
Recreation Department is working with Blaine and Spring Lake Park
on this program.
Pat inquired about the equipment for the football program. Rick
advised the City will be supplying two jerseys for each
participant. The participants are responsible for the rest of
the equipment. The Recreation Department is considering having
an equipment sale or trade show to help out with equipment needs.
PARKS DEPARTMENT UPDATE:
Rick reviewed a memo from Mike Hoffman, Parks Supervisor, which
summarized the maintenance highlights for March 2001. Rick noted
March activities include snowplowing of streets, trails and
parking lots. Maintenance staff attended a number of educational
3
Park Board Meeting - April 2, 2001
Minutes
• and safety training seminars. Staff began painting picnic
tables, picked up hockey goals and cleaned warming houses.
•
•
Rick added that staff also began the removal of hazards trees
(Wood of Baldwin Lake Park) and prepping wood duck houses for
nesting season.
NEW BUSINESS: None
OLD BUSINESS:
Review Referendum Information - Rick stated that at the last Park
Board meeting, Pam suggested the Park Board review the
information pertaining to a referendum. Rick stated he compiled
the following items to review:
• Resolution 97 - 30, Council Support to Pursue Referendum
• Referendum process overview
• November 19, 1997 Park Board meeting minutes
• January 5, 1998 Park Board meeting minutes
• Spring, 1998 article in city newsletter
• Program statement /cost analysis, page 1 (dated 1/8/98)
• Estimated annual tax impact (November, 1997 and
February, 2000)
• Check list for a successful referendum
Chair Lindy stated the decision regarding a referendum rests on
the City Council. A decision will be made in May.
Pam asked if the Council would give a time frame if they decide
to go ahead with the referendum. Rick stated he hopes the
Council would give a time frame. The Council is aware of the
Park Board's position on a referendum. The issue will be
discussed further at a Council work session in May.
Chair Lindy stated he assumes the Council will leave it up to the
Park Board as far as progressing the referendum process. The
Council did mention a feasibility study. He asked if the Park
Board should pursue that. Rick stated the Park Board first needs
to find out if the Council wants to pursue a referendum. Once
that is determined, there are options to explore relating to how
the process should proceed.
Chair Lindy stated the Park Board is looking for approval to
proceed and a timeline. If the Council does approve a
referendum, the Park Board needs to be prepared to move forward
at the June Park Board meeting. Rick stated a referendum is a
4
•
•
•
Park Board Meeting - April 2, 2001
Minutes
huge undertaking. The process would include having 8 -10 area
volunteers to form a committee to make the referendum work and
make people aware of it.
Pat stated the Park Board needs to contact people who have a big
interest in the complex as well as residents.
Bill inquired about the design cost estimate and asked if the
City needs a better one. Rick advised the City does have an
accurate costs estimate for the athletic complex. The question
will be what else should be included in the referendum.
Pat stated the City will need a consultant to provide that
information.
Chris asked about the difference in the estimated annual tax
impact for November 1997 and February 2000. Rick advised the
difference comes from the increase in total market value of
commercial, industrial, and residential.
Chris suggested the estimated annual tax impact for the future be
include in the information that is given to residents. She asked
how many key people will be need for the committees. Rick
advised 8 -10 area volunteers will be needed.
Pam added that the volunteers need to represent a broad spectrum
of the population.
Rick advised an update will be given at the June meeting.
Pat asked what kind of input the Council will expect from the
Park Board.
Chair Lindy stated he believes the Council will rely on the Park
Board completely. The Council is sure they want to pursue the
referendum if it is feasible that it will pass.
Rick stated he has provided the Council with information
regarding a referendum. He stated he is not sure there is
anything else the Park Board can do at this point. The City
Council needs to look at the "big picture" and determine if this
is the right time to pursue a referendum.
Chair Lindy stated he does not believe the Council would have
purchased the property if they did not have the goal of
completing the project. The Council is aware of the referendum
process. They want to be reasonably sure it will pass.
5
Park Board Meeting - April 2, 2001
Minutes
• Pat stated the Council is aware of the need for the complex. The
timing of a referendum is the issue.
Bill stated it needs to be made clear to the residents that a
complex will never get built if a referendum does not pass.
Pat added the Park Board needs to stress its commitment to the
project also. He stated he is willing to put in extra time to
get it done.
Park Dedication Fee - Paul inquired about the proposed new Park
Dedication Fee. Rick advised the City Council will be discussing
the Park Dedication fee at the work session on Wednesday.
SCHEDULE NEXT PARK BOARD MEETING:
The next Park Board meeting will be held on Monday, May 7, 2001,
6:30pm, at Lino Lakes City Hall.
ADJOURN:
Pam Taschuk made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Paul Montain.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:10pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kim Points
Recording Secretary
•
6
•
Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439
May 3, 2001
TO: Park Board Members
FROM: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director
SUBJECT: Review Possible Skate Park
City staff has spent the past few years attempting to provide a skate park facility for residents.
Below is a summary of events that have occurred since January, 1998.
• January, 1998 - The school district approaches representatives from Blaine, Circle Pines,
Lexington, and Lino Lakes to pursue an inline skating facility for this area.
• March, 1998 - Skate board park committee considers pursing a regional skate board park at
the National Sports Center in Blaine. Initial capital costs approximately $250,000, estimated
annual operating costs $70,000, estimated revenue potential, $82,000.
• May, 1998 - Skate board park committee determines next step should be for each city to
review the possibility of establishing local skate board parks. Perhaps, in the future, the
committee can revisit a possible regional skateboard park.
• January, 1999 - City of Lino Lakes designates $10,000 for portable skate board ramps.
Centennial Middle School contacted about possibility of using portion of parking lot in
summer months for skateboard park.
• March, 1999 - School district contacts City of Lino Lakes indicating that they are not
interested in providing space for portable skate board ramps.
• May, 1999 - Park Board discusses different park locations for proposed skate board park. It
was determined that there is not an existing area that is conducive to a skateboard park. It
was the consensus of the Park Board to put the skate board park on hold.
• February, 2001 - The $10,000 for wheels project was released from the Park Dedication
Fund.
• • April, 2001 - City staff again approaches the school district requesting that a portion of the
Centennial Middle School parking lot be available for a portable skate board system during
the summer.
Landscape Structures, Inc., a reputable playground equipment manufacturer located in Delano,
Minnesota, has created the SkateWave Modular Skate Park System. This steel modular skate
park system is very durable and provides flexibility in the layout and location of the skate park.
SkateWave is ISO 9001 Certified and comes with a 10 -year warranty.
SkateWave provides some pre- configured parks. For example a preconfigured park consisting of
a mini half pipe, wedge, quarter pipe, jump, and straight round rail is available for approximately
$20,000. This would require an area of 50' x 50'. I have attached some schematics of pre -
configured parks.
If the school district is receptive to providing an area at the Centennial Middle School, perhaps
the Park Board should consider recommending to the City Council designating $20,000 of Park
Dedication Funds for the listed equipment. Delivery takes approximately 2 — 4 weeks.
I will be showing a four - minute video at the Park Board Meeting.
sw /parkbrd/Meeting Information/Review Possible Skate Park.doc
•
•
Pre - Configured Parks
PRE - CONFIGURED PARKS
2,500 sq. ft.
50' x 50'
134943
5,870 Ibs.
$18,780
•
PRE - CONFIGURED PARKS
3,200 sq. ft.
32'x100'
134944
7,945 Ibs.
$26,980
1
SKATEWAVE 2001 PRICE LIST
www.skatewaveramps.com
Pre - Configured Parks
•
•
4,216 sq. ft.
68'x62'
134547
14,520 lbs. $47,620
4,320 sq. ft.
3 3 5 5 5
80' x 54'
134548
7,220 Ibs.
$25,585
www.skatewaveramps.com
SKATEWAVE 2001 PRICE LIST
2
OLino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department
Program Highlights - April Park Board Update
Youth
CLUBS - Our Spring Break field trips were a success. 58 youth participated in Cheapskate and Tropics,
54 youth participated in Bowling, Lunch and Movie, 36 youth participated in Children's Museum and
Wabasha Street Caves and 24 youth participated in Jam the Gym.
Youth Instructional - Many of our spring season programs began this month. Registration for our Floor
Hockey Mini Camp and Soccer Mini Camp reached capacity. Overall registration for our Dance
classes, however, was slightly lower than in the past. We believe this may be a result of older children
moving on to local dance studios for further instruction. Our Preschool Dance class numbers have
remained consistent.
Summer Programs - Registration for some of our more popular summer programs (Summer Playground
Program, Day Camp, Tennis and GolJ) has been a little slow this year. We feel that this may be a result
of the cold temperatures and poor weather we experienced early this month. However, once the nice
weather began at the end of the month, we received a number of calls about our summer programs.
Options - Options experienced excellent registration this year. 55 children are currently enrolled (up 8
from last year) and we are still receiving calls.
Adult
Softball - Adult softball registration, currently at 42 teams, is consistent with last years registration of
44 teams.
Special Events
Kite Day - Kite Day will be held on Saturday, June 2. If not for the kind contributions from Mountain
Enterprises and the Lino Lakes Lions Club, this program may not have been offered.
Twins Clinic - On Friday, June 8 the Minnesota Twins will be presenting a free clinic to area youth at
Centennial Middle School.
Tennis Clinic - On Saturday, May 26 the Parks and Recreation Department and the
United States Tennis Association will be offering a free one day Tennis
Clinic for area residents at Centennial Middle School.
Employment
We are currently in the process of hiring seasonal staff for a variety of
summer leader and instructor positions. We received an overwhelming
number of applications this year and hope to have all positions filled by
the end of May.
Questions? Please contact Liz Bursack or Barry Bernstein at 651- 982 -2440.
Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439
May 3, 2001
TO: Park Board Members
FROM: Mike Hoffman, Parks Supervisor
SUBJECT: April Maintenance Update
Rain, rain go away come back, ah let's say in mid July! The extremely wet April, we've been
experiencing, has slowed our efforts to get our athletic fields(softball, baseball, soccer) in shape
for the upcoming spring/summer season. If things dry out we hope to have all fields ready by
Monday, April 30th. Maintenance activities during April have included:
Ballfield renovation and maintenance
• Leveling and dragging infields.
• Home plate, pitching rubber and base peg repair.
• Cleaned out base boxes.
• Ballfield safety inspections.
• Installed new field number signs.
Soccer field layout and maintenance
• Field inspection.
• Moved goals where needed.
• Attached nets.
• Field painting.
City Hall West Project
• Installed player's benches.
• Leveled and seeded outfield, out of play and spectator areas.
Sunrise #3 and #4
• Little League rebuilt the pitchers mound on these two fields as well as general field
cleanup. Thanks Little League!
Sunrise Park entrance sign
• A new sign will soon dress up the entrance to Sunrise Park. A local girl scout has
taken on the task as part of her leadership project. Work completed thus far by city
staff has included:
1. Removal of storm damaged spruce tree just north of main entrance.
2. Installation of earthen berm where new sign will be located.
3. Removal of old sign and reshaping of berm.
• Work completed by Girl Scouts
1. Installation of landscape block planting bed.
III • Work remaining on this project by city staff includes:
1. Routering new sign
• Work remaining on this project by Girl Scouts
1. Installing new sign
2. Installing plant material
3. Installing landscape fabric
4. Installing wood chip mulch
Thanks girl scouts!
Other activities have included:
• Hiring of seasonal staff.
• Installed 2" service at Marshan Park for irrigation system.
• Sweeping and inspection of city trails (some of, which are now underwater).
• Equipment maintenance and changeover.
• Chipped remaining Christmas trees and brush piles at various park locations.
• Opened tennis courts.
• Emptied garbage.
• Playground inspection.
IIIThose are the major highlights for April, and by the time you read this we will probably have
begun mowing. More to come in May.
sw /parkbrd/Mike Hoffman/April 01 Park Update.doc
•
Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439
May 3, 2001
TO: Park Board Members
FROM: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director
SUBJECT: Trapper's Crossing Trail Update
As you recall, the City has attempted to secure a trail connection from the Trapper's Crossing
Development to Birch Park for several years.
In November, 2000 the city reached an agreement with the Whitcombs to purchase two acres of
land for $6,000. After several unsuccessful attempts to schedule a closing date, I was notified
that the Whitcombs have decided not to sell the two acres of land to the city. Mr. Whitcomb
indicates that if and when they decided to sell their land, they will sell the entire 20 acre parcel as
one piece.
It appears that the important trail connection to Birch Park will not happen in the near future
unless the Park Board and City Council feel it is necessary to begin condemnation proceedings.
If I hear that the Whitcombs are selling their property, I will notify the Park Board.
sw /parkbrd/Misc. PB Meeting Information /Trappers Crossing Trail Update.doc
•
•
•
61 a
Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439
May 2, 2001
TO: Park Board Members
FROM: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director
SUBJECT: Review Park Dedication Fund Balance
Attached is an updated Park Dedication Fund Summary. Please note the following items:
➢ Received $61,840 from Trapper's Crossing Second and Third Additions.
➢ Total undesignated funds are $89,330 (includes expenses incurred but not paid).
sw /parkbrd/Misc.PB Meeting Information /Review Park Dedication Fund Balance.doc
Park Dedication Fund Summary
As of May 1, 2001
Current Balance
et
et
et
2001 Park Board Goals
1996 Goals trail /land acquisition - Trappers Crossing
2001 Park Board Goals
Nov, 2000 Park Board, $15,000 2001 Park Board Goals
2001 Park Board Goals
2001 Park Board Goals
From 1998 Excess Fund Balance
2000 General Fund Capital Outlay
Bluebill Ponds Development
Thru Mar 30, 2001
O
O
O
O
Ls)
ta
O
O
Co
(n
EH
O
O
O
O
cr
EA
O
O
O
d'
N
ER
000`/$
O
co
O
O
c-
to
O
O
CO
N
to
000`09$
LO
1�
O
r-
CO
to
O
69-
O
O
LO
of
e-
to
O
co
69
Pheasant Hills Trail Connection to Regional Park
1 Birch Park Trail Acquisition and Development
1 Birch Park Trail Development
IMarshan Park - Grading, Fill, Seeding
1Behm's Park Development
(Trail Renovation
'Mallard Lane Project
(Black Duck Trail Project
(Highland Meadows Development
Lino Air Park
'Playground Equipment - VFW
Clearwater Creek Trail Buffering
Total Designated Funds
Total Undesignated Funds
Completed 1999
Completed 2000
O O O
O O O
M c ti
(
L
a)
U
o
a�
•O c
c (p
2
•a (LO
L H
L.
c • °
C -�
O.
w• O
Q
0
0
J
a)
^ N
- RS
LL
N
N
d c
a)
L
m U
m O
c c
(0
a O
.� n.
E`—
N
a)
D
a)
a)
fx
O N CO
O CO N
O O CO
Ea CO Cs/
c
O 0 0
Q
a
(7) co
to c c
'm 'in
co 0 0
O 19_ Ei2
U Q a
c o_o_
H t— al
O A /LA
Lino Lakes Public Services Department
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439
•
Memorandum
To: Park Board Members
From: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director
Date: March 27, 2000
Re: Bond Referendum
It is my recommendation to delay a bond referendum to develop the athletic complex until at
least 2002. The bond referendum may also include neighborhood park improvements and
trail projects. My reasons for not proceeding with a bond referendum this year are as
follows:
♦ Current market forces have inflated projected costs. High fuel prices have resulted in
bituminous costs almost doubling. Site grading costs are high due to the tight labor
market. Fencing costs have seen a tremendous increase the past twelve months.
Therefore, estimated development costs for core facility development of the athletic
complex is $3.3 million dollars (see enclosed sheet). Also, the area and unit fund must be
reimbursed for the land acquisition costs ($925,000 plus interest).
♦ The estimated annual tax impact for residential property owners is too high (see enclosed
sheet). The annual amount has decreased significantly since 1997. However, I feel the
tax impact is more than what a typical Lino Lakes resident would be willing to pay for
development of an athletic complex, park improvements, and trails.
♦ An additional $2,793,000 market value of approved and /or built economic development
projects will be on the tax rolls in 2001, and an additional $14,260,000 in 2002 (today's
dollars). This will reduce the tax impact for residential property owners. Projected
commercial projects thru 2002 could result in excess of $17,000,000 additional market
value on the tax roles.
♦ We need to look at the "big picture" regarding the City's finances. Bonding projects such
as the YMCA and road reconstruction referendums will affect the City's net debt limit of
2 %.
March 27, 2000
•
♦ It appears Centennial School District may pursue a bond referendum this fall.
Based upon the above factors, I am recommending that we revisit this issue in May, 2001.
When a decision to pursue a bond referendum occurs, I suggest that a special election be
conducted so the residents can focus and be informed on this important topic.
•
3/27/00
RD /Corr /Park Board/delay bond referendum
•
)LA
Lino Lakes Public Services Department
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439
•
BOND REFERENDUM
ESTIMATED ANNUAL TAX IMPACT
(Monthly)
November, 1997
Assessed Value
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$125,000
$82
($6.83)
$102
($8.50)
$123
($10.25)
$150,000
$98
($8.17)
$123
($10.25)
$147
($12.25)
$175,000
$114
($9.50)
$143
($11.92)
$172
($14.33)
$200,000
$131
($10.92)
$164
($13.67)
$196
($16.33)
$250,000
$164
($13.67)
$204
($17.00)
$245
($20.42)
February, 2000
Assessed Value
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$125,000
$59
($4.92)
$74
($6.17)
$89
($7.42)
$150,000
$71
($5.92)
$89
($7.42)
$107
($8.92)
$175,000
$83
($6.92)
_
$104
($8.67)
$125
($10.42)
$200,000
$95
($7.92)
$119
($9.92)
$143
($11.92)
$250,000
$119
($9.92)
$149
($12.42)
$178
($14.83)
3/16/00
RD /Athletic Complex/Bond Referendum/Tax Impact Comparisons
•
•
CITY OF LINO LAKES
Schematic Cost Estimate
for Community Athletic Complex
Date: March 1, 2000
To: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director
City of Lino Lakes
From: Jason L. Amberg, Sr. Project Manager
Brauer & Associates, Ltd.
Overview:
This statement considers the
potential overall costs for
developing a community
athletic complex. The cost
analysis has been broken down
into key components. It is
reasonable to use the cost
analysis data for long range
planning as long as reasonable
flexibility in actual facility
design is allowed for and that
contingency dollars are
appropriated.
Cost Analysis:
Figure 1 shown to the right
provides an overview of the
current development concept
for the community athletic
complex site. Note that this
estimate was completed to
provide preliminary costing
information to develop a
recreational level athletic
facility.
Summary:
Core Facility
Development
$3,279,437.50
Add -on Facility
Development Items
$2,327,655.00
Add -on Premium
Level Development
Items
$1,358,280.00
17) a_O 'FP Ind EIry -r CONCEPT
FOR COMMUNITY ATHLETIC COMPLEX
e •
CITY OF UNO LAKES
a..OA D.
NORTH
10 _ 3 Iggde ?.
a•me•
GRAPHIC SCALE
BRAUER& ASSOCIATES. LTD.
1041.: t:cCfl.!'�i:P E`-O'.,LrVARr,
5:ar N. ,.1nraONr
.I(;.
Lino Lakes Community Athletic Complex
Schematic Design Cost Estimate
Page 1 of 6
Brauer & Associates, Ltd.
0008 -I ino- schemcost- est- 02- 28- 00.wpd
•
CORE FACILITY DEVELOPMENT
Component #1 - General Sitework (Grading, Roadways, Parking Lots, Main Trails, Utilities)
Total Cost
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Site Removals and Grading
Asphalt paving and concrete curbing for roadways & parking lots
Site amenities - trash receptacles, benches, bike racks, etc.
Asphalt trails
Site Utilities (budget cost for storm sewer)
Boardwalk
Seed / Sod
Wetland Mitigation (budget cost)
Landscape Improvements - trees, shrubs (minimal)
485,000.00
500,400.00
15,000.00
40,500.00
45,000.00
14,000.00
23,000.00
50,000.00
6,000.00
Component #2 - Soccer Fields (5 fields total)
Component #1 • Total 1,178,900.00
Total Cost
2
3
4
Soccer goals and corner markers 22,000.00
Irrigation 95,000.00
Drinking Fountain 8,500.00
Seeding 33,500.00
Component #2 - Total 159,000.00
Component #3 - Baseball Field
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total Cost
Drinking fountain 8,500.00
Aggregate limestone infields and warning tracks, etc. 25,000.00
Seed / Sod 16,000.00
Site amenities - trash receptacles, park benches, bike racks 7,000.00
Asphalt trail connections and internal pavement 9,600.00
Irrigation system 20,000.00
Concrete paving for bleacher & bench pads, etc. 8,550.00
4" thick x 16" wide concrete maint. strip below ballfield fencing 6,500.00
Chainlink fence backstop 12,000.00
Chainlink ballfield fencing - with gates, etc. 39,000.00
Ball and bat racks 1,600.00
Bleachers 18,000.00
Lino Lakes Community Athletic Complex Brauer & Associates, Ltd.
Schematic Design Cost Estimate
Page 2 of 6 0008 - lino - schem- cost- est- 02- 28- 00.wpd
A
•
•
•
13
14
15
Players benches 2,000.00
2 Batting cages 25,000.00
Landscape Improvements - trees, shrubs 10,000.00
Component #4- 300' Combination Ballfields (4 fields total)
Component #3 - Total 208,750.00
Total Cost
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Furnish and install drinking fountain 8,500.00
Aggregate limestone infields and warning tracks, etc. 95,000.00
Seed / Sod 30,000.00
Site amenities - trash receptacles, benches, bike racks 18,000.00
Asphalt trail connections and internal pavement 45,600.00
Irrigation system 72,000.00
Concrete paving for bleacher & bench pads, etc. 34,550.00
4" thick x 16" wide concrete maint. strip below ballfield fencing 22,000.00
Chainlink fence backstops (with net assembly) 36,000.00
Chainlink ballfield fencing - with gates, etc. 139,500.00
Ball and bat racks 6,400.00
Bleachers 72,000.00
Players benches 8,000.00
2 Batting cages 25,000.00
Landscape Improvements - trees, shrubs 10,000.00
Component #5 - 275' - 250' Youth Ballfields (3 fields total)
Component #4 - Total 622,550.00
Total Cost
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Furnish and install drinking fountain 8,500.00
Aggregate limestone infields and warning tracks, etc. 58,600.00
Seed / Sod 23,000.00
Site amenities - trash receptacles, benches, bike racks 13,500.00
Asphalt trail connections and internal pavement 37,900.00
Irrigation system 50,400.00
Concrete paving for bleacher & bench pads, etc. 25,900.00
4" thick x 16" wide concrete maint. strip below ballfield fencing 13,250.00
Chainlink fence backstops (with net assembly) 27,000.00
Chainlink ballfield fencing -with gates, etc. 91,500.00
Ball and bat racks 4,800.00
Lino Lakes Community Athletic Complex Brauer & Associates, Ltd.
Schematic Design Cost Estimate Page 3 of 6 0008- lino - schem- cost- est- 02- 28- 00.wpd
•
•
•
12
13
14
15
Bleachers 54,000.00
Players benches 6,000.00
2 Batting cages 25,000.00
Landscape Improvements - trees, shrubs 15,000.00
Component #5 - Total 454,350.00
Core Facility Development - subtotal 2,623,550.00
Design, Engineering, Surveying Fees (15 %) 393,532.50
Contingency (10 %) 262,355.00
Core Facility Development - Total $3,279,437.50
Lino Lakes Community Athletic Complex Brauer & Associates, Ltd.
Schematic Design Cost Estimate Page 4 of 6 0008 - lino - schem- cost- est- 02- 28- 00.wpd
•
•
•
ADD -ON FACILITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
Component #6 - Sport Courts & Amenities
Total Cost
1
2
3
4
5
6
Site removals & grading
2 Tennis courts (with lighting system)
Volleyball court
Basketball Court
In -Line Skate Park (with lighting system)
Surveying (approximately 5% of dev. cost)
20,000.00
73,550.00
3,500.00
12,000.00
130,000.00
12,500.00
Component #7 - Athletic Field Lighting
Component #6 - Total 251,550.00
Total Cost
1
2
3
4
Soccer Lighting
Baseball field
300' Combination Ballfields (4 fields total)
250' - 275' Youth Ballfields (3 fields total)
350,000.00
110,000.00
350,000.00
265,000.00
Component #7 - Total 1,075,000.00
Component #8 - Architectural / Buildings and related services
1
2
3
4
Large Multi- purpose building between ballfields (budget cost)
Small Multi- purpose building adjacent to premium soccer field (budget cost)
Site Utilities (related to buildings, ie. sanitary sewer, water service)
Surveying (approximately 5% of dev. cost)
Component #8 - Total
Total Cost
550,000.00
150,000.00
50,000.00
39,500.00
789,500.00
I��
Add -on Facility Development Items - subtotal 2,116,050.00
Design, Engineering, Surveying Fees (15 %) 317,407.50
Contingency (10 %) 211,605.00
Add -on Facility Development Items - Total $2,327,655.00
Lino Lakes Community Athletic Complex Brauer & Associates, Ltd.
Schematic Design Cost Estimate Page 5 of 6 0008- lino- schemcost- est- 02- 28- OO.wpd
•
ADD -ON PREMIUM LEVEL DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
Additional Considerations for Site Improvements
Total Cost
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Parking lot lighting (minimal)
Subsurface drainage system for soccer fields
Modified topsoil for soccer fields (90% sand / 10% topsoil)over pea - gravel base
Bleachers on concrete pads for premium soccer field
Scoreboards for ballfields (total of 8)
Modified sand topsoil for all ballfields (50% sand / 50% topsoil)
Tent pad pavement (between ballfields for vendors)
Play Equipment / Container adjacent to youth ballfields (budget cost)
Additional Property Screening & Buffering
Dumpster enclosures
Entry and identification signage
Athletic informational signage
112,000.00
270,000.00
455,000.00
48,000.00
60,000.00
83,500.00
26,500.00
100,000.00
45,000.00
12,000.00
15,200.00
7,600.00
Component #8 - Total 1,234,800.00
Add -on Premium Level Development Items - subtotal 1,234,800.00
Design, Engineering, Surveying Fees (15 %) 185,220.00
Contingency (10 %) 123,480.00
Add -on Premium Level Development Items - Total $1,358,280.00
SUMMARY
Development Description
Total Cost
1
2
3
Core Facility Development Total (Sitework, Soccer Fields, Ballfields)
Add -on Facility Development Items Total (Sports Courts, Sport Field Lighting, Buildings)
Premium Level Development Items Total
3,279,437.50
2,327,655.00
1,358,280.00
Premium Level Development 6,965,372.50
Schematic Design Cost Estimate - Total
Lino Lakes Community Athletic Complex
Schematic Design Cost Estimate
Brauer & Associates, Ltd.
Page 6 of 6 0008- lino-schem- cost- est- 02- 28- 00.wpd
Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439
February 9, 2001
TO: Park Board Members
FROM: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director
SUBJECT: Park Dedication Analysis
Enclosed is a copy of the Lino Lakes Park Dedication Analysis completed by Northwest
Associated Consultants, Inc.
• Please review and bring your copy to future Park Board Meeting for discussion. If you have any
questions please contact me at 651 982 -2444.
Thank you.
sw /rick/Brixius Analysis Park Dedication.doc
•
•
•
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS. INC.
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners @nacplanning.com
TRANSMITTAL
DATE: 02 -06 -01
TO: Rick DeGardner
Jeff Smeyser
Linda Waite -Smith
Barry Sullivan
NUMBER
OF PAGES
INCLUDING
COVER:
28
FROM: Alan Brixius
QUANTITY:
1
MATERIAUDESCRIPTION:
Lino Lake Park Dedication Analysis
DATED:
02 -06 -01
VIA: Fax Mail X Pick Up Delivery
REMARKS:
Attached find the above referenced information. Please carefully review the materials
before distributing to the Planning Commission and City Council. If you have
questions or changes please contact me as soon as possible so that we may make
the corrections.
If you have questions related to this matter, please contact me at 952 - 595 -9636.
CITY /PROJECT NAME: Lino Lakes — Park Dedication Study
JOB NUMBER: 194.02 — 00.06
9408 MEIS ' ASSOCIATIlt0 CONSUILTANTS,, WC
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 nac @winternet.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff Smyser
FROM: Alan Brixius / Deb Garross
DATE: February 6, 2001
RE: Lino Lakes — Park and Trail Dedication Study
FILE NO: 194.02 — 00.06
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide recommendations to the City of Lino
Lakes concerning park and trail dedication standards and the ordinance amendments
suggested to implement the City's Comprehensive Park and Development Guide Plan.
The City's existing park and trail systems have been developed based upon the 1992
Comprehensive Park Plan, construction of school facilities and new subdivision activity.
The City has been successful in acquiring land during the subdivision process to
provide neighborhood and mini parks throughout the community. Athletic fields and
other recreation improvements have been provided based upon a combination of City
and School District facilities. The Rice Creek Park Reserve is a 2,500 -acre natural
open space and greenway system that is located in the central part of the City
surrounding a number of lakes.
ISSUES / ANALYSIS
The City is experiencing increased demand for development of the park facilities due to
the influx of residential subdivision and population to Lino Lakes. While the need for
parks and trails continues to be strong, the financial resources being dedicated to the
park and trails system is declining. As a result, the City implementation of the park and
trail system is lagging behind neighborhood development and the system is not
adequate to meet current demand. This situation is expected to continue into the future
and perhaps intensify, as larger, more expensive community athletic complexes are
needed to serve larger populations. The following points summarize the key issues
facing the City concerning its park and trail system:
1. The Comprehensive Park Plan was developed to serve an ultimate City population
• of 30,000 people. The April 1st 2000 population estimate indicated the City's
population to be 15,053. Based upon the population estimate, about one half of the
1 Lino Lakes
Park Dedication Analysis
•
park system should be implemented to accommodate the existing population. The
City has well over half of the land acquired for the park system but falls short in park
facilities development. Approximately $3,943,384 dollars in infrastructure and trails is
needed to equip existing parks and provide trails to serve existing neighborhoods.
2. The Comprehensive Park Plan envisioned development of about 80 miles of trails
throughout the community. To date, approximately 14 miles of trails have been
constructed in the City. Based upon the population estimates, half of the planned
trail system should be implemented to serve existing residents /development.
Approximately $1,089,528 dollars of trail improvements (3.55 miles of park trails; 9.3
miles of transportation trails; and 13.6 miles of bike trails) in addition to the 14 miles
of existing trails should be in place to serve the existing population.
3. The City Budget indicates that there has been a substantial (76 %) decrease in the
capital outlay for parks since 1998. The 12/31/98 actual expenditures for parks
capital outlay were $175,000 as compared to the proposed 2001 budget of $13,000
dollars).
4. At the same time that park capital outlay budget is decreasing, the City population
and households continues to increase by 4.69% and 5.6% respectively. (The City
population has increased by 707 people based upon the April 1st estimates from
1998 to 2000). The number of households within the City has increased by 249
households based upon the April 1st estimates from 1998 to 2000).
5. Within the next twenty years, the City is expected to grow to a population of 20,500
residents housed in 7,575 households. If growth occurs as anticipated, the City will
be two thirds developed by the year 2020. Within the next twenty years, the City
park and trails system will need to add about 16 acres of land and about 39 miles of
trails to accommodate its future population.
6. The City is considering development of a 70 -acre, community athletic complex
southeast of the intersection of Birch Street and Centerville Road. Preliminary
design cost estimates for the facility range from $3,279,437.50 to $6,965,372.50.
The community athletic complex is P proposed to replace P P lace the osed 36 -acre
Community Park (Birch Street and Hodgson Road) and 50 -acre Athletic Complex
(Holly Drive and 12th Avenue) as contemplated by the Comprehensive Park and Trail
Plan. The City will need to develop a funding mechanism to implement the 70 -acre
community athletic complex.
STATUTE / CASE LAW
The City authorized this study to be conducted by NAC to review current regulations
and dedication requirements to determine if current practices are adequately providing
for existing and future anticipated park and trail demands. This Report will summarize
the objectives of the 1992 Park Comprehensive Plan and provide updated inventory
• information to establish a base line for future dedication needs. Factors including
property valuation, service area needs, facility cost analysis, future development and
2 Lino Lakes
Park Dedication Analysis
• implementation strategies will be reviewed. Recommendations will be set forth
establishing mechanisms for the City to provide park and trail facilities in a manner that
meets Comprehensive Plan goals, establishes a relationship between park/trail need
and development impact and that will accomplish the system in an equitable manner,
consistent with Minnesota Statutes and recent case law.
•
Minnesota Statutes — Park Dedication
Minnesota Statutes 462.358 Subd. 2b., provides the enabling legislation that allows
municipalities to extract parkland or cash dedications for park acquisition and
development. The statute specifically provides: "that a reasonable portion of any
proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes
or for public use as parks, recreational facilities, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open
space." The statute further provides that the municipality may:
a. 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 no later than at the time of final approval,
b. any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the municipality
used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained,
c. in establishing the reasonable portion to be dedicated, the regulations may
consider the open space, park, recreational, or common areas and facilities
which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision, and
d. the municipality reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of
and for the purposes stated in Subd. 2b. as a result of approval of the
subdivision.
Collis v. City of Bloomington (1976)
The statute described above was further interpreted by the case of Collis vs. City of
Bloomington. In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of
Bloomington's Ordinance, which set forth a ten (10) percent park dedication
requirement "as a general rule." The Court found for this particular case and
developer /project, that "as a general rule, it was reasonable for the City to require
dedication of ten percent of land or payment of ten percent of the value of undeveloped
land for park dedication." The Court noted that the ten percent requirement might be
arbitrary as a matter of law because it does not consider the relationship between the
particular subdivision and recreational need in the community. The Court was not,
however, prepared to say that the ten percent requirement was unreasonable or
arbitrary. (Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to Mr. Todd Haas, dated
March 3, 1999).
Dolan vs. Tigard (1994)
The enabling legislation of Minnesota Statutes 462.358 Subd. 2b cited earlier in this
• report has been further influenced by case law. The U.S. Supreme Count (Dolan vs.
3 Lino Lakes
Park Dedication Analysis
• Tigard) found that land use extractions must be reflective of a development impact on
the infrastructure system. In this respect, park dedication extracted from a land use
must reflect the demand they generate for park and recreational facilities. This case
established that a rational nexus or relationship must exist between the fees charged for
parks and the related impacts that are generated by the use.
•
Kottschade vs. City of Rochester (1995)
In this case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals noted that in the case of a dedication, the
City is requiring a property owner to give up a constitutional right — the right to receive
just compensation when private property is taken for a public purpose. In order to
uphold a dedication requirement the City has the burden of proving the required
relationship between the property development and the City's need for land dedication.
To meet that burden, the City must prove that an "essential nexus" exists between the
need for the land and the dedication requirement. If the nexus can be demonstrated,
the City must also demonstrate a "rough proportionality" between the development and
the City's dedication requirement. (Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to
Mr. Todd Haas, dated March 3, 1999).
In other words, the City must be able to prove that the proposed project will create a
need for additional park facilities and that the amount of dedication required is roughly
proportionate to the impact from the development. A precise mathematical calculation
is not required, however, the City must demonstrate that an individualized determination
has been made to support the land /cash dedication requirement.
City Attorney Comments — (Exhibit A Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to
Mr. Todd Haas, dated March 3, 1999). "In a park dedication situation, the City must be
able to prove two things. First, that the proposed development will create a need for
additional park facilities. Second, the City must be able to prove that the amount of the
dedication is roughly proportionate to the impact from the development. A precise
mathematical calculation is not required; what is required is some sort of individualized
determination. It should not be difficult for the City to meet the first or nexus part of the
standard, i.e., that the proposed subdivision will create the need for additional park
facilities. However, it is my opinion that a unit charge for park dedication fees does not
pass the second part of the test. A flat fee charge does not provide an individualized
determination that the amount of the charge is roughly proportionate to the need
created by the development. The statute makes clear that a dedication must be
reasonable and must be based on the fair market value of the land."
1992 PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The City of Lino Lakes adopted a Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide in
1992, which sets forth goals and objectives for achieving a coordinated park, recreation
and trail system designed to serve the ultimate population of the City (30,000 people) at
full development. Exhibit B illustrates the 1992 Park Comprehensive Plan. The system
contemplates dividing 339.1 acres of land into the following park system classifications.
4 Lino Lakes
Park Dedication Analysis
• Mini Park. This type of facility is intended to provide specialized facilities that serve a
concentrated or limited population. Mini parks are typically located within
neighborhoods and in close proximity to multi - family development or housing for the
elderly. These facilities serve people living within less than 1/4 mile of the mini park and
should have an area of 2,500 square feet to 2 acres. The Comprehensive Plan
contemplates development of 6 mini parks (15.1 acres) throughout the City.
Neighborhood Park. This type of facility is intended to provide both active and passive
recreation activities, serving children, teens, adults, seniors and special populations.
Neighborhood parks are typically located in neighborhoods and intended to serve
people living within 1/4 to'/ mile of the park. The and area comprising a neighborhood
park should contain about 14 to 17 acres of which, 50 to 70% should be developed with
active facilities. The Comprehensive Plan contemplates development of 15
neighborhood parks (127.0 acres) throughout the community.
Community Park. A community park is an area that is intended to be used for passive
or community -based recreational activities and gatherings. A community park should
contain natural or ornamental qualities and serve several neighborhoods within a 2 to
2.5 mile radius. The size of a community park can range between 20 to 80 acres. The
Comprehensive Plan contemplates development of 2 community parks (67.0 acres)
both of which are located along the south side of Rice Lake.
• Community Playfield /Athletic Complex. This type of facility is intended to provide an
area for intensely programmed active recreational uses including facilities such as
athletic fields, hockey rinks, tennis courts, outdoor basketball and volley ball courts as
well as support facilities like on -site parking, concession stands, multi - purpose buildings
and utilities. The size of community playfields / athletic complexes should be from 20 to
65 developed acres and serve the entire community. The Comprehensive Plan
contemplates development of 3 athletic complexes (130.0 acres) including City Hall
(northern part of the City), Sunrise Park (located west of Rice Lake), and a third facility
in the southern part of the City (located northwest of Cedar Lake).
•
Joint -Use Parks and Recreational Facilities. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Lino
Lakes Elementary, Rice Lake Elementary, Centennial Middle School, and Rice Creek
Park Reserve as joint use facilities. These facilities provide recreation and trail
opportunities that are provided jointly by Anoka County, the School Districts and City.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies 55 acres of and and the 2,500 -acre Rice Creek
Park Reserve as joint use facilities.
Trails. The trail system is broken down based upon the function that the trail serves
including linear corridors, special use trails, park trails, transportation trails, cross -
country, ski, horse and snowmobile trails.
Table 1 illustrates the type and acreage of park facilities contemplated by the 1992 Park
and Trail Comprehensive Plan.
5 Lino Lakes
Park Dedication Analysis
•
Table 1
1992 Park and Trail Comprehensive Plan
Trail Type
Existing
Acres
Future
Acres
Total
Acres
Mini Parks
10.1
5.0
15.1
Neighborhood Parks
58.0
69.0
127.0
Community Parks
22.0
45.0
67.0
Community Playfields / Athletic Complexes
47.0
83.0
130.0
Total City Parks
137.1
202.0
339.1
Table 2 illustrates the type of trail facilities contemplated by the 1992 Park and Trail
Comprehensive Plan.
Table 2
1992 Park and Trail Comprehensive Plan
Trail Type
Total Miles
Park Trails (trails w /in linear trail corridors)
14.1
Transportation Trails (located in r.o.w)
29.2
Bike Routes (paved road shoulders)
37.7
Total Trail Miles
81.0
PARK SYSTEM ANALYSIS
The existing system of City parks provides relatively even coverage for the local
• population. Exhibit C "Existing Park Service Area Map, indicates the location and type
of park facility and its service area (based upon the service area objectives of the
Comprehensive Park and Trails Plan). With the exception of about 230 acres in the far
northwest corner of the City and approximately 650 acres located east of I -35E, the
entire community is served by "mini, neighborhood and community" parks. School sites
with athletic and play equipment serve neighborhoods that are not within the local park
service areas. Future parkland acquisition and development will provide an even
distribution of park and athletic facilities to the remaining areas of the community.
The existing park system was further analyzed in terms of the service area per 1,000
population guidelines set forth in the 1992 Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan. The
following table indicates that the City exceeds the park acres per 1,000 population
guidelines in all park categories.
Table 3
Park Type
Standard
Range
Existing Park Acres
Mini Park
0.25 - 0.5 ac /1000
3.76 to 7.5 acres
12.8 acres
Neighborhood Park
2.5 - 3.5 ac /1000
37.5 to 52.5
87.5 acres
Community Park
5 - 8 ac /1000
75 to 120 acres
66 acres
Athletic Complex
2.5 ac /1000
37.5 acres
70 acres
Total
236.3 acres
• City Staff was requested to evaluate the 1992 Comprehensive Park and Trails Plan to
identify areas where the plan has or should be modified to accommodate changing
6
Lino Lakes
Park Dedication Analysis
• community needs. Based upon City Staff input, the following modifications to the Park
Plan were incorporated into this analysis.
•
•
1. 2.2 miles of trails were deleted from the plan on the basis that the segments were no
longer needed or impractical to construct/implement.
2. 114.9 acres of future parkland were deleted from the plan on the basis that existing
development precludes further acquisition or is impractical based upon physical
constraints. The specific park and land areas affected are identified as follows:
• 6.0 acres deleted from Highland Meadows Park
• 0.9 acres deleted from Behm's Century Farm
• 4.5 acres deleted from Birch Park
• 3.0 acres deleted from the Woods of Baldwin Lake Park
• 4.5 acres deleted from Clearwater Creek Park
• 36 acre C -2 future Community Park deleted
• 50 acre A -3 future Athletic Complex deleted
• 10 acre JU -4 Joint Use Park deleted
3. The resulting park plan calls for development of 313.3 acres of community parkland
including the 70 -acre Community Athletic Complex and the addition of 77 acres of
land indicated as follows:
• 3.0 acres for park M -4 (Future mini park south of Ward's Lake)
• 8.0 acres for park N -1 (Future neighborhood park East of Lake Drive and
North of Evergreen Trail)
■ 7.0 acre addition to Arena Acres Park
• 8.0 acres for park N -4 (Future neighborhood park on Bluebill Lane North of
Main)
• 1.5 acre addition to Rice Lake Estates Park
■ 4.5 acre addition to Brandywood Park
• 9.0 acre addition to Country Lakes Park
• 36 acre addition to City Hall Park
City Staff provided a summary of existing and planned park facilities and trails, which
were used to establish the value of the existing park/trails system and identify costs to
complete the community system. A major component of the system is land and to
determine present land values for Lino Lakes, a review of land sales records
(certificates of real estate) from the Anoka County Assessors Office for 2000 and 2001
was conducted. The land sales records revealed the following:
1. Raw land sales for property within the MUSA ranged from about $22,600 to
$30,000 per acre with an average of $26,300 per acre for residential properties.
2. The land value identified at the time of preliminary plat (for the purpose of
calculating park dedication), for Bluebill Acres and Highland Meadows ranged
from $23,164 to $26,023 dollars per acre.
7
Lino Lakes
Park Dedication Analysis
• 3. Vacant lot sales within the developments of Cedar Creek 3`d Addition, Behm's
Century Farm 5th Addition and Highland Meadows West ranged from $40,942 to
$45,706 per lot with an average vacant lot sales price of $42,995 dollars.
•
For the purpose of estimating future land costs to acquire the parkland identified by the
Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan, the figure of $28,000 per acre was used. This
figure approximates the average sales price of raw land within the MUSA for the City of
Lino Lakes.
Pursuant to State Statute, the City can collect park dedication based upon the value of
land at the time of final plat. It is our opinion that value should include raw land value
plus the profit from lots created by final plat approval. The land value at final plat should
comprise the value of the lot and profit less improvement costs. Residential developers
were contacted to identify lot improvement costs (assuming an 80 foot wide lot),
associated with single - family subdivisions. Typical improvement costs for single - family
developments consist of utilities, roads, grading, engineering, area connection charges
and fees, which approximate 48% of the total vacant lot sales price. The analysis
assumes a minimum of 20% profit for the developer. The following table illustrates the
valuation difference between raw land value (preliminary plat) and land value at the time
of final plat:
Table 4
The application of park dedication at the time of final plat, based upon the value of 10%
of the project (lots + profit), results in an equitable dedication policy that is superior to
the current dedication based on raw land value (at the time of preliminary plat). The
existing method treats developers differently based upon whether a cash or land
dedication is taken by the City. The current cash dedication policy requires a developer
to give up a percentage of the raw land value of the project at the time of preliminary
plat. The developer that gives a land dedication is impacted to a greater degree
because they give up land value plus future profit. Whereas the developer who pays a
cash dedication at the time of preliminary plat looses only raw land cost. This situation
treats developers inequitably based upon whether they are required to dedicate and or
cash. Using the land value at the time of final plat will result in an equitable treatment of
developers in that the same value will be applied regardless of whether cash or land is
required.
RESIDENTIAL PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS
• Exhibit D "Lino Lakes — Park Trail Facilities Chart" identifies the park sites pursuant to
the 1992 Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan. The name and address of each park
8 Lino Lakes
Park Dedication Analysis
LAND VALUE
AT FINAL PLAT
RAW LAND
VALUE
Total Lot Sales Price
Development Costs
Per Unit Cost/Lot Value at Final Plat
$43,320
- 22,100
$21.220 (Lot Cost + Profit)
$ 28,000 p /acre
Or
$14,000 p /lot
Park Dedication Requirement (10 %)
$2,100 per unit
$1,400 per unit
The application of park dedication at the time of final plat, based upon the value of 10%
of the project (lots + profit), results in an equitable dedication policy that is superior to
the current dedication based on raw land value (at the time of preliminary plat). The
existing method treats developers differently based upon whether a cash or land
dedication is taken by the City. The current cash dedication policy requires a developer
to give up a percentage of the raw land value of the project at the time of preliminary
plat. The developer that gives a land dedication is impacted to a greater degree
because they give up land value plus future profit. Whereas the developer who pays a
cash dedication at the time of preliminary plat looses only raw land cost. This situation
treats developers inequitably based upon whether they are required to dedicate and or
cash. Using the land value at the time of final plat will result in an equitable treatment of
developers in that the same value will be applied regardless of whether cash or land is
required.
RESIDENTIAL PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS
• Exhibit D "Lino Lakes — Park Trail Facilities Chart" identifies the park sites pursuant to
the 1992 Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan. The name and address of each park
8 Lino Lakes
Park Dedication Analysis
• including existing and future acres, facilities and values are also identified. City Staff
provided the list of facilities and corresponding costs. Trail values were determined
based upon a rate of $15.00 per lineal foot for park and transportation trails and $1.00
per lineal foot for bike trails. The existing City park and trail system is valued at about
$6,471,816 dollars. To complete the system per the Comprehensive Park and Trail
Plan, an additional $14,362,583 of land, facilities and trails will be needed. The
$14,362,583 dollar future system cost includes costs to improve the new community
athletic complex with the premium level package estimated at $6,965,373 dollars.
Table 5 illustrates the value of the existing and proposed park system identified above.
•
•
Table 5
PARK SYSTEM VALUE
Total Park
System Value
Value of Existing Park
Facilities
% of
Total
Value /Cost of Future
Park Facilities
% of
Total
$20,834,399
$6,471,816
31%
$14,362,583
69%
Part of the park system analysis included a land use review to determine the service
areas for the existing parks and to identify the proportion of existing and future
development that will impact the system. Many of the existing parks are located in
areas of the community where future development will occur and as such, a proportion
of the park infrastructure should be borne by new development. In fully developed
areas, improvements to existing parks should be borne by current residents within the
service area of the specific facility. Exhibit D, Lino Lakes Parks/Trails Chart indicates
the percentage of each planned park service area that existing and future development
will impact. Table 3 indicated that the current park system is and rich and that the City
has acquired more land than is needed to serve the existing population (based upon the
National Recreation and Parks Association guidelines). However it is important to note
that the NRPA standards are guidelines only and that parkland and facilities need to be
community specific.
The current City population of 15,053 residents and 5,255 households is approximately
50% of the projected saturation population of 30,000 people. Table 5 illustrates that the
existing population is underserved in relation to the available and planned park and trail
facilities. For an equitable distribution of impact, the total park and trail system cost
should be distributed on a 50/50% basis between existing and future development as
illustrated in Table 6.
Table 6
PARK SYSTEM COSTS BY SERVICE AREAS
Total Park and
Trail System Cost
50% of Total
System Cost
Existing Development
Future
Development
$20,834,399
$10,417,200
6,471,816 (Value of Existing System)
+ 3,943,384 (Value to meet 50% of Cost)
$10,417,200
$10,417,200
9
Lino Lakes
Park Dedication Analysis
• Table 6 indicates that half of the total park and trail system costs will be provided by
future development through the application of park dedication fees. The unit cost to
implement 50% of the future park and trail system based upon a total population
saturation of 30,000 people and 11,111 households is $1,779 dollars per residential
unit. The per unit cost is calculated in Table 7 as follows:
•
•
Table 7
Park Cost per Residential Unit
Total Lino Lakes Persons per
Saturation Population Household
30,000 — 2.7 = 11,111 Total Households /Buildout
- 5,255 - Existing Households
5,856 Future Households
10,417,200 (Total Future Park Cost) ± 5,856 (Future Households) = $1,780 (park cost per unit)
The City will need to invest $3,943,384 dollars into the existing system to bring it up to
the 50% level and provide the current residents with the level of park and trail services
needed. Case law and Minnesota Statutes do not allow for the use of park dedication
fees for maintenance or to provide facilities to the existing population. Therefore, the
City will need to find alternative funding sources such as referenda, user fees, tax
increase, grants etc., to raise the $3,943,384 dollars needed to equip the system to
meet the needs of existing residents and accomplish 50% of the total park and trail
system cost.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS
Minnesota Statutes and recent case law have identified that Cities must now be able to
specifically articulate and justify dedication requirements on a project -by- project basis.
Cities have the burden of determining that the park dedication requirement is related to
the park benefit that will be derived due to the development. Individualized
determinations must be made for each project and the City has the responsibility to
demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the dedication requirement
and the park impact generated by the development.
The current commercial and industrial and dedication requirements of the City are at
issue with the case law and opinion of the City Attorney. There is no question that
many communities charge park dedication for commercial and industrial uses. At issue
is that there appears to be no rational basis for the dedication. Several sources were
contacted to locate studies or guidelines related to the impact commercial and industrial
and uses have on park and trail systems. The League of Minnesota Cities, National
Recreation and Parks Association, and the American Planning Association were
contacted with regard to this matter and none of the agencies were able to provide
documentation on the relationship of these uses to parks and trails.
10 Lino Lakes
Park Dedication Analysis
• In the case of the City of Lino Lakes, City Staff indicated that there has been no formal
response from the business community with respect to team participation or employee
use of community park facilities. If this is indeed the case, the collection of park
dedication fees from commercial /industrial uses may result in the unintended
consequence of collecting park dedication twice, once on a resident's lot/home and
again from the resident's employer. Unfortunately, there is no further data that our
office could find that breaks down the number of actual Lino Lakes residents and
employees that utilize the community park system as opposed to non - resident use. In
the event that a relationship cannot be established concerning business impacts to the
City park and trail systems, it is recommended that Lino Lakes discontinue the
commercial /industrial park dedication requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Case law and Minnesota Statutes provide that dedication requirements can only be
applied facilities that will be impacted by the specific project. Future park dedication
fees cannot be utilized to improve or maintain existing park and trail systems in fully
developed neighborhoods unless a correlation can be made between the development
and park use. The amount of cash /land dedication required from new development
must be proportional to the impact that the project will generate on the park and trail
system.
The total planned park and trail system is estimated to cost $20,834,399 dollars, based
1111 upon the current Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan, 2001 land values and current
facility costs. The City is developed with about'/ of its estimated saturation population
of 30,000 people and 11,100 households. Based upon existing development,
approximately 50% of the total park and trail system or $10,417,200 should be
implemented to meet current resident demand. The current park system is land rich but
facility poor based on national park per capita standards. The existing system provides
for more and acreage per 1000 population than is required (based upon NRPA
guidelines). The analysis indicates that an estimated $3,943,384 dollars of
improvements are needed to equip the system to meet current demand. As such, the
City will need to find alternative funding sources to generate the $3,943,384 dollars to
equip the system for the current population.
•
The balance of the planned, future park and trail system is estimated to cost
$10,417,200 and should be paid for by future development. Based upon the saturation
population of 30,000 people and 2.7 people per household, the balance of the park
system should be paid for by the 5,856 households that will be developed in the future.
The charge per residential unit should be $1,780 dollars ($10,417,200 (50% park costs)
5,856 (future housing units = $1,780), to pay for the completion of the balance of the
Lino Lakes park and trail system.
1. To maximize the value of cash dedications it is recommended that the City update
its Subdivision Ordinance to require the land value determination (appraisal) to be
made at the time of final plat as opposed to raw land value at preliminary plat. The
11 Lino Lakes
Park Dedication Analysis
• Anoka County Assessor estimates that the value of land increases by at least 30%
due to platting as opposed to raw land value.
2. Based upon the analysis provided herein, the per residential unit charge to complete
the planned park and trail system plan should be established at $1,780 dollars per
unit.
3. The City will need to generate $3,943,384 dollars through sources other than park
dedication fees to equip the existing park and trail system to meet the needs of
current residents and accomplish 50% of the planned system.
4. Exhibit C "Existing Park Service Area Map" and Exhibit D "Lino Lakes Park/Trails
Facilities Chart" identify the land areas and proportion of existing versus future
development that are serviced by park facilities. These documents should be used
to develop individual findings per subdivision concerning the rough proportionality
that the development will have on the park system. The determination of dedication
requirements based upon the value of the property at the time of final plat is
consistent with Minnesota Statutes, will provide individualized determinations, and
will result in equity between developments required to give cash and developments
required to provide land dedications.
• Attachments:
Exhibit A - Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to Mr. Todd Haas, dated
March 3, 1999
Exhibit B - 1992 Lino Lakes Park and Trail Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit C - Existing Park Service Area Map
Exhibit D - Lino Lakes — Park Trail Facilities Chart
•
12 Lino Lakes
Park Dedication Analysis
•
03/03/99 15:44 LAW OFFICES 2140 4TH AVE 4 651 464 4568 NO.592 G02
LAW OFFICI2S OF
William G. Hawkins and Associates
Legal Assisiunu
WILLIAM G. HAWKINS TAMMI J. UVEGES
BARRY A. SULLIVAN
March 3, 1999
Mr. Todd Haas
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW
Andover, MN 55304
Re: Park Dedication Fees and Trail Dedication Fees
Dear Todd:
2140 FOURTH AVENUE NORTH
ANOKA, M1NNF.SOTA 55303
PHONE (612) 427 -8877
FAX (612) 421 -4213
You have asked for our analysis of the proposed use of park dedication fees and trail
dedication fees in the City of Andover. We have reviewed the applicable statute and
case law and would ask that you consider the following information.
The current situation is as follows: the City imposes a park dedication of 10% for new
plats. The developer is asked to dedicate either 10% of the land or an amount in cash
equivalent to 10% of the value of the land. Developers are directed to choose from a
panel of appraisers and pay an amount based upon that appraisal. The City is
considering a change in the park dedication fee from a percentage calculation to a per
unit charge. The proposed charges are as follows:
Type Amount
Single Family 51,350
Townhouse $ 1,000
Mobile Home $ 1,200
Lot Splits $1,350
Commercial $4,000 (acre)
In the typical residential urban zoning district, we would expect to see two lots or
units per acre. Consequently, under the new unit charge system, the unit charge per
acre would be $2,700. I understand that an acre of land in the City of Andover
suitable for a residential development would typically sell for $13,000.
The City is also considering the imposition of a trail dedication fee. This fee was
imposed previously but discontinued some months ago. The City is contemplating the
renewed use of this fee. It is anticipated that the fee would be imposed at the rate of
$250 per unit payable at the time of the issuance of a building permit. Additionally,
EXHIBIT A
03/03/99 15:44 LAW OFFICES 2140 4TH RUE 4 651 464 4568 NO.592 D03
• Mr. Todd Haas
March 3, 1999
Page 2
developers are expected to pay 50% of all trail construction costs for trails located in
the plat.
For the reasons discussed herein, I have strong concerns about each of these
dedication fees.
Minnesota law specifically authorizes municipalities to require dedication for parks and
trails in the subdivision approval process. Minn. Stat. § 462.358, Subd. 2d (1998)
provides:
"Dedication...
In addition, the regulations may require that a reasonable
portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the
public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public
use as parks,...trails...or open space; provided that (a) the
municipality 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 no later than at
the time of final approval...."
It is obvious from the statute that the City may impose a dedication requirement and
accept either land, cash or a combination of land and cash. However, the statute sets
forth two important conditions. First, the size of the dedication must be reasonable,
i.e., the City may require that "...a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be
dedicated...." Second, the statute also makes clear that the amount of the dedication
must be "...based on the fair market value of the land...."
The statute has been interpreted by Minnesota appellate courts and a review of those
decisions is instructive. In Collis v. City of Bloomington, 246 N. W.2d 19 (Minn.
1976), the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of § 462.358 as
applied to a Bloomington ordinance that provided: "as a general rule, it is reasonable
to require dedication of 10% of the land or payment of 10% of undeveloped land
value." The Court noted that the Bloomington ordinance set forth the 10%
requirement as "a general rule" and that the developer could obtain judicial review.
Under the facts of that case, the Court was not prepared to say that the 10%
requirement was unreasonable or arbitrary. The Court did note, however, as follows:
"Thus, there exists the possibility that the developer...will
be forced to pay a disproportionate share of the city's park
and recreation costs. While the city has apparently made a
03/03/99 15:44 LAW OFFICES 2140 4TH RUE 4 651 464 4568 NO.592 PO4
• Mr. Todd Haas
March 3, 1999
Page 3
•
record in this case showing that 10% is not unreasonable
as to the property of these plaintiffs, given the particular
needs of Bloomington, the 10% requirement might be
arbitrary as a matter of law because it does not consider
the relationship between this particular subdivision and
recreational need in the community."
Not surprisingly, since the Co/iis decision, many if not most municipalities have
adopted a 10% park dedication fee requirement. The Collis case stands for the
principal that a municipality may require dedication of and for public use as a
condition of plat approval if a reasonable relationship exists between the approval of
the subdivision and the municipality's need for the land.
In Kottschade v. City of Rochester, 537 N. W.2d 301 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), the
Minnesota Court of Appeals returned to this issue in the context of a right -of -way
dedication requirement. The Court in Kottschade analyzed and applied the recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision of Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994). The
Court noted that in the case of a dedication, the city is requiring a property owner to
give up a constitutional right —the right to receive just compensation when private
property is taken for a public purpose. In order to uphold a dedication requirement the
city "has the burden of proving the required relationship. between the property
development and the city's need for land dedication." To meet that burden, the city
must prove two things. First, the city must show that an "essential nexus" exists
between the legitimate state interest (the need for the land) and the condition exacted
by the city (the dedication of the land). Second, if the nexus can be demonstrated,
the city must demonstrate a "rough proportionality" between the plan development
and the city's requirement for a dedication of land.
"No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the
City must make some sort of individualized determination
that the required dedication is related both in nature and
extent to the impact of the proposed development."
In a park dedication situation, the City must be able to prove two things. First, that
the proposed development will create a need for additional park facilities. Second, the
City must be able to prove that the amount of the dedication is roughly proportionate
to the impact from the development. It is important to reiterate some of the language
used by the courts. A "precise mathematical calculation" is not required; what is
required is some sort of individualized determination."
It should not be difficult for the City of Andover to meet the first or "nexus" part of
the standard, i.e., that a proposed subdivision will create the need for additional park
facilities. However, it is my opinion that a unit charge for park dedication fees does
03/03/99 15:44 LAW OFFICES 2140 4TH RUE 4 651 464 4568 N0.592 D05
• Mr. Todd Haas
March 3, 1999
Page 4
not pass the second part of the test. I do not see how the flat fee charge can be seen
as an °individualized determination" that the amount of the charge is roughly
proportionate to the need created by the development. The statute makes clear that a
dedication must be 'reasonable" and must be "based on the fair market value of the
land." I do not see how a unit dedication takes into account the value of the land or
takes into account the impact of the subdivision upon the City's park requirements.
I believe the City has to conduct a study that will allow the City to make a finding that
the subdivision will create an increased need for park facilities. The City must then
determine what amount the dedication is roughly proportionate to that impact. In
doing so, the City must take into account the fair market value of the undeveloped
land.
The amount of the proposed unit dedication demonstrates my concern. At $ 1,350
per unit for single family residents, and assuming two units per acre, this is a park
dedication requirement of $2,700 per acre. If we use the 10% figure from before,
this means that the value of undeveloped land in Andover must be at least $27,000
per acre. I do not believe this is the case.
The trail dedication fee is a charge that is in addition to the park dedication
• requirement. The same law discussed above is applicable to the trail dedication fee.
Assuming that a new subdivision creates an impact and a need for additional trail
facilities, the City must still be able to demonstrate that the, amount of the trail
dedication fee is roughly proportionate to that impact. A unit charge may be an
appropriate starting point as it takes the element of density into account. However, it
does not take into account the fair market value of the land or the impact on a trail
system from the particular subdivision.
•
Another problem 1 have with the trail dedication fee is that it is not a plat dedication
fee at all. It is not a fee imposed upon the developer as part of the platting process
but is a proposed to be a fee imposed upon the land owner at the time of application
for a building permit. I see no authority for the City to impose this charge at the time
of building permit application. The statute clearly authorizes the City to impose a trail
dedication as part of subdivision approval. It is my recommendation that a trail
dedication fee be a condition of plat approval and not a charge assessed at the time of
a building permit application.
CONCLUSION. Minnesota law clearly authorizes a municipalities to require developers
To dedicate a reasonable portion of their subdivisions for park and trail purposes. In
order to sustain such a dedication, the city must prove that a relationship exists
between the proposed subdivision and the city's requirements. That is, that the
proposed subdivision will have an impact and increase demand upon park facilities.
Second, the city must be able to prove that the amount of the dedication is roughly
proportionate to that impact. In doing so, the city must make some sort of
individualized determination that is based upon the fair market value of the land. I do
not believe that the proposed per unit park dedication fee meets this legal standard.
03/03/99 15 :44 LAW OFFICES 2140 4TH RUE 4 651 464 4558 NO.592 D06
• Mr. Todd Haas
March 3, 1999
Page 5
I would like the opportunity to discuss this issue with you and to review ways in
which the City may lawfully impose park and trail dedication requirements.
Yours very trul
William G. Hawkins
WGH /tju
•
•
•
•
City of Lino Lakes
Section 6 ark and Trail System Plan
Figure 63 (Part 1 of 2)
i
a
4. 4
O E E
u $ c
H
2 3 r~ 'g
. . 1 3 o 1 Aa 2 .
2 a S 11 _ 11 yO "
; ;
1 3 0 C -0 45 FS
;m f
s.
PAP
WriW Z57.4W475WiAi
T
t.
CD V
8
ui
}#goy mwigawwwwi
s
•
G u. 2 h
co p• _
4474
1 8
•
8
mmmmmmm =mom.
6
A
EXHIBIT B
•
City of Lino La.kes
•
Park and Trail System Plan
1
1
1
1
1
1
Existing Park Service
r
M
- a
D a W
-E
tOa-
zoo.
11
0
EXHIBIT C
•
•
Park Trail Facilities Chart
•
6.y U e6i s} ire i - °
r :? t
•
Li
'4 D _"" 7F
n O
t0 :y N Ln
NU
Q
CU to O O O
= i O O O
5.
U
lL Q
O
N If)
c
I)
c ccs
m
L
tli
n
rn
fX
S o
2
N
E
Q
z
'.V m
rA. L
LD
U O O V
V O
O O
s v
v s
s3 V
V O
p 7
73 a
Future Park Facilities
1/2 Court Basketball
Landscaping
Renovate Bailfieid
Grading /Seeding
c m H
'- U
H
N/A
cquire cres
Playground
1/2 Basketball Ct
L.andscaping
Horseshoes
Landscaping
Bridge
sc h
h LK Sf K
K X
X S.? `+c a
ar * *
* *
* o
or.
Existing Park Facilities
Existing
Acres
Address
Paae Subtotal
i uL yo txisting uevelopment
ruwre rarK
100% Future Development
03
0
0
0
rn
N
XHIBIT D
•
0
N
•
Lino Lakes - Park Trail Facilities Chart
•
N-
46
V
69
69
EA
N
P11
Q
p
C7 J C po
H3 69
A
64
oO
64
7
f)
Future Park Facilities
Playground Equip.
1/2 Basketball Court
Landscaping
Sub Total
8 acres and
General Dev.
Sub Total
Sub Total
7 acres and
General Dev.
8 acres and
N/A
Sub Total'
co
"'
,.F "" r.
.g
�;
a
v+
u C .i1 L) :.•,
.
Existing Park Facilities
In
as
0
O
0
s _ W z
v
_
Ts :
o a
O
O
c0
o
t0
O
•
y in
i L
7
7 U
U. a
0 •
O
c0
O
O
O
N
•
.•
Existing
Acres
O
O
O
0
c0
O
..--
Address
519 n all Street
c
a)
c
as
Pane RI ihtitalc
a)
E
R
Z
i w % txisting Development
Iw7o ruture Development
tw%o txlsting Development
Arena Acres Park
50% Existing Development
50% Future Development
ruuue mitt
100% Future Development
Lino Park
ii a. U)
c
z
N-
46
•
Lino Lakes - Park Trail Facilities Chart
0
0
co
co
64
N
c3
c
N
63
Cost
Estimates
N
E9
N
Efl
4
R
O
6{}
Gen. Development
Sub Total
Park Structure
Landscaping etc.
Sub Total
VICAI IIIg,Lwauing,
Seeding
Tennis Court
Sub Total
1/2 Basketball Court
Value
Existing
Facilities
`
*sc
�f *
?4
S}c
3a
X .
Existing Park Facilities
4.0 acres land
Sub Total
II
Fg
`� .
_
R m
U
Q
O
V
LO
S)
N
O tl
c0 C
y y
j y
5 U
tL Q
Q O
O
O
O
f)
N V
x Q
w
O
r
O
Address
607 Lois Lane
475 Arrowhead Drive
Pone
CD
E
,a
z
Highland Meadows Park
50% Existing Development
50% Future Development
Rice Lake Estates Park
100% Existing Development
% 4)
RI
z
z
0
0
0
• N
•
Park Trail Facilities Chart
w
-J
0
J
Total Park
CostNalue
•
at
•
•
NN
•
CO
M
oO
l�
O O O O pOp
N 64 64 N M
69 14
§
64
§
§
N
d?
O pO fO§ O O § O § O to
03.
(`') `'' 69 6
a .9 Eq ;;-• 64
§
64
Future Park Facilities
05
C
-c
B
(-7
C aS
.' c
5 c
7
_. 0)Q
U _
O— a Y c
N .0 � (O
.0 >. N d
it, m
0 0
m N i N d
N m -a 33 •�
c� ` as o 0 w
t-.- cn =�O
U
=
R
.0
N
m
`
N
N
v
N
+•
L
°-
0
a
To
-
JO
U)
75
0. O
f 0
• U 0 .0
C U C C
O a' T= — a) O U
U W C p c
a) 9 O w
` 0 --
w= a as i
•
0
0)
N
•
Park Trail Facilities Chart
Lino Lakes
0
b4
to
�p
O
eH
g! Q
pp
ER 63
N
ER
ER
§
N
O
O O§ O p O O O
64 4 9
N 74 %
O
P1
Future Park Facilities
4.5 acres land
1/2 Basketball Court
General Dev.
Sub Total
Sub Total,
General Dev.
Sub Total
d H
O. y LL _
_ O Q
,g) 0 -.1.', to
m "0 'E '� r, a), . s t
U OE a > to U N co
co 0) = E 'a In 2 `,n
ooiac� cco =ct -a
v
:-
k�
Y-
''
<a
Existing Park Facilities
-
:.0 acres lend
d
lay9rotind
Sub Total
e
O
si
la
a ?..
rA
O L
U
I- Q
o
•
„
O
QQ
`r
117
N
0
p
0
u
d
y w
7 i
U
U. Q
•
i
0
0
11p
O
p
O
0
tf
(?
Existing
Acres
N
N
r.
Address
03
J
O
-a
CU
co
8�Q
(O
]fit
ca
O
=
co
y
CO
to
E to
Z
ou ro txisting uevelopment
50% Future Development
50% Existing Development
50% Future Development
100% Existing Development
Country Lakes Park
50% Existing Development
50% Future Development
Y y Cl
a_N
z
V
z
ID
z
N
0
•
0
In
N
•
Lino Lakes - Park Trail Facilities Chart
•
0
r (0
N
0)
c m
E O1 E -o s >
d o
ZU ¢'o
�ZU -ZiQ�
83
N
CN
(0
64
fh
(fl
E.
q p
O O O
FA
+��
(pO�p
O
p
Q C O
Ci id pi
64
6H 5fi 'NA
p
O
tO
p p
pQ� I��p
,-• O
b4
L.()
CO V
�("v1
E9
C9
(`N')
EA
Lp(Np�
t�
<9
'h
A.
Future Park Facilities
36.0 acres land
1/2 Basketball Court
Pave Rink
Pave Parking (Fld 1)
In -line Skating Rink
Expand Playground
Pave Parking Lot
1/2 Basketball Court
Sub Total
Y
o
N -O N
uj tw LL
LL —
(II N
N U N
N O N
(o m
co
_ o
76 N
O ,N • U
— = = C
N N W a)
_C 07 C 0)
Q Y cu •=
O p N 0
0>-0O
N
I—
-
(n
_
.6
as
Il
2
CJ
co
N
—
N
L.L.
c
9
a
-c
Q
76
-N
P r-
N
v
J
P
5
E
N
a..
L_ .-.
?3
al
:13
^3
2
Al
��
� Q
0
0
cv
0
4°
W to
U
LL Q
o
0
Existing
Acres
O
(.4
O
O cNi
Address
telty- i3r +ve- & -12th-Awe
cu
E
t0
Z
DU -ha twsang uevelopment
50% Future Development
unrise rarK
50% Future Development
50% Existing Development
I
c`DY
3
T
Y a)
It
N
(h
0
r (0
N
0)
c m
E O1 E -o s >
d o
ZU ¢'o
�ZU -ZiQ�
•
Lino Lakes - Park Trail Facilities Chart
■3
•
•
'r
T Y i = L O N N a 6 6
W N l yN ~ 7
o Y
� Q
E E
d (1) Q
CL
LL N 0
w J
E N E
e Q n
}Y
X 0 d
u
o is
W F-
0
7i▪ -
N
CO (s.i r r
0
_N
d
E of :g._01
o w
U :7)
o
Z :1
•' LL
CO 41 .4 Co
tE '( N
I 175:
0
0
0
N
Y FA
37.
� v a m s
LL
O Y t m O a
cn
c LL L E 4E.
'c .0 0o s >
m` Z U ¢
. z >
64
U
4
44
n
fl
Future Park Facilities
Tennis Courts (2)
Sub Total
J
Existing Park Facilities
20.0 acres land
Playground
Ballfields (3)
Basketball
Soccer (2)
15.0 acres land
Playground
Ballfields (3)
Basketball
Soccer (2)
Looped Trails
G
P
W
o m
0 U
F- Q
i U
Li.. a
Existing
Acres
Q
Address
725 Main Street
575 Birch Street
Birch Street (S. of Sherman
Lake)
IL
a
Center of City
Elm Street
oa iv ar vs em
d E R
Z
Lino Lakes Elementary (20 ac.)
_„
ice Lake Elementary (15 ac.)
Centennial School District
(10 ac.)
Klce creek Nark Keserve
(2500 acres)
■3
•
•
'r
T Y i = L O N N a 6 6
W N l yN ~ 7
o Y
� Q
E E
d (1) Q
CL
LL N 0
w J
E N E
e Q n
}Y
X 0 d
u
o is
W F-
0
7i▪ -
N
CO (s.i r r
0
_N
d
E of :g._01
o w
U :7)
o
Z :1
•' LL
CO 41 .4 Co
tE '( N
I 175:
0
0
0
N
Y FA
37.
� v a m s
LL
O Y t m O a
cn
c LL L E 4E.
'c .0 0o s >
m` Z U ¢
. z >
•
Lino Lakes Public Services Department
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439
Memorandum
To: Park Board Members
From: Rick DeGardner I" Y
Date: October 21, 1999
Re: City Attorney's Opinion Regarding Park Dedication Fees
After last month's Park Board meeting, I sent a letter to Bill Hawkins, the city attorney,
regarding the Park Board's desire to increase park dedication fees.
Attached is Bill's response. Based on his legal opinion, I think it would be wise to discuss
this issue in more detail before spending a lot of time and effort in researching and exploring
the possibility of modifying the current Park Dedication ordinance.
Therefore, I have not compiled park dedication information from other cities. This can be
discussed in more detail at November's Park Board meeting.
10/21/99
RD /Correspondence/Park Board/Hawkins response
LAW OFFICES OF
William G. Hawkins and Associates
• Legal Assistant 2140 FOURTH AVENUE NORTH
ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303
PHONE (612) 427 -8877
FAX (612) 421 -4213
•
•
WILLIAM G. HAWKINS TAMMI J. UVEGES
BARRY A. SULLIVAN
October 19, 1999
Mr. Richard DeGardner
Public Services Director
Lino Lakes Public Services Department
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Re: Park Dedication Ordinance
Dear Rick:
I am responding to your memo of October 7 regarding the Lino Lakes Park Dedication
Ordinance. Rather than do a separate letter to you I thought it may be helpful if I
included an opinion letter we had sent to the City of Andover in March of this year
regarding their consideration of amending park dedication requirements. I believe a lot
of the questions and concerns you have are addressed in this opinion. Please review
this letter and contact me if you have any further questions.
illiam G. Hawkins
WGH /tju
Enclosure
•
LAw OFFICES OF
William G. Hawkins and Associates
Legal Assrsiunt
WILLIAM G. HAWKINS TAMMI J. UVEGES
BARRY A. SULLIVAN
March 3, 1999
Mr. Todd Haas
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW
Andover, MN 55304
Re: Park Dedication Fees and Trail Dedication Fees
Dear Todd:
2140 FOURTH AVENUE NORTH
ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303
PHONE (612) 427 -8877
FAX (612) 421 -4213
You have asked for our analysis of the proposed use of park dedication fees and trail
dedication fees in the City of Andover. We have reviewed the applicable statute and
case law and would ask that you consider the following information.
The current situation is as follows: the City imposes a park dedication of 10% for new
plats. The developer is asked to dedicate either 10% of the land or an amount in cash
equivalent to 10% of the value of the land. Developers are directed to choose from a
panel of appraisers and pay an amount based upon that appraisal. The City is
considering a change in the park dedication fee from a percentage calculation to a per
unit charge. The proposed charges are as follows:
Tvoe
Single Family
Townhouse
Mobile Home
Lot Splits
Commercial
Amount
$1,350
$1,000
$1,200
$1,350
$4,000 (acre)
In the typical residential urban zoning district, we would expect to see two lots or
units per acre. Consequently, under the new unit charge system, the unit charge per
acre would be $2,700. I understand that an acre of land in the City of Andover
suitable for a residential development would typically sell for $13,000.
The City is also considering the imposition of a trail dedication fee. This fee was
imposed previously but discontinued some months ago. The City is contemplating the
renewed use of this fee. It is anticipated that the fee would be imposed at the rate of
$250 per unit payable at the time of the issuance of a building permit. Additionally,
Mr. Todd Haas
March 3, 1999
Page 2
developers are expected to pay 50% of all trail construction costs for trails located in
the plat.
For the reasons discussed herein, I have strong concerns about each of these
dedication fees.
Minnesota law specifically authorizes municipalities to require dedication for parks and
trails in the subdivision approval process. Minn. Stat. § 462.358, Subd. 2d (1998)
nrovir{PC'
"Dedication...
In addition, the regulations may require that a reasonable
portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the
public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public .
use as parks,...trails...or open space; provided that (a) the
municipality 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 no later than at
the time of final approval...."
It is obvious from the statute that the City may impose a dedication requirement and
accept either land, cash or a combination of and and cash. However, the statute sets
forth two important conditions. First, the size of the dedication must be reasonable,
i.e., the City may require that "...a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be
dedicated...." Second, the statute also makes clear that the amount of the dedication
must be "...based on the fair market value of the land...."
The statute has been interpreted by Minnesota appellate courts and a review of those
decisions is instructive. Ir. Collis v. City of Bloomington, 246 N. 1/1/.2d '9 (tilnn.
1976), the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of § 462.358 as
applied to a Bloomington ordinance that provided: "as a general rule, it is reasonable
to require dedication of 10% of the and or payment of 10% of undeveloped and
value." The Court noted that the Bloomington ordinance set forth the 10%
requirement as "a general rule" and that the developer could obtain judicial review.
Under the facts of that case, the Court was not prepared to say that the 10%
requirement was unreasonable or arbitrary. The Court did note, however, as follows:
"Thus, there exists the possibility that the developer...will
be forced to pay a disproportionate share of the city's park
and recreation costs. While the city has apparently made a
•
• Mr. Todd Haas
March 3, 1999
Page 3
•
•
record in this case showing that 10% is not unreasonable
as to the property of these plaintiffs, given the particular
needs of Bloomington, the 10% requirement might be
arbitrary as a matter of law because it does not consider
the relationship between this particular subdivision and
recreational need in the community."
Not surprisingly, since the Co //is decision, many if not most municipalities have
adopted a J% park dedication fee requirement., .The Coilis case stands for the
principal that a municipality may require dedication of land for public use as a
condition of plat approval if a reasonable relationship exists between the approval of
the subdivision and the municipality's need for the land.
In Kottschade v. City of Rochester, 537 N. W.2d 301 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), the
Minnesota Court of Appeals returned to this issue in the context of a right -of -way
dedication requirement. The Court in Kottschade analyzed and applied the recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision of Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994). The
Court noted that in the case of a dedication, the city is requiring a property owner to
give up a constitutional right —the right to receive just compensation when private
property is taken for a public purpose. In order to uphold a dedication requirement the
city "has the burden of proving the required relationship_ between the property
development and the city's need for and dedication." To meet that burden, the city
must prove two things. First, the city must show that an "essential nexus" exists
between the legitimate state interest (the need for the land) and the condition exacted
by the city (the dedication of the land). Second, if the nexus can be demonstrated,
the city must demonstrate a "rough proportionality" between the plan development
and the city's requirement for a dedication of land.
"No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the
City must make some sort of individualized determination
that the required dedication is related both in nature and
extent to the impact of the proposed development."
In a park dedication situation, the City must be able to prove two things. First, that
the proposed development will create a need for additional park facilities. Second, the
City must be able to prove that the amount of the dedication is roughly proportionate
to the impact from the development. It is important to reiterate some of the language
used by the courts. A "precise mathematical calculation" is not required; what is
required is "some sort of individualized determination."
It should not be difficult for the City of Andover to meet the first or "nexus" part of
the standard, i.e., that a proposed subdivision will create the need for additional park
facilities. However, it is my opinion that a unit charge for park dedication fees does
• Mr. Todd Haas
March 3, 1999
Page 4
not pass the second part of the test. I do not see how the flat fee charge can be seen
as an "individualized determination" that the amount of the charge is roughly
proportionate to the need created by the development. The statute makes clear that a
dedication must be "reasonable" and must be "based on the fair market value of the
land." I do not see how a unit dedication takes into account the value of the land or
takes into account the impact of the subdivision upon the City's park requirements.
I believe the City has to conduct a study that will allow the City to make a finding that
the subdivision will create an increased need for park facilities. The City must then
determine w!-:at amount the dedication is roughly proportionate to that impact. In
doing so, the City must take into account the fair market value of the undeveloped
land.
The amount of the proposed unit dedication demonstrates my concern. At $1,350
per unit for single family residents, and assuming two units per acre, this is a park
dedication requirement of $2,700 per acre. If we use the 10% figure from before,
this means that the value of undeveloped land in Andover must be at least $27,000
per acre. I do not believe this is the case.
• The trail dedication fee is a charge that is in addition to the park dedication
requirement. The same law discussed above is applicable to the trail dedication fee.
Assuming that a new subdivision creates an impact and a need for additional trail
facilities, the City must still be able to demonstrate that the amount of the trail
dedication fee is roughly proportionate to that impact. A unit charge may be an
appropriate starting point as it takes the element of density into account. However, it
does not take into account the fair market value of the land or the impact on a trail
system from the particular subdivision.
•
Another problem I have with the trail dedication fee is that it is not a plat dedication
fee at all. It is not a fee imposed upon the developer as part of the platting process
but is a proposed to be a fee imposed upon the and owner at the time of application
for a building permit. I see no authority for the City to impose this charge a' the time
of building permit application. The statute clearly authorizes the City to impose a trail
dedication as part of subdivision approval. It is my recommendation that a trail
dedication fee be a condition of plat approval and not a charge assessed at the time of
a building permit application.
CONCLUSION. Minnesota law clearly authorizes a municipalities to require developers
to dedicate a reasonable portion of their subdivisions for park and trail purposes. In
order to sustain such a dedication, the city must prove that a relationship exists
between the proposed subdivision and the city's requirements. That is, that the
proposed subdivision will have an impact and increase demand upon park facilities.
Second, the city must be able to prove that the amount of the dedication is roughly
proportionate to that impact. In doing so, the city must make some sort of
individualized determination that is based upon the fair market value of the land. I do
not believe that the proposed per unit park dedication fee meets this legal standard.
• Mr. Todd Haas
March 3, 1999
Page 5
I would like the opportunity to discuss this issue with you and to review ways in
which the City may lawfully impose park and trail dedication requirements.
Yours very truly,
William G. Hawkins
WGH /tju
•
•