Establish 1991 Park & Trail Dedication Fees /0
I
CITY OF
foi
i - i CHANHASSEN
s 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
It` (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 kw, by U`''- kdxil,r±ra'or
II MEMORANDUM
Dec g- -.9°___
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager tr, x•o• , ,pc,.
IIFROM: Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor) / `.c7 . , -; .
DATE: August 24, 1990 9- /D 7
IISUBJ: Establishment of 1991 Park and Trail Dedication Fees
IIAt the June 25, 1990 City Council meeting, Resolution 90-67
amending the park dedication fee for commercial and industrial
II properties was passed and adopted. In fulfilling a requirement of
that resolution, this item was presented to the Park and Recreation
Commission for review at their August 21, 1990 meeting. The
Commission's original intent in approving a "sliding scale" system
I of determining fees was to collect fees which were equitable by
basing fees on the cost of the development. However, the •
Commission agreed this system did not work and upon conclusion of
IItheir discussion made the following recommendation:
Commissioner Mady moved and Commissioner Robinson seconded
I that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends the City
Council set park and trail dedication fees at $2,500 per acre
for commercial/industrial property; $500/unit for residential
single family/duplex units; and $440.00/unit for multi-family
I and maintain the trail dedication fee at one-third of the cost
of park dedication fees. The motion passed unanimously.
IA copy of the report presented to the Commission is attached.
I
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 1
AMENDMENT OF 1990 PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES AND ESTABLISHMENT OF 1991
FEES .
Hoffman: Item number 10 . Taking a look at the current park fees . Some
' changes which have occurred and then establishing new fees for the year
1991 . As Mark has spoken to earlier , this is a timely subject as well .
Looking to the shortfall in building permit revenues we 're having this year
and looking to the future , just being uncertain on what will happen in
' those cases . Again , it would normally be reviewed a little bit later in
the year but there was a recent challenge to this resolution which resulted
in a passage of a resolution amending fees for commercial and industrial
properties . If you 've all read through that , as I eluded to , I tried to
briefly explain it . We have in the past discussed this and last time it
was discussed to amend the fees , we discussed it for 3 meetings at length
and $n what I tried to do is be brief as possible yet explain it concisely .
If ha\'e questions on my report , I would gladly address those at this
time an' open it up for commission discussion on the report and on the
future of park dedication fees and trail dedication fees within the city .
Erhart : Sr, other communities charge 10% you 're saying and it 's taken out
time that we come in for a building permit?
' Hoffm=:n: Correct .
Prd Council just changed it to $1 ,200 .00 and acre?
Hcffma : Correct . The last time , before the last time the Commission
ch nat-c, the fees , the commercial/industrial park fee was at $1 ,200 .00 per
' acrg, for developments under $12 ,500 .00 per acre . Then the Commission
initiated cr wherever the sliding scale portion of the fee resolution was
initiated for industrial/commercial land over $12 ,500 .00 . Then it went to
' a sliding scale . 10% of the total land cost which in the one instance
which was there was under an acre of land . .9 some acres of land for 140
some thousand dollars which results in park dedication fees of T14 ,000 .00
1 for less than an acre of land which is being used for a parking lot which
is not generating any more use and is exorbinate . So what they did was
just take out the sliding scale portion of it since it hadn 't really been
used and proven in any other communities but it was discussed at length
' there for those 3 meetings . It was thought at that time that it would work
but it is showing that it does not work so they just bumped it right down
to the original fee of the $1 ,200 .00 per acre until the commission could
take a look at it and see what they would want to do with the fees for the
future .
-Schroers: Todd can we ask , what are you using to justify the increase?
The rationale there .
Hoffman: Okay . The 10% of raw land value or true land value is a factor
or a percentage which is being used in just about the entire metropolitan
area . In the past the commission has looked at a flat percentage between
the land cost for residential . Residential within the MUSA line .
Residential outside the MUSA lind . Industrial and commercial and taking
that and taking an average of all those land costs and basically what that
figure , magic figure has been in the past is $10 ,500 .00 . That had
ma
increased a little bit to $12 ,500 .00 so the 10% at that time was taken of
•
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 2 II
$72 ,500 .00 of the average so that 's where the $1 ,200 .00 for industrial feeil
came about at that time . The other communities don 't do that . They take
look at if you 're paying , the industrial developments are paying higher
costs for their land , they should be paying a higher park fee . Paying
II
their share , their one time fee . They 're only paying that once . They
should be paying a higher share of the fees than the rest . Actually what
you 're doing in taking that average is taking a little higher fees maybe II
from the residential and then giving the industrial a break . Giving the
multi-family a break which really is representative of what is going on so
the $2 ,500 .00 per acre in the industrial land is based on a fair market
value which is at the low end for industrial land at $25 ,000 .00 per acre .
It 's increasing . At that rate currently it 's more up to the $30 ,000 .00
market at this time .
Mdy • Todd , your costs for land costs . Do we get those from the County ,
��•p•raisE,r this time?
HoffFn: Yes . The County Appraiser and basically just taking a look at
what 's been going on in industrial/commercial developments and residential
developments within Chanhassen and Chaska . The County Assessor was taken
into consideration there . His figures were somewhat higher than this on
the industrial/commercial . Up over $30 ,000 .00 with $30 ,000 .00 per acre
being th_. low end of the figure .
rally : Okay . I guess in looking at what we paid for the south park , what I
we paid for Pheasant Hills , the residential number looks like it 's probably
reanor ble in relation to those two items . The industrial number , my I feelin,4 is it is low .
Hoffman: Currently at the $1 ,200 .00 per acre .
Mady : No even at $25 ,000 .00 . I think it might be 20% low . I 'd feel II
better at 30 . But I definitely agree with bumping the industrial up to at
Least $2 ,500 .00 . I don 't have any problems with that . Did you do any
II
chEcking on what Eden Prairie 's is at right now?
Hoffman: Eden Prairie 's industrial/commercial is up .around $2 ,800 .00 .
II
Mady: I would want to be more than them but we should be close to them .
At $1 ,200 .00 we weren 't even approaching what we should be at so .
Hoffman: Basically what we 're looking at is , with these last two II
developments which we originally tried to base the fee on the resolution
which was in place , it was exorbinate . It didn't work so we did lose the II
$2 ,500 .00 to $3 ,000 .00 to $5 ,000 .00 in the interim so what we want to do
now is correct that . Do it at a quick pace . Get this back to Council .
Get it approved so all the new industrial development just coming in which
at some point very near in the future will begin to slow down . So we just
get the fair share at this time . Again it 's just a one time fee . It 's
based per acre and they are generating the need which those dollars are
spent meeting . I
Schroers: Well would you have a problem Todd asking for like $2 ,600 .00 or
$2 ,700 .00 as long as we stayed underneath Eden Prairie? Would it be worth "
while to go for an extra $100 .00 or $200 .00 on it?
..
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
Aug.rct 21 , 1990 - Page 3
•
Hoffman : Again , with the recommendation at $2 ,500 .00 , it 's $100 .00 over
doubling currently . It is to our fault that we have been sitting or we had
to go back down to the $1 ,200 .00 . If we were currently at , oh say
$2 ,000 .00 , bumping it to $2 ,600 .00 may not appear to be so drastic . But
again moving any closer to say Plymouth , Eden Prairie , some of those
communities that are up around the $2 ,700 .00-$2 ,800 .00 mark , may be
premature at this time . $2 ,500 .00 may be a safer figure to go back to the
Council with to get approval on .
' Schroers: You 've got me sold .
Andrews : I was coming under the multi-family portion of the fee . I feel
' that , I don 't see the sense to have a lower rate per unit for multi-family
versus single family . I think that multi-family units are going to
,- n aie much more use on our park facilities . I think that the rate
should be the same at the worse . Persons living in an apartment complex
have no yard to play in themselves . They have to go to a park if they wish
to ha-e any outdoor recreation facilities normally .
' H-ffr =3n: Yeah , I strongly took a look at that because in my initial
figures they carne out closer to the $500 .00 , about $480 .00 . Taking a look
tco any ether communities , that would be setting a precedent . No other
community y i n the survey which I had , which included about 60% of the
rn&tv : eoli +an communities had a fee which was the same as single family
residential . A number of them were this close to that . If you followed
the formula. which I used to come up with that $440 .00 per unit , you can
' take a look back at what is used for single family and you just can 't do
that h.--cGUEL there are so many more units , so many more people packed in
tore per acre that we can 't take a look at it per acre , So what we fall
bc,_ k on is the commission 's and the department 's 75 people per acre of
Parkland and that is the method which was used to generate this fee and
then the persons per unit which is fairly standard so that $440 .00 is
' defendable where if we just arbitrarily say that obviously you don 't have a
yard . They 're out there using parks , which is very true by the way . That
was discussed as well in coming up with these figures , but again we needed
to have something to back it up . Back those types of thinking up with .
Mady: If there 's not any other discussion , I 'll make a motion that we
recommend to City Council that they accept the 1991 park and trail
' dedication fees in line with staff 's recommendation on their report dated
August 16 , 1990 .
Andrews: Can I add to that? That we bring this up for review of these
again next year .
Mady: We do every year . Every year this is one the things we do .
' Andrews : Okay .
Robinson: I second that .
■
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August. 21 , 1990 - Page 4
Mady moved , Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend the following park dedication fees for 1991 . Keep the current
residential single family/duplex park dedication fee at $500.00 per unit
and raise commercial/industrial to $2,500.00 per acre and multi-family to
$440 .00 per unit . It is further recommended to discontinue the sliding
scale method of determining fees for both commercial , industrial and
residential developments and to continue reviewing fees on an annual basis
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously .
i
1
`o
T I TY OF
CHANHASSEN
1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
' FROM: Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor ;21
1 DATE: August 16, 1990
SUBJ: Amendment of 1990 Park and Trail Dedication Fees and
Establishment of 1991 Fees
1
This item would normally be reviewed later in the year; however, a
' recent challenge of Resolution No. 89-27 which established park and
trail dedication fees effective February 23, 1989, resulted in
passage of a resolution amending fees for commercial and industrial
properties. As such, it is necessary to review the park and trail
1 dedication fee process at this time. I will briefly, but
specifically, outline the events which led to the fees being
amended. If upon reading this report you have questions, I will
1 gladly address them.
Two applications for commercial/industrial building permits
' demonstrated that a portion of Resolution No. 89-27 was unsound.
Specifically, the "sliding scale" system used to determine fees for
commercial developments whose land costs are higher than
$12, 500. 00. One permit dealt with a commercial development with
1 land costs of $147,500 per acre. Resolution 89-27 would require
this applicant to pay a total of $19, 667 in park and trail fees.
The other permit application was for an industrial development with
land costs of $30,000 per acre. Their park and trail fees would
have been $22,500 under the old resolution. These fees were
considered exorbitant by the applicants. The City Council and
1 staff had to reluctantly agree. As a result, Resolution No. 90-67
amending the park dedication fee for commercial and industrial
properties was adopted on. June 25, 1990 (see attached City Council
minutes) . What this resolution did was eliminate the sliding scale
' portion of the commercial/industrial fees in relation to land
costs, and set all park fees for commercial and industrial
properties at $1200 per acre (see attached copies of both
resolutions) . Even though this is the fee which was established in
February of 1989, the method used to reach that figure requires
review.
1
f,
Park and Recreation Commission I
August 16, 1990
Page 2
In January and February of 1989, the Park and Recreation Commission
extensively reviewed the city's park and trail dedication fees. At
that time, it was determined that all park dedication fees for
developments within land costs over $12,500 per acre were to be set
according to a sliding percentage scale. As it has been shown,
land costs cannot in every case be fairly used to determine the
need created for park and recreational facilities by a development.
It is therefore the recommendation of staff to simplify the park
and trail dedication fees using a formula based on 10% of the fair
market value of unimproved land. This method is standard
throughout the metropolitan area and has been proved in determining
equitable fees. A survey of land costs in residential, industrial
and commercial areas of Chanhassen and Chaska showed the following
average land costs of unimproved land.
Industrial $25,000/acre
Residential $12,000/acre
Note: Commercial and industrial fees are assessed at the
same rate in most cities. Even though commercial
property is considerably more expensive, it is difficult
to determine the cost of unimproved land in commercial
areas. It is therefore the recommendation of staff to
continue charging the same fee for commercial and
industrial developments.
Using the 10% figure results in fees of $2500 per acre for
commercial and industrial developments and $480 for residential.
Worksheet: I
-Commercial/Industrial: 25,000 x 0.1 = $2,500
Residential: 12,000 + 2.5 lots/acre = 4,800 x .1 = $480
As multi-family developments result in more households per acre, it
is more accurate to determine fees using the 1 acre of parkland per
75 people which results in a fee of $440 per unit (see attached
1989 housing unit totals) .
Worksheet: '
12 units/acre x 2.74 persons/unit = 33 persons + 75
people/acre = .44 acres of created need x 12,000/acre = $5,760
+ 12 units = $440 per unit
It is the recommendation of staff to keep the current residential
single family/duplex park dedication fee of $500/unit and raise
commercial, industrial and multi-family fees to $2,500/acre and
$440/unit, respectively.It is further recommended to discontinue
the sliding scale method of determining fees for both commercial,
1
11 Park and Recreation Commission
August 16, 1990
Page 3
industrial and residential developments and to continue reviewing
fees on an annual basis.
•
•
1 1
1
f
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 25, 1990 1
f'c;; Gr ChmiFl called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. . The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman and Councilman
3c,hr so rl
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Boyt and Councilwoman Dimler 1
STAFF-PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Paul Krauss, Gary Warren, Jim
C1-•1,rfee, Jean Meuwissen and Tom Chaffee
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
aFpr::J_ tfe agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
P., r V-:on: To point out something.to you. Several zoning ordinance on your
a::7.:'3 tcr:isi-:t and you need a four-fifths vote and I don't see four council
mer: rs. It would have to be tabled.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
470{.-. the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
r . r: royal of Fireworks Display Permit, Minnewashta Homeowners Association,
Pc i oh Hagn an.
Ppproval of One Day Beer License for Chanhassen Rotary, July 4, 1990. 1
P . Resolution $90-66: Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 3 for Trunk Highway
^12 CIS Joint Powers Agreement, MnDot.
j. i:pprove Water Service to 23115 Summit Avenue in City of Shorewood, Larry
hm5dt .
L Approve Plans and Specifications for 1990 Sealcoating Project No. 90-11; 1
Authorize Advertising for Bids.
I. Approve NSP Maintenance Contract for City Owned Street Lights. 1
m. Approve Revised Plans and Specifications for Utility Telemtry System,
Authorize Advertising for Bids; Project No. 90-3.
n. Approval of Accounts.
•
o. City Council Minutes dated June 4, 1990 1
City Council Minutes dated June 11, 1990
Planning Commission Minutes dated June 6, 1990 1
c. Approval of Development Contract for Burdick Second Addition.
1
1
City Council Meeting - June 25, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but I think that what 's here might be just a little heavy in
ccm:3rison with other cities in and adjacent to Chanhassen. I think we should
just take a look at this to make sure this is exactly the way we want to go.
Councilman Johnson: I mean we've been doing this for years though as far as. . .
Mayor Chmiel: Right .
' Councilman Johnson: You're• saying that even if we back off to the 10% or
$1 ,200.00 per acre, that you think that's too high? The old one's too high.
' Mayor Chmiel: No. Well the $1,200.00 is right in the ballpark as far as I'm
concerned.
' Councilman Johnson: That's what this does.
Mayor Chmiel : Yeah, right. But some of these fees as we're going into the
' commercial and industrial areas, as Don had mentioned.
Councilmai Johnson: But this fixes that doesn't it?
Ccr, A zhworth: Well , what it does it re-establishes the $1,200.00 charge and
then if you would like to have it sent back to the Park Commission, you should
make that as a part of your motion.
' Councilman Johnson: In which case Phi will now be at $3,600.00 right?
Mavcr Chmiel : Yeah.
rounciiman Johnson: So we're taking PMT back to $3,600.00 instead of
II $16,000.00.
Don Ashworth: And McDonald's would move to about $1,500.00. .
Councilman Johnson: Versus?
Don Ashworth: $21,000.00.
Councilman Johnson: Versus $21,000.00 and that's what we want to do.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: So• I think we have to pass this now and if we want Park and
• Rec to review it more, let's ask them to.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, so move that motion. Is there a second?
' Councilman Workman: Can you repeat the motion?
Councilman Johnson: Move approval with referral to the Park and Recreation
Board for further review.
' Councilman Workman: Second.
3
1
• a IICITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: February 23, 1989 RESOLUTION NO: 89-27 II
MOTION BY: Johnson SECONDED BY: Boyt
I
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARK DEDICATION FEES AND TRAIL
DEDICATION FEES II WHEREAS, the City determines park dedication fees based on
land values, density, and a park acreage standard of 1 acre per
75 people.
I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Chanhassen that park dedication fees collected with
Ibuilding permit fees be established as follows:
Developments Whose Land Costs are $12,500/Acre or Less:
Single family & duplex $500/unit I
Multi family $350/unit
Commercial/Industrial $1,200/acre
I
Residential Developments Whose Land Costs Are Higher Than $12, 500:
Density I
Units/Acre Percent of Land Value
0-2 .9% II 2-4 11%
4-6 13%
6-8 15%
I
8-10 17%
10+ 17% to 20%
Commercial Developments Whose Land Costs Are Higher Than $i2,500: I
10% of cost per acre
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that trail fees are established as 1/3 I
of the park dedication fee.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this
I
27th day of - February , 1989.
ATTEST:
I
rn
C2AZ f—
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donal. ,1,;, K' el, Ma or II
YES NO ABSENT
Chmiel None Dimler- II- Boyt
Johnson
I
Workman
II
City of Chanhassen
Carver and Hennepin Counties, 'Minnesota
' DATE: June 25. 1990 RESOLUTION NO: 90-67
MOTION BY: Johnson SECONDED BY: Workman
' A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PARK DEDICATION FEE
FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL. PROPERTIES
•
WHEREAS, on February 23, 1989 by Resolution 89-27, the City
Council established park dedication fees for commercial and
industrial properties based on land value; and
' WHEREAS, the City Council believes that park needs as
generated by commercial or industrial property do not have a direct
correlation to the amount of money paid for that land; and
WHEREAS, the current formula is placing a financial burden on
new commercial and industrial developments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Chanhassen as follows:
1. That the park dedication fee for commercial and
industrial properties be changed to $1,200 per acre; and
' 2 . That this item be referred to the Park and Recreation
Commission for further review and recommendation on the
fee schedule.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 25th
day of June, 1990.
1 ATTEST:
1 •
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager ••nal• J. --Ae ", Mayor
ABSENT
Chmiel None Boyt
' workman Dimler
Johnson
•
1
9
e
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Ag.-5.5e/t PROVISIONAL POP ULATION ESTIMATE • APRIL 1, 1989
City or Township C.,a 4
1989 Housfne Units I
I
Estimated Total
sing (Including _ I
mate 1980 Uncompleted Estimated Estimated
True Housine Units 1988 Permits) Completed Occupied
Single-Family /, 7 7 ? 3 Ill 3, //`J 3, eo e I
Multifamily .3—el T 49 7471 79-,'
(incL Townhouse) ,
11 4/ y
`'
Mobile Home I
TOTAL a , .AFf3 3 , 57.2 3 . 7; 3 798
sehold Estimates
I
1980 Household Estimate . e 73
1988 Household Estimate 3 3 I
1989 Household Estimate r 7 r7 8 _ I
cation Estimates
1980 Total Population te, 33/ I
1980 Group Quarters Population 'V.3
I
1989 Group Quarters Population d97
1989 Population in Households /D, -11,/c) I
1989 Population Estimate 40. 4/F7
I
ins Per Household .
1980 Persons per Household 3 • D•Y I
1988 Persons per Household • &le
I
1989 Persons per Household
numbers are as of April 1 of each year.
-
. .0 . I