HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/30/1998 CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Dial A Ride, Long Term Transit Issues
MEETING DATE: September 29, 1998
DIAL A RIDE:
At the start of the school year a number of problems were encountered in scheduling
rides. City staff received a number of complaints from users including:
1) parents were unable to schedule standing rides for their pre-school children,
2) some children and adult riders were being refused rides because the buses
were full, and
3) children were being dropped off or picked up in an untimely fashion.
Among the comments heard from some of the complainants was that only one bus was
one the road at a time. Both City staff and consultant George Bentley have spent much
time addressing the issues that have been raised.
John Matthews, Area Manager for Laidlaw, indicated that he believes those problems
have been addressed. He further indicated his belief that people are not currently being
refused rides, although they may be offered a different time for the ride. On the other
hand the City Administrator received a call from a representative of SACS, who said that
it had gotten better for about a week, but that SACS was experiencing problems with
pick-up and drop-off times again. Some callers were unaware of the complaint
procedure, and so City staff has been instructing complainants to file formal complaints
with Laidlaw. Anecdotally, a check with a few of the callers suggests the complaint
procedure is helping.
Dial a Ride Schedule:
Buses are currently on the road according to the following schedule, which is based on
demand:
5:45 a.m. —8:30 a.m. 2
8:30 a.m. — 11:30 a.m. 3
11:30 a.m. — l:30 p.m. 4
1:30p.m. —5:30p.m. 2
5:30 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. I
Staff had discussed a separate service for pre-school children with Shakopee Services.
They have not yet submitted a formal proposal, but have indicated that January 1, 1999 is
the earliest that they would be able to put such a service in operation. With the problems
that were experienced staff inquired of Laidlaw what it would cost for Laidlaw to provide
such a service in the interim. Mr. Matthews suggested that if an additional van is put in
service that it not be for a specifically designated service, as that could result in demands
for other designated services. The cost of Laidlaw adding an additional van would be
approximately $4600.00 per month. That is based on 6 hours of service each day for 21
days in the month at the current hourly rate plus the cost of depreciation for the van.
LONG TERM TRANSIT ISSUES:
Current Transit Services:
Shakopee is one of a small number of"alternative transit providers," commonly referred
to as"opt-outs." Other opt-outs are the City of Maple Grove, Minnesota Valley Transit
Authority (MVTA), Plymouth Metrolink, Southwest Metropolitan Transit Commission
(SMTC), and the City of White Bear Lake. Both MVTA and SMTC are joint powers
arrangements. MVTA currently serves the six cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan,
Prior Lake, Rosemount, and Savage. SMTC serves Chanhassen, Chaska, and Eden
Prairie. MVTA and SMTC provide both fixed route bus service and some form of dial a
ride service. Metropolitan Transit, of course, provides fixed route service to other parts
of the 7-county Metropolitan Area. Unlike those other providers the core of Shakopee's
current service is dial a ride, as opposed to fixed route service.
Future Developments:
The last legislative session was a busy one for transit generally. The legislature
committed about $40 million to the development of light rail transit along the Hiawatha
Corridor. Funds have also been committed to the study of other light rail lines. At
present those studies do not include the consideration of a light rail connection to the City
of Shakopee, but may or do include consideration of connections to other nearby cities.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) has also commissioned a study
of"commuter rail." As with light rail, no current commuter rail connection is anticipated
to Shakopee, but connections to other nearby cities are under study. Because of these
possible light and commuter rail lines the future opportunity exists to make connections
that will provide greater accessibility for Shakopee residents to other parts of the region,
and greater accessibility to Shakopee for the rest of the region.
The greatest number of commuter trips on public transit is from suburb to suburb,
suggesting the kinds of connections that may need to be made in the future. Indeed,
Seagate has already initiated discussions with the City and SWTC about how its
employees can be served by transit. The City does currently offer a service that would be
responsive to their needs.
As this area grows, the City will need to decide whether it is in its best interest to operate
transit independently, or join with one of the other providers to expand the transit
services that are available to Shakopee.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Further direction from Council regarding dial a ride and/or other transit related issues.
11-1/
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director
Subject: Park Comprehensive Plan and Park dedication study on Commercial and
Industrial Property.
Date: September 24, 1998
INTRODUCTION
At nest Tuesday's City Council Workshop, Greg Ingraham of Ingraham and Associates will
appear before Council to explain the Park Systems Plan and the results of the park dedication
study on commercial and industrial property he was commisioned to do.
BACKGROUND
At its July 1, 1997 City Council Meeting, Council adopted a new Park Dedication Ordinance. The
changes made to the park dedication requirements resulted in shifting from a cash dedication based
on a per lot basis to a cash dedication based on a per unit. It also establishes a standard of 1 acre
of park land for every 75 people in new subdivisions.
At that time, Jon Albinson of Valley Green Business Park challenged the new ordinance stating the
City should show a rational nexuses for charging impact fees on commercial and industrial
property for the acquisition and improvement of open recreation space. He noted the ordinance
does a good job meeting residential objectives,but not so with commercial and residential
development. Mr.Albinson was more interested in having the City show how it derived at
charging an impact fee for commercial and industrial property rather than relying on a fee survey
of other cities.
At the suggestion of former City Councilor Burl Zorn, Council hired Ingraham and Associates to
prepare a Comprehensive City Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan to help guide the location
and development of future parks and aid in land acquisition and capital budgeting. The Plan will
also meet the Met Council's requirement for the 1997-98 City Comprehensive Plan Update. In
addition, Council directed the Consultant to study the justification for charging an impact fee for
commercial and industrial properties.
Mr. Ingraham's presentation will begin with the City's park systems plan followed by the park
dedication study. Enclosed with your packet is a summary of the Comprehensive Park Plan and
park dedication findings.
No formal action is being requested.
Qt7,4'
(44 ,f2A:___,
Mark J. cQuillan
Parks and Recreation Director
09/24/1998 20:44 6124314602 INGRAHAM VOSS INC PAGE 02
INGRAHAM ti
ASSOCIATES
City Planning
Landscape Archetecrure
Park Planning 8 Derign
Lund lire Planning
To: Mark McQuillan,Park and Recreation Director
From: Greg Ingraham,Park Planning Consultant
Date: September 25, 1998
RE: 1. Shakopee Comprehensive Park& Trail System Plan
2. Park Dedication Fees—Analysis&Recommendations
The following information is attached for City Council review:
I. Summary of the Park Plan findings and recommendations.
2. Population growth forecast and park acquisition recommendations.
3. Map of the service areas of existing developed parks.
4. Map of park district service areas and recommended new neighborhood and
community parks within the districts located south of Highway 169.
5. Map of existing and planned trails.
6. Summary of the park dedication fee analysis and recommendations.
7. Park dedication fee analysis and recommendations memo (dated Sept. 25, 1998).
I will be at the September 29th meeting to discuss these items and to answer questions
regarding park system needs.
7659 0upont annue South Suite 100 Minaeopoli5.MN 55408 (612)377.2500!aleph., (612)377-1010 tovnano
INGRAHAM I 1
/ ASSOCIATES
City Planning
landscape Architecture
Park Planning 8 Design
land Use Planning
Shakopee Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan Update
Major findings and recommendations of the Park and Trail Plan are:
• The existing park system (Original Shakopee Park District) located
north of Highway 169 generally has adequate park acreage and
distribution.
• Based on the Draft Land Use Plan, the population of Shakopee will
ultimately grow to approximately 35,000 people (21,000-22,000 new
residents).
• The majority of that growth will occur in the St Francis (12,300
people) and Dean Lake (7,400 people) Park Service Districts.
• Approximately 310 acres of new developed parkland is needed to
adequately serve the new population growth and commercial-
industrial needs.
• 37 miles of new pedestrian/bike trail are recommended.
• Approximately 20 new neighborhood parks, 2 community parks and 2
school-community playfields are needed.
2659 Dupont Avenue South Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55408 (612)377-2500 telephone (612)377-1010 facsimile
Shakopee Park Acquisition Recommendations 2
p q
New Min. Park Rec.
Recreation District& Growth Acres Park Park Recommendation by
Service Area Persons Needed* Acres** District& Service Area
Original
1 Shakopee 1,357
2 St. Francis 12,280 164
4-10 ac neghborhood parks,
A 45 1-5 acre neighborhood park
2-10 ac neighborhood parks,
B 50 1-30 ac school-city park
C 20 2-10 ac neighborhood parks
1-10 ac neighborhood park,
D 15 1-5 ac neighborhood park
E 20 2-10 ac neighborhood parks
F 20 2-10 ac neighborhood parks
1-20 ac school-city park,
3 Dean Lake 7,417 99 45 1-25 acre community park
A 15 2-7.5 ac neighborhood parks
B 20 2-10 ac neighborhood parks
C 20 2-10 ac neighborhood parks
1-40 ac community park on
4 Highlands 411 5 40
north end of district
21,465 268 310
DRAFT May 13, 1998 by Ingraham&Associates Inc.
* lac/75 people
**Includes park needs(athletic fields&passive parks)for non-residential development
Plus trails and special use facilities such as golf courses, pools, beaches etc.
• '
• 1
I
0,4• P
• p 1.0 I
U) do, l•. s a. L ■O .1, .
rrr-Li 11:0\,, .
o > X ... [ ,
i A ov)i)4.
Z ° - .kr_-.4--A-v- re • A ' ‘r\ `;;11111.1 ir Slit,' ,d,i.go r7„„\-1,:',:,4),, 1 .., 16, .,,,..,\_.,.. ,,A, A,:::•,,....„oti I r: irfi, 1 i ._ ,,,,, i v
"34 El
...Ills,- a
'\ ' 41,=-r... '--- 'lel! -1 vir • 4 A TM` IkrtAla. i'
IN"11:45114:4--
.7:11:1
�` Isirs.fi .� <' �_� m • �A -�i■_�.�.�'�`.�-A'l,t: �i �_^. HBNNEPIN CO
.ir
1,
. ,116,.....-
•- � ,�. 1411A•
, - .4. ._,..../7„......--risorAmi....,01A,
i : I I. di. ''--'- . ...
a �• IIIIrr
ill,r,
"cp 0.
/ ligIII
44,111,1141-Er
0 .
.. /
• A. ..1 . ,.0
A 1
.11 w ,\
p
CO if/
® y ! C.
. IA/
II y•
BARO l
w t . UIU'H
� �
So• �
• �' , 1::: `
.� fig aWi
1r l' ilklipi*,0 i ,„/: .‘S..k‘ :, 4
i. II ? iiiig 1 RI 1
git-gt• ,..., '--- _<. , ) (
• '0 . "6 I"- frig 5 g
0 1. . rim• _ .1.r 3 ism61-4, ..ri :.,„s.„,,... :,„,,
.... . ... , ,.,
0 --.7 : ---,life - .-1RF L-'7„, ,,,if.L_ ...., .... _ .,.,....,,..I tekwury, •..,•::,,,,-z-.,:pa!, /______-- ._..._
... .. -..zik,..,:..,-.. /
.i; ... tar..a. .a. .y.�rn..+�itill.rs�a vr�w.ry In Cil /�,`l,1U , ---
g ��. . • SA GE r ;,`, BLOOMINGTON
• a 11 fir i
. •
•
. W
I____ __
•
, F b cA
› - r:s.pa . . ..i .21 ,
ilkt a+a. n
. ,,
�D o
V CD 5. N /� y. ••
i �\ c'� .,
w'•c O › g III � viiast. C.4 r4 p 4iiiii,
Jr',log f a► 0
�d
Imam
\,1.
p ..
el r CD f - ---- ���� . ...--._ __ - \ ; - —
0
*• �, V, --- -- — ..c - ,�� - ���' OR=Ns ran N.4..w•.e
el
.___,1 , .: ‘‘,Vi".:i,MI_. i:i ce u
, ?,, Y,•-- ,.,,- , •., , _,•,,. II,t, ill
fiiiiitt. ti.:.,i .i,,. !,,,,,e. ;_____0:8,,1:::. 0 . , , . ,,, : .L,_.,.. ji, .1;j m,,ri,,a-. .4 s ",v i 1 I /
• . 0 1 *wool 117: i‘ . .• u
Tie's P .40. .,,,,, ,,.......i._\.. ult. ..... ,...... „,..A
-:-\\. ...i.,-.1 ..6,,, i
I.
..
��trlt♦\ tirw•u ii vlw\\ • . .?ttr_....-.fir' 1 'I�!it'�:1\,� :.0imi 11 ii'.'. • '%-M. ' 1 iiIAN' ,,$119"Eljiliiiimsilli. $ Je)
� •la-
Nam co
*-'-ii*,. .-,j 1164110-7
\�\ l p 44111141k,:\ r. criM1
74 ,,itivi,rt
• Al
S m t '.� ,, `NIL` `•
•
, ...tk If
16 1(41 Adiiiliot- 1
• .,..
v ��, it I
tr•j
rill411-.L.V ! I EA-
• art'• • _ A 1R,,
...p4•: f t I •- • . , ,...,• Ito/ Ar LILA I", ,,,., •
.._____,6iiii.will i . ..c
V i . ii* --,-; , ,.,
, .
o, . ,. 14'6 8 g 'a` . . . ,,,,,,,,,dra,,,,,i, I , a /1
•
. \
iij
r
...,,.... ,Ili .61. Pill t I/ i
> +moo ns s ---lb!Itiii',d,,, IL' i7'
//dil
\_1 • ,
g , ire ,
s . Mail. .
��:� rss3s :�a s • Rar )� � �1� L. � Ulj
tp1 �R eex�.R as I. as
*. -2 I�
/a • • Al —11111111111‘,. k•i•., • ,,‘ \\ 1; ,-
2 ill ii li Ili •,::-N;4'"---, !, w. 10
‘-‘;' ' i
,,',1•.k!,:,'.' /
,t1. : iiii ,
. ,a 1 _ ,
1111.1
. _,
i.-3.
•
'el � I 1. p1a
. � 11.1g ;
I
? i'llol kl 7 ,
. P i r 11,,,k 1
li 10 I, , 11 I . . igrAi:
A , \114• ..:'!*.,.F!'''%,,': /
_ ii__ ..,,,,Ary,/ .,,,,.„:,:.:.,:„.,,,.:,,„.
to 1 _Ebb __ F,M; ' ..waw I 4 • _"
t ? ''• to, ly,,,,,A,-..7
p . �e
1IJ
L ti z SA GE. . r BLOOMINGTON
f
1
}d
w
PI R° b ws
-
CD ` `fib
CD tv
`� CD '
w �
16 A ----N\ G
____04„
.\\ .i,--.,„,....r.„—,.......0% *re:
Cr) t-4 0.,_,-
RI
0
Z ° „..._,-,....744......
i r ri , ,. .1,/ u
. . , 4 ,,,.-ir
1 r _, \-\_\- 1:,,,,t,,,,,‘. , ,
,,,,.. _, „„ .
_,.,.,.\\\\ ...-9,11,!,41 „ggrt
I f
\,. „,A 1 , 4II yin
xrait; � 'z ��Ki��y-9& i'
�' .....,A — till 61
3 y' C
' iitlf: 14.
mow_ �05+
::‘
141pro II Ap!/gilli
.i. i i 4 s
1 i 1
Jai
, -- _PM
, q ,
, , ji
r - , . 11 s' .\Ili.
I • 11\'.i 14.'1'
4.4.av r e /41M
4 iliP,
'it
, I/ N i
40P 1
• , ii1
/'...s , s ' Ii14 '
!!/j1
♦ y1111111://
! Q a
i A l ,- 06
� t / I \.
1 � "`fit: . 's'. v -
S �' MI ral" p .a:�
1 ;a� '
, 1rijiiA lil,p,tiirI,I„P- , , I in11
timet \ :._ 1I_ :\ ,)'
��.��
/MI- I‘•1l•kI.
kss
'/i..
.liftih ; r
flii *_ //7..,,,,,,,,,„::: :‘,:,:...:',.,, /0:
y cfY
�.A E ..r.J1. m • .01.01 "►M�7.''N�1
ill $ pt SA GE. BLOOMINGTON
6
Shakopee Comprehensive Park and Trail System Needs —
New Parks and Trails
Community, City-School and Neighborhood Parks
Land Acquisition 310 acres at $32,500 each = $10.1 million
Development 310 acres at $30,000 each = $ 9.3 million
$19.4 million
Trails
Land Acquisition 45 acres at $32,500 each = $ 1.5 million
Development 37 miles at $65,000 each = $ 2.4 million
$3.9 million
Total Core System Additions Cost Estimate: $23.3 million
Park Dedication Fees - "Fair Share" Allocation
Using the 15% commercial-industrial and the 85%residential proportional park use ratio
the following system costs are attributable to the two land use categories.
Residential Share (85%of park+ 75% of trail) = $19.4 million
Comm./Industrial Share (15% of park+25% of trail) = $ 3.9 million
Per Household Cost Estimate:
$19.4 million/8,800 new households= $2,200/household
Per Acre Commercial-Industrial Estimate:
$3.9 million/1,005 acres new comm./ind plats= $3,880/acre
Based on this analysis it is recommended that the city revise the park and trail dedication
fees to the following levels:
Existing Fee Proposed Fee
Residential Single-family/Duplex Units $900 $1,800
Multi-family/Apartment Units $750 $1,500
Commercial/Industrial Property(per acre) $4,500 $3,880
Due to the magnitude of the fee change, it is recommended that the residential fee changes
be phased in over the next three years according to the following schedule;
1999 Fee 2000 Fee 2001 Fee
Residential Single-family/Duplex Units $1,200 $1,500 $1,800
Multi-family/Apartment Units $1,000 $1,250 $1,500
09/24/1998 20:44 6124314602 INGRAHAM VOSS INC PAGE 03
INGRAHAM
p ASSOCIATES 7
(ivy P7onning
tondsrope Arrhihcrwe
Psrk P!q 7jne E Dsmut
(end Use PJonning
To: Mark McQuillan, Shakopee Park and Recreation Director
From: Greg Ingraham,Park Planning Consultant
Date: September 25, 1998
Re: Park Dedication Analysis and Recommendations
Summary
The Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan update and the Park Dedication Analysis show that
the City's current park dedication fees will not provide sufficient favids for acquisition and
development of the park and recreation facilities needed to serve new development.
The existing park dedication ordinance provides a reasonable method for allocating land and
fee dedications for parks and trails,however the residential fees are too low and do not
reflect the cost of the acquiring and building the park system The fees are also less than the
equivalent value under a land dedication situation.
The park dedication analysis is based on creating a"fair share"fee system,where new
residential and commercial-industrial development will pay for the cost of new park and
recreation facilities needed to serve those developments.
Phased park dedication fee increases are recommended to establish the"fair share"
relationship. Changes to the fee collection system are also recommended.
Background
In June, 1997 the City of Shakopee revised its park dedication requirements and fees. The
park dedication ordinance and fee schedule calls for new subdivisions to dedicate 10%of
the undeveloped land or pay a per-dwelling unit fee for residential or a per acre fee for
commercial-industrial property.
Z659 Dupont Avenue 5oush Wte 100 Minneopolis.MN 55408 (612)377.2500 Mepron (612)377.1010 ior,;o,ir,
09/24/1998 20:44 6124314602 INGRAHAM VOSS INC PAGE 04
The current fees in lieu of land dedications are:
Residential Single-family/Duplex Units $900.00 per unit
Multi-family/Apartment Units $750.00 per unit
Commercial/Industrial Property $4,500 per acre
At the time of the ordinance revision,the City Council said they would review the park
dedication fee structure following the update of the City Park and Trail Plan. The Draft
Park and Trail Plan is now complete and has been reviewed by the Park Commission and at
a recent Comprehensive Plan public hearing.
The updated Park and Trail Plan is designed to act as a guide to acquisition and
development of parks,trails and recreation facilities for the entire city.
Comparison to Other Cities Park Fees
A 1997 survey of park dedication fees showed an average fee of$1,188 per single family lot for
developing metro area cities. Since that survey several cities have increased their fees to reflect
rising land and construction costs.
Land Costs
According to County records and recent sales,the concent average value of undeveloped,
unpiatted residential land in Shakopee is approximately$30,000-35,000 per acre.
Undeveloped, unplatted commercial-industrial land sells for approximately$60,000-70,000
per acre.
Relationship of Land Dedication Value to Cash Fee
Assuming a 10%land dedication,a residential plat would dedicate land valued at
approximately$3,250.00 for each acre of development.Under the current ordinance in a
cash in lieu of land situation($900 per home),a single family plat,at an average density of
2.5 homes per acre, would pay a park dedication fee of$2,250 per acre.
If land dedication were required for a commercial-industrial plat the dedicated land would
be valued at$6,500 per acre within the subdivision.In a cash fee in lieu of land situation the
commercial-industrial plat would pay a fee of$4,500 per acre.
The existing cash dedication fees far residential and commercial industrial subdivisions are
less than the equivalent land dedication value.
Park System Cost Relationship to Park Dedication Fees
The Park and Trail Plans anticipate the need to acquire and develop the following additional
park and recreation facilities(acquisition recommendations list attached):
Neighborhood Parks 21 at 5-10 acres each = 195 acres
2
09/24/1998 20:44 6124314602 INGRAHAM VOSS INC PAGE 05
School-City Parks 2 at 20-30 acres each = 50 acres
Community Parks 2 at 25-40 acres each = 65 acres
Total 310 acres
Trails 37 miles
The 310 acres of additional park acquisition represent a core park system and does not
include trail right of way,special use parks(historic,municipal pool,public golf civic
center,etc.),maintenance facilities or additional open space/conservation parks. Park
development costs range from$25,000 to $50,000 per acre depending on the type of park
and average around$30,000 per acre.
Assuming half of the 37 mile trail system will require land acquisition(the other half would
be part of road right of way),approximately 45 acres of land is needed for new trails. Trail
construction cost is approximately$65,000 per mile.
Community, City-School and Neighborhood Parks
Land Acquisition 310 acres at$32,500 each =$10.1 million
Development 310 acres at$30,000 each = $ 9.3 million
$19.4 million
Trails
Land Acquisition 45 acres at$32,500 each =$ 1.5 million
Development 37 miles at$65,000 each =$2.4 million
$3.9 million
Total Core System Additions Cost Estimate: $233 million
Residential—Commercial/Industrial Use
It is estimated that 10,000 people currently work in Shakopee. The number of workers in
Shakopee is forecast to increase to 14,900 employees by 2020.
Approximately nine miles of trail system(25%of new trail network)and 15%of the new
park demand are attributable to commercial-industrial development. The 15%park use
figure is based on current commercial-industrial use of Shakopee parks(primarily adult
leagues and facility reservations)and similar use patterns in other metro area communities.
Using the 15%commercial-industrial and the 85%residential proportional ratio the
following system costs are attributable to the two land use categories.
Total Park and Trail System Additions =$23.3 million
Residential Share(85%of park+75%of trail) = $19.4 million
Comm./Industrial Share(15%of park+25%of trail) = $ 3.9 million
3
09/24/1998 20:44 6124314602 INGRAHAM MOSS INC PAGE 06
Per Household Cost Estimate:
$19.4 million/8,800 new households=$2,200/household
Per Acre Commercial-Industrial Estimate:
$3.9 million/1,005 acres new comm./ind plats=$3,880/acre
Park Dedication Fee Recommendation
Based on this analysis,the existing park and trail dedication fees of$750-900 per dwelling
unit for residential land are too low and do not reflect the true cost of acquiring and
constructing the park facilities needed for new residential development. An average
residential dedication fee of$2,200 per dwelling unit is close to the"fair shame"cost of new
park system improvements. However,a$2,200 amount would be more than the equivalent
value under a 10%residential land dedication situation.
The existing$4,500 per acre dedication fee for commercial-industrial land is more than the
future park system proportional cost of approximately$3,880 per acre. However,the
$4,500 per acre fee is less than the equivalent value under a 10%land dedication
requirement($6,500).
Based on this analysis it is recommended that the city revise the park and trail dedication
fees to the following levels:
Exist Fee Proposed Fee
Residential Single-family/Duplex Units $900 $1,800
Multi-family/Apartment Units $750 $1,500
Commercial/Industrial Property(per acre) $4,500 $3,880
The recommended fees are lower that the"fair share"cost. This means that some park
acquisition and development costs will need to be financed through a combination of bond
referendums and general funds.
Due to the magnitude of the proposed fee change, it is recommended that the residential fee
changes be phased in over the next three years according to the following schedule;
1999 Fee 2000 Fee 2001 Fee
Residential Single-family/Duplex Units $1,200 $1,500 $1,800
Multi-family/Apartment Units $1,000 $1,250 $1,500
Also,due to the constantly increasing land values and construction costs,the city should
revisit the fee structure on a regular(i.e. every one-two year basis).
4
09/24/1998 20:44 6124314602 INGRAHAM VOSS INC PAGE 07
Park Dedication Fee Collection
Most cities establish and collect park dedication fees from the developer at the time of final
plat approval. The City of Shakopee,establishes the park dedication fee at the tune of
subdivision approval and collects the fee from the homeowner at the time of building permit
issuance. Shakopee's current method has two problems.
The fee collection system does not account for inflation. The time between plat approval
and building permit issuance(1-10 years),results in a lag between the actual cost of
acquiring and building parks and the fair share amount paid by the owner. For example, an
owner obtaining a building permit in 1998 for a lot within a subdivision platted in 1992
would pay the 1992 rate of$556 instead of the current rate of$900. The fee collection is
also unpredictable in any given period. This results in the general public having to subsidize
new park development through the general fund.
Inefficient administration and collection. The city must determine the correct fee rate
for subdivisions of differing years and collect from every individual who obtains a building
permit for new construction. This means researching,collecting fees and recording
approximately 10,000 payments. Collection on a per plat basis would reduce the number of
collections to approximately 1,000 payments(one per subdivision). Collection from the
developer would also allow home owners to cover the fee within a mortgage as opposed to
a cash payment as part of the building permit.
Collection Recommendation
It is recommended that Shakopee collect the park dedication fees at the time of final plat
approval. This is consistent with most metro area cities and is consistent with the timing of
land dedication requirements. This will reduce administrative costs,will allow homeowners
to finance fees,and will allow more efficient timing and construction of neighborhood
parks.
An alternative would be to retain the current collection at permit issuance,but require the
payment to be the current per unit park dedication fee. This would insure that the fee more
closely reflects current costs.
CC: Michael Leek,Community Development
Jim Thomson, City Attorney
5
PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
(DISCUSSION GUIDE)
• Shakopee's current ordinance requires an amount of
land equal in value to 10% of the undeveloped land to
be subdivided.
• Courts (Dolan vs City of Tigard, Oregon) require
rational relationship, in general, between dedication
and land use. A reasonable nexus between the
required dedication and the impact of the proposed
development.
• % of value does not always provide rational
relationship.
.• No precise mathematical calculation is required, but
cities must make individual determination that the
required dedication is related to the proposed
development's impact.
• Surveys of metro fees for cash dedication is based on
a per-unit basis. Shakopee is based on per-lot basis.
I) Trail dedications are harder to defend (in court), but
many cities have developed a rational for collecting a
fee to support the development of trail systems.
• Coincide the revision of the Park Dedication
Ordinance with the updating of the Subdivision
regulations.
NEW PARK DEDICATION FORMULA
• THE NEW PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS PROPOSES
TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD OF HAVING 1 ACRE OF LAND
FOR EVERY 75 RESIDENTS.
• ACCORDING TO METROPOLITAN AREA STATISTICS THERE
IS AN AVERAGE OF 3 PERSONS PER SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED DWELLING LOTS, 6 PERSONS PER
DUPLEX/TWIN HOME DWELLING LOT AND 1 PERSON PER
APARTMENT, TOWNHOUSE, CONDOMINIUMS AND OTHER
DWELLING UNIT-PER BEDROOM. THEREFORE, FOR
EVERY 25 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, THERE ARE 75
NEW RESIDENTS WHO INCREASE THE NEED FOR ACTIVE
PARK SPACE BY ONE ACRE.
• CURRENT LAND VALUES FOR DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY
IN SHAKOPEE ARE AS LOW AS $15,000 PER ACRE TO AS
HIGH AS $30,000 PER ACRE. THE AVERAGE OF THESE TWO
EXTREMES IS ABOUT $22,500 PER ACRE. IF THE CITY WAS
PURCHASE LAND FOR PARK PURPOSES, YOU CAN SURMISE
THAT IT WILL PROBABLY PAY ABOUT $22,500 PER ACRE AT
TODAY'S AVERAGE LAND COSTS PER ACRE.
• USING THE NEW CASH REQUIREMENT RATES FOR PARK
DEDICATION:
• 25 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES X $900.00 FOR A SINGLE
FAMILY UNIT WILL PROVIDE $22,500.00 OF PARK
DEDICATION REVENUE, WHICH THEORETICALLY BUYS
ONE ACRE OF NEEDED PARKLAND.
RESOLUTION NO. 4985 S, A.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
TO SUBMIT A BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION FOR THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PROJECT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION (FP-21XSCDP)
Applicant Name: City of Shakopee
RESOLUTION OF APPLICANT
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Shakopee act as the legal sponsor for project(s) contained in
the Business and Community Development Application to be submitted on October 1, 1998 and
that the Mayor is hereby authorized to apply to the Department of Trade and Economic
Development for funding of this project on behalf of the City of Shakopee;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City of Shakopee has the legal authority to apply for
financial assistance,and the institutional,managerial, and financial capability to ensure adequate
construction, operation,maintenance and replacement of the proposed project for its design life;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City of Shakopee has not incurred any costs, or entered
into any written agreements to purchase property that is proposed to be financed by the
Department of Trade and Economic Development;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City of Shakopee has not violated any federal, state, or
local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, graft,kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other
unlawful or corrupt practice;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon approval of its application by the state, the City of
Shakopee may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above-reference
project(s), and that the City of Shakopee certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and
regulations in all contract agreements and described on the Compliance's Section(FP-10) of the
business and Community Development Application;
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such
agreements as are necessary to implement the projects(s) on behalf of the applicant.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota,held this day of , 1998.
RES4985.DOC
I CERTIFY THAT the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of
Shakopee on
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
RES4985.DOC
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill. City Administrator
SUBJECT: Valley Haven Update
DATE: September 30, 1998
Last week, a representative of APAC,the advocacy group for mobile home park residents, and a
resident of Valley Haven called to request that the park closing ordinance that Valley Haven
group first proposed back in June be placed on the October 6th agenda for consideration by the
Council. You have been previously advised that the recommendation that had come initially
from the study group was not acceptable to the Valley Haven residents. I don't know that they
all had a full understanding of tax increment,and/or feared the need for special legislation at the
State to make this happen.
A couple of new developments have occurred:
1. City Attorney Steve Bubul has advised that no special legislation is needed.
Redevelopment could take place using the existing State law. As a result,the
representative for the State Park Operators' Association is putting together a draft
ordinance which could be considered by Shakopee, and considered as a model ordinance
statewide.
2. More importantly,as of Monday, September 28th, an announcement was made that
Valley Haven was being sold to an individual by the name of Philip Johnson. Mr.
Johnson operates other parks in the metropolitan area, and will continue to operate this
park for residents. He is familiar with the discussions that have been going on, but is not
familiar with the City of Elk River's ordinance. He would like some time to review that.
Based on my direction from you in June to discuss all of the issues before bringing this back,I
have told the Valley Haven residents and APAC representative that this will not be on the
October 6th agenda. I see a need for a study group to meet at least once more and review Mr.
Lambert's proposed ordinance,plus give the new owner an opportunity to meet the residents, and
review what they have requested.
APAC and the resident with whom I spoke were not pleased. They are working on their strategy,
and were focusing on the October 6th meeting. However, after discussing with the Mayor,we do
not feel that it is ready to bring back to you.
VALLEY.DOC
It is probable that they will call you individually to lobby their case (they apparently now feel
that they must have the Elk River-type of ordinance, and nothing else). It is also probable that
many will show up at the City Council meeting on Tuesday night under the "Concerned
Citizens"portion of the agenda as they are not otherwise on the agenda.
I do understand their concerns. However,the Elk River park closing ordinance as I review it will
not work satisfactorily in Shakopee. It would accomplish their short term mission-assuring that
the Valley Haven property stays a mobile home park. However, long term, it will not be in their
best interest, as a lack of funding in the event of a park closing will accelerate the deterioration of
the park while it is in operation, leading to such things as blight,more police calls, and,
increasing numbers of problem neighbors.
For your information. Please contact me if you have questions.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
MM:tw
VALLEY.DOC