1f. 1989 Park Dedication Fees i
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
•
i \ ,
1 ^� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
' MEMORANDUM ✓ p
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager . __.__
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordi ator
DATE: February 21, 1989
SUBJ: 1989 Park Dedication Fee Schedule g
1 The Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed the park dedica-
tion fee schedule at great length. Although the commission feels
1 the fees should be more comparable to Eden Prairie and other com-
munities ' fees ( $600 to $700 for single family and $2,000 to
$3 , 000 for commercial/industrial) , they realize that the fees
must be based on raw land values. The County Assessor has given
1 us an average raw land value of $10, 500 per acre. The Commission
feels this figure is low based on recent land sales and feels the
City can justify a fee based on an average of $12, 500/acre.
1 In addition to the flat fee, the Commission is supporting a fee
that is based on real raw land values - whichever is greater.
This formula would require the developer to provide a copy of
1 his purchase agreement at time of application. If raw land costs
exceed $12, 500/acre, the fee for that development would be 9-11%
of land costs in a single famly development, 13-20% in multi-
family developments, and 10% in commercial/industrial develop-
ments. It would appear that this would be the only way to obtain
reasonable fees if the County Assessor' s figures are indeed
incorrect.
1 Staff has reviewed this formula with the City Attorney and we
feel comfortable that it considers land costs and density; there-
1 fore, would be defendable in a court of law.
Recognizing that state statute allows for cities to require a
1 dedication of parkland and/or park dedication fees, Hasek moved
to recommend that the city adopt a park dedication fee schedule
as follows :
$ 500. 00 Single Family Unit
350 . 00 Multi-Family Unit
1, 200. 00 Commercial/Industrial acre,
1 except in cases where the real land values are higher than
$12, 300/acre, in which case the fee would be as follows :
11
1
Mr. Don Ashworth ,
February 21 , 1989
Page 2
RESIDENTIAL
Density '
Units/Acre Percent of Land Value
0-2 9%
2-4 11%
4-6 13%
6-8 15%
8-10 17%
10+ 17% to 20%
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ,
10% of cost per acre
Additionally, it is recommended that a purchase agreement be sub-
mitted at the time of application. Mady seconded the motion and
it carried unanimously. ,
1
i
I
I
■
Ga&zei
Park and Rec Commission Meeting /
' February 14 , 1989 - Page 50
Sietsema: What' s the date?
Mady: That'd be about the 26th. We really miss our calendars here by the
way.
Hasek: You' re going to put together map? If you pick a date, that ' s fine
but there' s no obligation to go?
Mady: No.
' PARK DEDICATION FEES.
Sietsema: The last time we talked about the park dedication fees , you
asked if there could be three separate, one for the rural area, one for
the urban and one for the commercial/industrial . Based on the land values
given to me by the County Assessor, what I have in the staff report is
what would be, what they would work out to. The only one that is more
' than the current on is the commercial/industrial and with the type of
development we' ve got going, I do not believe that achieves your goal to
increase the fees. Therefore, to either leave it the way it is at the
' rate that it is , or else use the formula where we use the average or real
land cost, it' s really the only way that I can see. That I can come up
with because we have no source, we have no reliable source to tell us what
real land values are different than what the County Assessor. If we could
come up with something different, we could use that.
Hasek: Get a copy of the guy who owns Carrico' s purchase agreement .
' That' s the real life . I don' t know if I mentioned it last time but
Plymouth is taking down, I hope I get the number right, $3, 200. 00 an acre
for commercial .
•
' Sietsema: Yes . $650 . 00 for residential and it' s $3, 200. 00 for commercial
industrial. Eden Prairie just raised theirs to $725. 00 for residential
and I believe it' s $3, 000. 00 and something an acre for industrial .
' Boyt: Do you know what percent that is?
' Sietsema: According to their assessor , they have a city assessor so
that' s 10%. They base theirs on 10% .
Mady: My feeling all along is that our County Assessor is kind of looking
at this because he' s based out of Chaska and the rural area. I really
seriously believe that Chanhassen that' s in the MUSA line is a lot closer
to being Eden Prairie than it is to being Young America. But for whatever
' reason, we can ' t seem to get what I would consider a reasonable opinion
out of the Assessor so we' re stuck with this .
' Watson : He keeps coming back, let ' s give him credit. He' s consistent.
Hasek: I don' t see in here what our original numbers are.
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 51
Sietsema: It' s the attachment . It would be $425. 00
� $ per unit or 11% or
the raw land value based on the developer' s purchase agreement. Whichever
is greater . '
Haesk : And each one would be looked at as they were brought in? So if we
said 11% to them, it was a lot higher than that, we'd get it? 1
Sietsema: Right , and the same would be true for the industrial where it
would be $1,050.00 per acre or 11% of the raw land value.
Hasek: It says 10% here.
Sietsema: 10%, excuse me. Again , that would raise more than 11% if the II density was higher. So it would be 9% for residential and it would be 13%
t0 20% on multi-family depending on the density. So it' s the third
paragraph on the first page of the attachment that outlines that.
Hasek : So it' s the back of the first page?
Sietsema: Right. Dated January 18th. State Statute allows the City to
require parkland dedication or fees in lieu of parkland through the
subdivision process. Staff is proposing a formula that would be based on
the average raw land values or the real raw land values , whichever is
greater . In other words , park fees would be $425. 00 per unit until the
raw land value was determined to be higher than $10, 500. 00 per acre. At
that point, the park charge would be 11% for urban single family
residential , 9% for rural residential and 13% to 20% on multi-family
residential per unit depending on the density. Commercial/industrial
would be done in a similar fashion. It would be a charge of $1, 050 . 00 per
acre or 10% of the raw land value. Again, whichever is greater. II Therefore, raw land values of more than $10, 500. 00 per acre would create a
fee of more than $1,050. 00 per acre.
Hasek: I guess I don ' t see any problem with those. It begs one question '
though. It say, we'd charging them $1,050. 00 or 10% of the land value,
whichever is greater . If $1, 050. 00 were 12%, we would be doing something
about. . . If the $ 1; 050. 00 were a greater amount. ,
Sietsema: It would have to be proved that 12% is unreasonable.
Hasek: Okay. Then, if 12% is unreasonable, I say we go ahead with the
whole thing but let' s put in $500. 00 for residential and let' s put in
$1, 200. 00 for commercial and work the figures that way.
Watson : So the park fee would require. . .higher than $10, 500. 00 and then
at that point at 11%.
Sietsema: $500. 00 a unit for residential?
Hasek: Yes .
Sietsema: Do you want to have something different for commercial
industrial units?
*I/
I
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 52
Hasek: Yes , whatever . The $1, 200. 00 instead of the $1, 050. 00.
ISietsema: I mean multi-family. Per unit. Right now it' s $425. 00 for
single family and it' s $300. 00 for multi -family unit and it' s $1, 050. 00
Iper acre for commercial/industrial .
Hasek: Based upon the numbers that we' re looking at , what would you
suggest? $350. 00.
ISietsema: $350. 00?
IMady: That' s pretty close to what you did.
Hasek: If there's no other discussion, I ' ll make the motion.
Mady: I ' ll second it. _
Robinson: We discussed last time I think about the administrative end of
I this and getting appraisals and what not. I still think that' s a
possibility that this could be an administrative nightmare. I also wonder
why nobody else has done this . Nobody else uses a percentage. They all
II use flat fees .
Sietsema: It' s easier to administer a flat fee. That ' s the bottom line
but with the requirements of the subdivision, we could make it a
I requirement to have to submit a purchase agreement so that we know what
they paid for the property. That would solve that part of it. The other
thing is that it' s getting to be with everybody, there' s so many different
I subdivisions out there that are now paying a percentage of their flat fee
because they made park or trail dedications land , that I have to look up
just about everyone anyway. I get every building permit across my desk to
sign off on .and I have to look up, in their subdivision to determine how
Imuch to charge them. It' s getting to the point where so many more are not
:V. paying the flat fee because. . .
I ."'Recognizing that state statute allows for cities to require a dedication of parkland
and/or park dedication fees, Hasek moved to recommend that the city adopt a park dedica-
tion fee schedule as follows:
I $ 500.00 Single Family Unit
350.00 Multi-Family Unit
II1,200.00 Commercial/Industrial acre,
except in cases where the real land values are higher than $12,500/acre, in which case the
fee would be as follows:
II9-11% of the cost per acre - Single Family, depending on density
13-20% of the cost per acre - Multi-Family, depending on density
1 10% of the cost per acre - Commercial/Industrial
Additionally, it is recommended that a purchase agreement be submitted at the time of
IIapplication. Mady seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
II
-,,Lt,_C?Afi t
CITY OF ,�- ,
l;7
1
z•;\\ i_
( C : .. ANBAssEN
\,..iN
i
��_ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 1
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator 1
DATE: February 6 , 1989 " /SUBJ: Park Dedication Fees II
At the last meeting, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed 1
a new formula by which to determine park dedication fees. The
Commission felt the new formula would be difficult to administer
and directed staff to check into having three separate fees ; one
II
for the rural area, one for the urban area, and one for
commercial/industrial developments. Basing these numbers on the
estimated raw land values from the County Assessor, the figures
II
work out as below:
Rural ( 3 , 500/acre) $133/unit
Urban ( 10 , 500/acre) $373/unit II
Commercial/Industrial ( 15, 000/acre) $1,800/acre
These figures are considerably lower for the residential areas 1
than the existing fee structure. Such does not accomplish the
intention of the Commission to raise the fee. Staff feels that
the formula outlined at the last meeting (see attached) remains a
II
reasonable means by which a higher fee can be charged, while
insuring a minimum fee at the current level.
1
1
1
I
II
II
. 1
I
157r
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
,C
}
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: January 18, 1989
SUBJ: Park and Trail Dedication Fees
The Park and Recreation Commission and members of the City Coun-
cil have expressed a desire to increase park dedication fees. It
is felt that the County Assessor' s average raw land value estima-
tation of $10,500 per acre is low and that park property cannot
be purchased for that price. As was discussed at our last
meeting, one way to increase the park fee would be to change our
standard parkland requirement from one acre per 75 people to one
acre per 50 people. Staff was directed to work up the figures as
' they relate to the rural, urban and commercial/industrial areas
( please see attached) .
This illustrates one way to increase the fee, however, this
becomes a requirement of 15%-19% . The standard, which has been
upheld as "reasonable" when challenged, is 10%. It is
questionable whether 15%-19% will be considered "reasonable"
should ' it be challenged. Therefore, staff has looked into other
alternatives .
State statutes allow the City to require parkland dedication or
fees in lieu of parkland through the subdivision process. Staff
is proposing a formula that would be based on average raw land
values or real raw land values, whichever is greater. In other
' words , park fees would be $425 per unit until the raw land value
was determined to be higher than $10,500 . At that point the park
charge would be 11% for urban single-family residential, 9% for
rural residential, and 13% - 20% on multi-family residential
(depending on density) . Commercial/industrial would be done in a
similar fashion - $1,050/acre or 10% of the raw land value, again,
' whichever is greater. Therefore, raw land values of more than
$10 ,500/acre would create a fee of more than $1,050/acre ( see
illustration on next page) .
!IL
I
Park and Recreation Commission
47 January 19, 1989
Page 2 ,
Urban Single Family Developments (Density 2-4 units/acre) : I
Land Values per Acre: 11% Fee per Acre: Per Unit Fee:
$ 5 ,000 $ 550 $ 200 ,
7,000 770 275
9 ,000 990 353
11,000 1,210 432
15,000 1,650 589
20,000 2,200 785
If land is required, the same process is used as has been in the 1
past. If cash is required, the developer would be required to
pay $425 per unit, or 11% of the raw land value; whichever is
greater. As is illustrated using the table above, $425 per unit
is the greater amount until land values are higher than $11,000
per acre.
Staff feels that this is an equitable way to deal with the Park ,
Dedication Fee and helps to allieviate the problems that have
occurred when the land being developed is unsuitable for parkland
and such must be acquired outside of the subdivision.
Trail fees are difficult to determine. The Park and Recreation
Commission must decide if we want to fund sidewalks in residen- ,
tial areas or connecting trail systems . To expect a trail fee to
cover both is unrealistic. At best we can require new develop-
ments to make a contribution as the trail fee would have to be
exorbitant to cover the cost of sidewalks within developments and
connecting trail segments.
Staff feels that the Park and Recreation Commission should pass ,
the responsibility of sidewalks on to the Planning and
Engineering Departments, asking them to consider whether it
should be made a requirement of the subdivision. The trail dedi-
cation fee would then be put into a fund to construct an inter-
connecting system.
Again, it is difficult to determine how much to charge a new
development for a trail system. A fee equalling 1/3 of the trail
dedication fee seems reasonable and staff would continue to
recommend such.
■
I
ICFee Worksheet @ 1 Acre/50 People
' 1 . 100 Acre Single Family Urban Development:
100 x 2 .5 units = 250 units
250 units x 3 people/unit = 750
750 4- 50/acre = 15 acres required
If cash is required in lieu of land:
' 15 acres x 10, 600/acre = $159 ,000
$159,000 = 250 units = $636/unit
2 . 100 Acre Single Family Rural Development:
' 100 acres x 1 unit/10 acres = 10 units
10 x 3 people/unit = 30 people
' 30 : 50/acre = .6 acres of land
' If cash is required in lieu of land:
. 6 acres x $10,600/acre = $63 , 600
$63 ,600 = 10 units = $636/unit
3 . 100' Acre Multi-Family (R-12 )
100 x 12 units/ace = 1 , 200 units
' 1,200 x 2 per unit = 2 , 400 people
2 ,400 : 50/acre = 48 acres required
1
If cash is required in lieu of land:
48 acres x $10 ,600/acre = $508 ,800
$508 ,800 : 1 , 200 units = $424/unit
,-
1
_1 CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council '
•
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: January 12, 1989
SUBJ: Park and Trail Dedication Fees
The Council discussed park and trail dedication fees at their
last meeting. A number of questions arose regarding how
the fees are determined and what amounts other communities are
charging. Attached please find the information used to determine
the current fees and the minutes with the Commission' s
discussion. This is simply to inform you of what has transpired
on this item to date. The Park and Recreation Commission is
reviewing this item at this time to determine what the 1989 fee
schedule should be. ,
1
1
I
I
C '
■
I . ,.
4
1 CITY OF
IC C \ . . CHANHASSEN'
"` . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1 . .
MEMORANDUM
1 , TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
1 DATE: December 30, 1987
1 SUBJ: Park Dedication Fee Requirements
Existing cash park fees for the City of Chanhassen are as
follows:
II
Single Family Unit $ 415
Duplex 415
1 Multi-Family & Townhouse:
Efficiency 110
1 bedroom 200
1 2 bedroom 330
3 bedroom 405
4 bedroom 425
1 Commercial/Industrial 1035
The Park and Recreation Commission is required to review the Park
1 Dedication requirements on an annual basis and submit a recommen-
dation to the City Council. The fee schedule above has not changed
since 1982.
1 Enclosed is a copy of a report completed by Schilling Environment
Consultants for the City of Vadnais Heights regarding park dedi-
cation fees . This report compares the park fees of fourteen
1 cities within the seven county metropolitan area, and points out
several interesting facts. The most common method for charging
cash park fees is a flat fee base for residential land use. For
1 commercial/industrial land uses the most common method used by
local governments appears to be based upon a percentage of the
total site to be required in either land or cash equivalent.
I Chanhassen uses a flat fee for both residential and commercial ,
office and industrial.
ic
1
I_
. P
11
Park and Recreation Commission
II
December 30 , 1987
Page 2
(L. ' The comparison between cities that have flat cash dedication
fees is as follows : II
5
1 . White Bear Lake Single Family $375/unit I
Duplex $750
Multiple Family $250/unit + $75/
bed added above
II
_ the 1st bedroom
Commercial/Industrial $1,500/acre exclud-
ing streets and
II
roads
2 . Little° Canada Single Family $300/unit
Multiple Family $100/unit
II
Commercial/Industrial 5% of the fair
market value of
undeveloped land
I
3 . Eagan Single Family & Duplex $440/unit
Townhouse $365/unit
Apartment & Condo $275
II
Commercial/Industrial Cash equivalent of
$ . 04/s. f. of devel-
opment less roads I
4 . Woodbury Single Family $400/unit
Duplex $300/unit II Multiple Family $200/unit
Commercial/Industrial Cash equivalent of
$1200/ac. - Indust.
$1500/ac. - Commer.
II
$1800/ac. - Office
5 . Lakeville Single Family $370/unit
Duplex $750 II
Multiple Family $250/unit + $75
above 1st bedroom
II6 . Eden Prairie Single Family $420/unit
All Other Residential $320/unit
Off/Commercial/Industrial $2300/acre I
Table three of the report indicates a comparison of how much park
fees would be raised from a typical single family residential II subdivision in the various communities as well as a multi-family
residential subdivision. Eden Prairie, whose fee structure is
most similar to Chanhassen, is sixth out of fourteen in the
amount of fees that would be generated from single family resi- '
dential and is number one in the amount of fees that would be
generated from multi-family residential. The amount of money
that would be generated from commercial/office/industrial for the
City of Eden Prairie indicates the largest degree of inequity in
comparing with other cities in the survey; however, when compared
II
II
I ..
Park and Recreation Commission
' December 30 ,1987
Page 3
with other fast-growing ast growing cities such as Eagan and Woodbur
City of Eden Prairie feels they actually Y. the
per amount of commercial/office and industrial developed.
This survey points out that
equitable method for comparing ehow lcash park fees totally fair and
' generated from single family land, comparedtomultiple,l or com-
pared to commercial/office or industrial property. The bottom
line test for a court of law must be whether or not a city can
prove that the proposed development generates the same amount of
_need for additional parks or recreation facilities as is charged
by the city. Obviously, the easiest category to prove a need is
single family residential. Multiple family residential is also
relatively easy, however; it is more difficult to prove what
amount of need commercial/office and industrial users bring to a
city. As long as cities such as Chanhassen allow individuals
who "live or work" in the City to have equal access to facili-
ties, leagues, etc. , it is much easier to prove the additional
need for recreation facilities and parks with new
commercial/office and industrial development.
Another aspect to be considered in Chanhassen is the newly
established trail fee of $138 applied to residential develop-
ments . Few cities have a trail fee, however, most other cities
have trail construction requirements , i .e. developers are
required to build trails identified on trail plans as construc-
tion occurs . As our trail fee is new, and primarily affects
residential developments , staff feels an increase in single and
multiple family fees would be excessive at this time.
' In light of this, staff recommends no increase in park dedication
fees for single family developments . Additionally, it is recom-
mended that a flat fee be established for multiple family develop-
ments, 'rather than the variable rate ( this figure was determined
by taking the average unit fee) . As commercial, industrial and
office developments are not impacted by the trail fee, it is
recommended that the fee for such be raised by 10% . The recom-
mended dedication fee schedule appears as follows:
' Single Family Residential $ 415/unit
Multi-Family Residential 295/unit
Commercial/Office/Industrial 1,140/acre
I
,L
1
. ) ' ,/
LN`; ..".4._ ``
^Si:} :1 : Schilling Environmental Consultants
2785 White Bear Avenue, Suite 210 • Maplewood, MN 55109 • (612) 777-6606
Cill
REPORT ON THE ANALYSIS OF PARK DEDIGATION FEES
I
OF
ISELECTED CITIES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA
Joel G. Schilling, Principal
IIOctober,1987
INTRODUCTION
II
The following report presents an analysis of park dedication fees of fourteen
(14) cities selected from within the Seven County Metropolitan Area. The cities
included are as follows:
Arden Hills Coon Rapids
II
Eagan Eden Prairie
Lakeville - Little Canada I
Mahtomedi Oakdale
Roseville • Shoreview
IIWhite Bear Lake Woodbury
Vadnais Heights White Bear Township
The process of selection included in first priority those local governments
immediately surrounding Vadnais Heights, second those cities in which a
substantial amount of residential and/or commercial-industrial development is
II
occurring (Eagen, Eden Prairie Woodbury) and finally some randomly scattered
cities (Coon Rapids, Oakdale, Lakeville, Mahtomedi) . The analysis included both
II
the examination of schedules for land as well as cash dedication formulas or
fees.
II
LAND AND CASH DEDICATION
II
Table I illustrates the land dedication formulas or fee percentage for eleven of
the fourteen cities. Over half the local governments have a land dedication
II
formula based upon a sliding scale depicting a percentage of the dwelling site
density versus the development area.
. II
-2-
Those cities which do not show a land dedication formula, rely instead upon cash
-
dedications being adequate for the outright purchase of park property needed.
Table II describes the formula or fee schedules used by all fourteen local
' governments for cash park dedications. In both Tables I and II the park
dedication requirements are shown for both residential (single and multi family)
and commercial/industrial landuses. In contrast to the land dedication table,
' only four of the fourteen cities make use of a density based cash dedication
formula for residential landuse. The more common method appears to be a flat
^ fee base for residential landuse. For commercial/industrial landuses, the most
common method used by local governments appears to be based upon a percentage of
the total site to be required in either land or cash equivalent. A group of
five cities use either a fee per acre basis (White Bear Lake, Woodbury, Eden
Prairie) or fee based upon either square footage of the building or development
r site (Vadnais Heights, Eagen) .
ANALYSIS
Next an attempt was made to provide a perspective upon the various local
114r. government park dedication fees by using specific development examples. Table
' III presents three different examples of actual developments within the City of
Vadnais Heights together with the actual or probable resultant park dedication.
Example No.1 is a single family residential development of. 81 homes upon 42.84
acres. The park dedication for the City of Vadnais Heights was $ 33,544 which
falls In the upper half of the fourteen local governments surveyed. The amount
of dedication by Vadnais Heights translates into $ 414 per home which is similar
to the flat fee amounts used by a number of cities (Woodbury, Eagan, Eden
Prairie, Coon Rapids) . Small residential developments (less than 5 acres, both
single family and multi-family) in Vadnais Heights are not treated equitable as
' are larger similar developments which will be discussed later. The top half of
the cities in Table III have cash dedication amounts which are nearly identical
' to the undeveloped land dedication amounts (equivalent cash values) . The lower
half of cities, however, would find it particularily difficult to justify a
taking of land instead of cash. A compounding problem for the upper half of
cities is the value of the finished land in the above example. In this
example, the land when finished with utilities and streets has sold for $ 55 -
75, 000 per acre (less the residence) and $ 150 - 300, 000 with the home!
I
it
1
-3-
e
Y
II
Therefore, a city finds it very difficult to take a land dedication which is
(1- _
often worth less than half the value of the bare developable property. Instead a
city often receives land which requires the expenditure of considerable funds to
fill low areas, remove unstable soils or has steep undevelopable slopes. I
Example No. 2 is a multi-family residential development of 113 apartment units
on 7.25 acres. it is apparent in this example that there is a much larger II
spread of park dedication cash amounts. Vadnais Heights is in the lower half of
the fourteen cities with a cash dedication equal to $ 154 per unit. While
initially this seems quite low, it should be stressed that the City may require
an additional expenditure by the developer in the form of a small playlot. In
II
nearly all the cities examined in this study,• multi-family developments
contribute less cash on a per unit basis than single family residences. While
this is certainly not equitable, the Vadnais Heights approach of sometimes II
requiring an additional play area to be built provides some logic in requiring
less cash payment on a unit basis (Some local governments have a similar II
requirement] .
II
Example No. 3 is a commercial/industrial development consisting g of a light
A._
manufacturing building of 24, 644 S.F. on 1. 9 acres. Here is found the greatest
I
disparity among cities in how cash dedication is handled. Two thirds of the
cities require a percentage of the land in equivalent cash value on the order of
5 - 10 %. Other cities have required a fee based upon a per acre or square II
footage of development. The former example seems to be logical in that it
equated the value of the dedication with the value of a similar amount of land
II
which could be taken. In other words, in the case of Vadnais Heights it would
seem impossible to take a land dedication valued at $16,553 when the required '
cash dedication is only $1,200. Conversely, White Bear Township could take
either land or cash as they would be equivalent. The requirement for any land
or cash dedication for commercial/industrial landuse arises occasionally and II
should be discussed. First, it would seem that many cities have been requiring
a substantial cash dedication for some time with no problems with respect to I
development (Roseville, Arden Hills) . Second, clearly a commercial or industrial
enterprize has no direct need for parks in contrast to police, fire and public
II
works needs, but indirectly its workers may choose to relocate to a city whoose
park system is adequate and well maintained. Therefore, the attractiveness of a
city is dependent upon its ability to acquire the necessary park funds from ail II
its residents.
II
1
-4-
fr
Third, there is a need for a growing city to have a competitive edge in the
attraction of new development and therefore a lower percentage contribution of
cash or land dedication for commercial/industrial development may be in order.
1
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . It is recommended that the complex density based system for cash dedication
for residential properties be dropped and instead be replaced by a simple
flat fee basis as follows:
•
Single Family - $ 400/unit
Duplex - $ 300/unit
Multi-Family - $ 200/unit
2
The land dedication formula should remain as a desity based system as it
' seems to have functioned adequately.
' 3 . The cash dedication for commercial/industrial landuse should be changed to
a simple percentage fee based upon 2 to 5 percent of the undeveloped fair
market value.
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
-5-
IITABLE I
4 PARK - LAND DEDICATION
II
'"Y BESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Vadnais Heights 9 - 20% of site, density based* 10 % of the total site II
White Bear Lake 10 % of the total site. 5 % of the total site
Shoreview 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site II
Little Canada 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site
II
Roseville 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site
White Bear Twp. 10 - 15 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site II
Arden Hills 10 - 15 % of site, density based. 0 - 15 % of the total site
Oakdale 5 - 17- % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site II
Coon Rapids 5 - 18 % of site, density based. 3 - 5 % of the total site
II
Plymouth 0 - 25 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site
Fridley 10 % of the site 3 % of the total site I
. Mahtomedi
7 % of the total site. 7 % of the total site
II
CI,La DENSITY: UNITS/ACRE*
yAND DEDICATION Os)
Vadnais Heights 0 - 2 units/acre 9 %
II
2 - 4 " 11 %
4 - 6 " 13 %
• 6 - 8 15 %
II
8 - 10 " 17 %
10+ t. 17+ - 20 %
White Bear Twp. 0 - 3.5 units/acre 10 %
II
3.5 - 4.5 11 %
4.5 - 6.0 " 12 %
6.0 - 7.0 " 13 %
II
7.0 - 8.0 14 %
8.0 + " 15 %
Arden Hills 0 - 2 units/acre 10 % I
2 - 3 " 11 %
3 - 4 " 12 %
4 + 12 - 15 % 'II
L 1
1
II
1
-6-
TABLE I (cont 'd)
II Ir` Oakdale 0 - 1 units/acre 5 %
1.1 - 3 10 %
3.1 - 4 11 %
4.1 - 5 12 %
5.1 - 6 13
6.1 - 7 ^ 14 %
7.1 - 8 15 %
8.1 - 9 16
9.1 - 10 17 %
10.1 + " 17+ %
Coon Rapids 0 - 1 units/acre 5 %
2 - 3 10 %
4 - 5 " 12 %
1 6 - 7 13 %
8 - 12 14 %
13 - 16 " 18 %
' 16+ " 18+ %
Plymouth 0 - 2 units/acre 10 %
3 - 4 11 %
5 - 6 " 14 %
7 - 8 15.5 %
9 - 10 " 17.5 %
/ 11 - 12 " L0 %
I
1
1
1
I
111L--
I
-7-
• TABLE II II
tr - PARK - CASH DEDICATION
I
'"Y DENSITY UNITS/ACRE, CASH DEDICATION
Vadnais Heights I
0 - 3 units/acre $ 200/unit
(Development sites 3 - 6 " $ 250/unit ,
of 0 - 5 acres) 6 - 8 If $ 300/unit
DENSITY UNITS/ACRE, % OF LAND VALUE
(Development sites 0 - 2 units/acre 9 % *
II
- of 5 or more acres) 2 - 4 " 11 %
4 - 6 13 %
6 - 8 15 % ,
8 - 10 " 17 %
10 + " 17 - 20 %
* undeveloped land value without utilities.
IICOMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
$ 200 per 4, 000 S.F. of building or 5 % of value of appraised undeveloped site
White Bear Lake
II
Single Family $ 375/unit
Duplex $ 750 '
Apartments, townhouses,condos. $ 250/unit + $75/bed
' added above the first bedrm
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
II
$ 1,500 per acre, excluding streets and roads.
Shoreview
DENSITY UNITS/ACRE, % OF LAND VALUE II
0 - 2 units/acre 4 % *
2-1 - 3 II 5 %
3.1 - 4 " 6 %
4.1 - 5 7 %
5.1 + " 10 %
* undeveloped land value with utilities included on or near the site. I
COMRCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
10 % of the fair market value of the land.
IIWhite Bear Twp.
Single Family $ 175
Multi Family $ 175/dwelling unit
I
OR
DENSITY UNITS/ACRES % OF LAND VALUE.
0
II
- 3.5 units/acre 10 % *
3.5 - 4.5 " 11 %
4.5 - 6.0 " 12 % 11 6.1 - 7.0 " 13 %
7.1 - 8.0 " 14 %
8.1 + - " 15 %
* undeveloped land value with utilities not included.
I
II
Table II (cont 'd)
tr -
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
10 % of the fair market value of the land.
Little Canada
Single Family $ 300/unit
Multi Family $ 100/unit
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
5 % of the fair market value of the undeveloped land.
Roseville
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of the undeveloped fair market value of 10 % of gross site
area.
Arden Hills
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of the undeveloped land value using the same percentage as
land dedication formula.
Oakdale
DENSITY UNITS/ACRE CAaH DEDICATIQ;q
0 - 1 units/acre $ 275/unit
_ 1.1 - 3 $ 275/unit
' 3.1 - 4 " $ 250/unit
4.1 - 5 250/unit
5.1 - 6 $ 250/unit
6.1 - 7 " $ 220/unit
7.1 - 8 $ 220/unit
8.1 9 " $ 220/unit
9.1 - 10 $ 220/unit
10.1 + $ 220/unit
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent value of the 10 % land dedication required.
' Coon Rapids
Single Family $ 384/unit
' Two Family $ 326/unit
Townhouses $ 286/unit
Mobile Homes $ 291/unit
Multi $ 238/unit
COMMERCIAL
3 % of the fair market value with a maximum of $1152 (3x Single Family)
INDUSTRIAL
5' % of the fair market value with a maximum of $1152 (3x Single Family)
I Mahtomedi
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
10 % of the undeveloped fair,market value or $ 200/lot whichever is greater.
1•
-9-
TABLE II (cont `d)
(\. Eagan I
Single Family or duplex $ 440/unit
Townhouse $ 365/unit
Apartments & condominiums $ 275/unit
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of $ 0.04/S.F. of development less roadways.
Woodbury
Single Family $ 400/unit
Duplex $ a00/unit
Multi Family $ 200/unit
CONMERCIAI;/INDUSTRIAL '
The cash equivalent of $ 1,200/acre - industrial, $ 1,500/acre - commercial,
$ 1,800/acre office.
Eden Prairie
Single Family $ 420/unit
All other $ 320/unit 1
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of $ 2,300/acre.
Lakeville
A, - Single Family $ 375/unit
Duplex $ 750
Apartments/Townhouse/Condominium $ 250/unit + $ 75
above the first bedroom.
Note: Information on the cities of Mahtomedi, Eagen, Woodbury, Eden Prairie, and
Lakeville was acquired from a White Bear Township memorandum of September 15,
1987 from Jan Regan to the Town Board/Park Board.
I
I
■
I
-10-
' TABLE III
i\ PROBABLE PARK DEDICATION SUMMARY
EXAMPLE No. 1 - Single Family Residential
This example consists of a single family residential development in the City of
Vadnais Heights. Site construction was begun in 1986 and consists of 81 homes
on 42.84 acres (density: 1.89 units/acre) . The appraised undeveloped land value
is $ 8,700/acre for a total value of $ 372,708. The following is a summary
table listing each city's probable park - land or cash dedication based upon the
information within tables I and II which would be required if the development
- took place within their corporate boundaries.
rCITY CASH DEDICATION '�ND DEDIC`ITIG:Z
Arden Hills $ 37,271 4.28 acres*
Mahtomedi $ 37,271 4.28
Roseville $ 37,271 4.28 "
White Bear Twp. $ 37,271 4.28
Eagen $ 35,360
Eden Prairie $ 34, 020
Vadnais Heights $ 33,544 (actual amount paid) 3.86 ^**
Woodbury $ 32, 400 _
Coon Rapids $ 31, 104
$ 30,375 428 „
Lakeville
white Bear Lake $ 30,375 4_29 „
Little Canada $ 24, 300 q `9 „
Oakdale $ 22,275 4 .29 „
Shoreview $ 14, 908 4.29 „
11 * Value of the dedicated land: 4.28 acres x $ 8,700 = $ 37,236
** Value of the dedicated land: 3.86 acres x $ 8,700 = $ 33,582
I
1
I
-11-
1
TABLE III (cont 'd)
EXAMPLE No. 2 - Multi Family Residential
I
This example consists of an apartment complex of 113 dwelling units upon 7.25
I
acres (density: 15.6 units/acre) . The complex is in the City of Vadnais Heights
and has begun construction in late 1987. The park dedication is an estimate
based upon an appraised undeveloped land value of $12,000/acre or a total land
value of $87,000.
II
T`' CASH DEDICATIQIq LAND DEDICATION 1
Eden Prairie $ 36,160 ____
Lakeville $ 35,000 ____
White Bear Lake $ 35,000
0.72 acres II
Eagan $ 31, 075 ____
Coon Rapids $ 26, 894 1.30 "
Oakdale $ 24, 860 1.81 "
I/
Woodbury $ 22, 600 ____
Mahtomedi $ 22, 600 0.50 "
White Bear Twp. $ 19,775 1.09 "
II
Vadnais Heights $ 17, 400 1.45 "
Arden Hills $ 13,040 1.09 "
Little Canada $ 11,300 0.72 "
Roseville $ 8,700 0.72 II
Shoreview $ 8,700 0.72
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
II
-12-
TABLE III (cont Id)
EXAMPLE No. 3
I � - Commercial/Industrial
This example consists of a light manufacturing building of 24, 644 S.F upon 1.9
acres. The complex is in the City of Vadnais Heights and was constructed in
late 1986. The park dedication is an estimate based upon an undeveloped 1
value of $ 65,340/acre or a total land value of $ 124, 146. P and
T r.
SaASH D .DT ATTC� T
Arden Hills $ 18,295 SarID D�•DTCATIQ *
Arden edi (probable maximum) 0.28 acres
$ 12, 415
Oakdale $ 12, 415 0.19
Roseville $ 12, 415 0.19
Shoreview $ 12, 415 0.19
White Bear Twp. $ 12 415 0.19
Little Canada $ 6,207 0.19
Coon Rapids $ 6,207 0 .19
Eden Prairie $ 4,370 009
Eagen $ 3, 000
White Bear Lake $ 2,850 09
Woodbury $ 2,280 0.09
Vadnais Heights $ 1,200 (actual amount)
0.19 ft
7
I
I
•
I
1
1
I
. .
CITYOF
ClIANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM I
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: January 5, 1989 '
SUBJ: 1989 Park and Trail Dedication Fee Schedule
The Park and Recreation Commission is required to review the Park
and Trail Dedication requirements on an annual basis and submit a
recommendation to the City Council. Last year an extensive
review was done on this item and the fees were increased for the
first time since 1982.
The Park Dedication fee is based on raw land values and on den-
1. sity. I contacted the Carver County Assessor and he indicated
that land costs had not changed significantly in the last year.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of this office to adopt the
1988 Park Dedication fee schedule for 1989 as follows :
Single Family & Duplex $425/unit
Multi Family $300/unit
Commercial/Industrial $1 ,050/acre
The Trail Dedication fee is currently $142 per residential unit '
and $350/acre for commercial/industrial. The fee is equal to
one-third of the park dedication fee. Therefore, no change is
recommended. ,
1
I
I
1 •
1 CITY OF
CHANHASSEN 3
, ,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: February 10, 1988
SUBJ: Park Dedication Fees
At the January Park and
Y Recreation Commission meeting, this item
was tabled and staff was directed to research further our basis
for charging a fee.
The Park Dedication Ordinance was written so that parkland would
be available to meet the needs of the areas being developed. A
It developer is not required to dedicate more than the need he is
creating with the development.
The State allows municipalities to require a "reasonable" dedica-
tion of land for neighborhood park purposes . In lieu of
parkland, the City may accept the equivalent in cash. The City
has adopted 1 acre per 75 people in residential areas and 10% of
the land in industrial areas as a "reasonable" standard. This
standard was established in 1978 in the Comprehensive Plan and
has proven to be a sound requirement.
As dedication fees are collected at the time building permits are
issued, it is necessary to have a park dedication fee that is
1 uniform. The amount of the fee is determined by the City' s
average raw land value. The last survey done by the County esti-
mated the average raw land value to be approximately $10,500. To
1 illustrate how this translates, I have shown 3 examples :
1. 100-acre single-family urban development:
100 acres x 2 .5 units/acre = 250 units
250 units x 3 persons/unit = 750 people
750 75/acre = 10 acres of parkland required
If cash is to be required in lieu of land:
c10 acres x $10, 600/acre = $106, 000
$106, 000 250 units = $424 per unit
i
Park and Recreation Commission
February 10 , 1988
Page 2
2 . 100-acre single-family rural development:
100 acres x 1 unit/10 acres = 10 units
10 units x 3 people/unit = 30 people
30 75/acre = . 40 acres of parkland required '
If cash is to be required in lieu of land:
. 40 acres x $10,500/acre = $4,200 I
$4,200 - 10 units = $420 per unit
3 . 100-acre industrial site: I
100 acres x 10% requirement = 10 acres of parkland required
If cash is to be required in lieu of land: 1
10 acres x $10 ,500/acre = $105 ,000
$105 ,000 - 100 acres = $1 ,050 per acre I
4. 100-acre multi-family (R-12) :
100 acres x 12 units per acre = 1,200 units
1 ,200 units x 2 per unit = 2,400 people
2 ,400 - 75/acre = 32 acres of parkland required 1
If cash is to be required in lieu of land:
32 acres x $10 ,500/acre = $336 ,000 '
$336 ,000 - 1 ,200 units = $280 per unit
These examples illustrate that our current fee schedule is right
on target. By including the park acreage standard of one acre
per 75 people and basing the cash requirement on raw land values ,
the City Attorney is confident that we are meeting the intent of
the state statute. For future reference, these standards have
been included in the park dedication ordinance, attached.
IF
1
■
1
I
4-4P- Chapter 14
IA.. _ ing. Or the planning commission, planning agency, divisions, the council
or city council may initiate a rezoning. Rezoning is tions. Cities must file of subdivision on regula-
a legislative act and needs only some rational basis tions with the county register of deeds or registrar
I relating toioublic health, safety, morals, or general of titles.
welfare. 3Z
Because of the legal difficulties in making spe-
Subdivision Control cial assessments, cities should require subdividers to install Subdivision control is an effective means of im- proves the lllap38vements before the council ap-
t the city plan. It can promote an ade- p
I quate street and city utility system, desirable Review of Proposed Subdivisions •
population distribution,and necessary open spaces
for light, air, health, and recreation. To be effec- An important part of any subdivision ordinance
tive,a city must control new building developments is the procedure for reviewing proposed subdivi-
I at the time it subdivides or plats the land. sions.These procedures should include the follow-
ing steps.
City councils have statutory authority to approve
I subdivision plats. 33 The law states that the coun- 1. Pre-application meeting. City officials
cil must approve all plats before recording them in should meet with the subdivider to discuss
the office of the register of deeds. Before approv- applicable regulations, giving the sub-
ing the subdivision, the council may employ divider positive guidance and enough
I qualified people to check and verify the plat to freedom to help build the community.
determine its suitability from the standpoint of
community planning.The city may require the sub- 2. Preliminary plat. Following the pre-
divider to pay the cost of checking the plat. application meeting, the subdivider should
I ,T prepare a preliminary map or plat of the
- The second authorization is part of the planning
act.34 After a city has adopted a plan and platting proposed subdivision. The map should in-
elude the location and approximate dimen-
regulations, all proposed plats in the city must go sions of the lots, easements, streets, public
I to the council, which, after a public hearing, may utilities, and other public lands on, and ad-
deny approval if the plat does not conform to the jacent to, the tract. This preliminary plat
city plan or to subdivision regulations. 35 The should go to the planning commission,
I council may refer the proposed plat to the planning together with all specific information
commission for recommendations. about the proposal. Before making a deci-
sion, the commission should solicit corn-
The planning statute sets platting regulations ments and recommendations from other
I which the council may adopt. 36 They include interested groups and individuals and hold
rules concerning street improvements and the in- a public hearing on the matter.The coun-
stallation of water, sewer, utility services, and cil should review the commission's findings
I storm water drainage and holding areas. The re- and actions. The council should follow the
quirements may dedicate a given percentage of time restrictions in the statute.
land in residential subdivisions to public use for
parks, playgrounds, trails, and open space. They 3. Final plat. The planning commission
may also require a subdivider to contribute an should review the final proposed plat to
I equivalent amount in cash, based on the fair determine its conformance with the ap-
proved value of the undeveloped land. Payments proved preliminary plat . Following a
the city receives under such regulations must go public hearing, the council should review
I into a special fund to acquire land for parks, the entire project, including plans and
playgrounds, public open space, and storm water
holding areas or ponds, development of existing specifications.The city may require acon-
tract with the subdivider to assure corn-
areas, and debt retirement for land the city pliance with all necessary arrangements.
Ipreviously acquired for such public purposes. 37 The council should accept the final plat by
resolution and file it with the county
Because the statutes do not cover everything register of deeds or registrar of titles.The
I
needed to insure harmonious development of sub- city must file resolutions approving plats
Handbook for Minnesota Cities
Page 229
I
•
/ II
I
ORDINANCE NO. 0
t
CITY OF CHANHASSEN I
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
CONCERNING PARK LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
The City Council of Chanhassen ordains I
as follows:
Section 1. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by deleting the I
following sections: 14-33, 14-34, 14-35, 14-36, 14-37, and 18-77B.
Section 2. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the
il
following sections:
Section 18-78. Park Land Dedication Requirements.
(A) As a prerequisite to subdivision a II
dedicate land for parks, pla pproval, subdividers shall
and/or shall make a cash contribution tobthe City'sPPark Fundtaslls
provided by this Section.
(B) Land to be dedicated shall be reasonably suitable for its intended
I
use and shall be at a location convenient to the people to be
4: served. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed park
and recreation areas shall include size, shape, topography,
geology, hydrology, tree cover, access, and location. I
(C) The Park and Recreation Committee shall recommend to the City
Council the land dedication and cash contribution requirements
proposed subdivisions. rements for
I
(D) Changes in density of plats shall be reviewed by the Park and
• Recreation Committee for reconsideration of park dedication and 11
cash contribution requirements.
(E) When a proposed park, playground, recreational area, school site or II
other public ground has been indicated in the City's official map
or comprehensive plan and is located in whole or in part within a
proposed plat, it shall be designated as such on the plat and shall
be dedicated to the appropriate governmental unit. If the I
subdivider elects not to dedicate an area in excess of the land
required hereunder for such proposed public site, the City may
II-
consider acquiring the site through purchase or condemnation.
(F) Land area conveyed or dedicated to the City shall not be used in
calculating density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance and
shall be in addition to aiid not in lieu of open space requirements I
for planned unit developments.
k,
1
II
,4-7*-046/7Y4_
•
I
I (G) Where private open space for park and provided in a proposed subdivision, such careas omay be used fo
,' purposes is
IIFcredit, at the discretion of the City Council, against the for
requirement of dedication for
provided the City Council findsait isdine the apublic uinterest t
to do
so.
I (H) The City, upon consideration of the particular t
be dedicated if the
City determines that
I present or future residents would require
greater or lesser land for park and playground purposes.
(I) In residential plats one acre of land shall be conveyed to the
I as an outlot by warranty deed for every seventy-five eity
the platted land could house based upon thefollowin (pp people
calculations: g population
I Single-family detached
dwelling lots
3. 0 persons
II Two-family dwelling- lots
6.0 persons
Apartments, townhouses, condo-
miniums and other dwelling units
I
1. 0 person per bedroom
(J) In plats other than residential plats, a cash donation e
percent (10%) of the fair market value of the undevelo �pr to ten
ed
shall be paid. P property
(K) In lieu of a p ark land
cash donation based upon oaverage undevelopedylandu equivalent
I
valuen in the City. The cash dedication requirement shall be established annually
by the City Council. lly
I (L) In lieu of a trail land donation, the City may require
the
following cash donations for the multi-purpose pedestrian trail
. system:
IFor each lot or dwelling unit 8
$ 13.5. 00
(M) The City may elect to receive a combination of cash, land, a
I development of the land for park use. The fair market and
land the City wants and the value of the development tofathe land
shall be calculated. That amount shall be subtracted from d
I contribution required by subsection K above. The remainder shall b
the cash contribution requirement. 11 be
(N) "Fair market value" shall be determined as of the time of
I the final plat in accordance with the foll owing: filing
(1) The City and the developer may agree as to the fair market
value, or
Illt .
-2-
I
11
1
(2) The fair market value may be based upon a current appraisal
submitted to the City by the subdivider at the subdivider's
expense.
(3) If the City disputes such appraisal the City may, at the
subdivider's expense, obtain an appraisal of the property by a II
qualified real estate appraiser, which appraisal shall be
conclusive evidence of the fair market value of the land.
(0) Planned developments with mixed land uses shall make cash and/or 1
land contributions in accordance with this Section based upon the
percentage of land devoted to the various uses.
(P) Park and trail cash contributions are to be calculated at the time
building permits are issued and shall be paid when the permit is
issued by the person requesting the permit.
(Q) The cash contributions for parks and trails shall be deposited--in
either the City's Park and Recreation Development Fund or Multi-
purpose Pedestrian Trail Fund and shall be used only for park
acquisition or development and trail acquisition or development.
•
(R) If a subdivider is unwilling or unable to make a commitment to the II City as to the type of building that will be constructed on lots in
the proposed plat, then the land and cash contribution requirement
will be a reasonable amount as determined by the City Council.
(S) Wetlands, ponding areas, and drainage ways accepted by the City
shall not be considered in the park land and/or cash contribution
to the City.
Section 3 . This ordinance shall become effective immediately
Y
upon its passage and publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Chanhassen this day pf
, 1988.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN '
BY:
ATTEST: Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor
•
Don Ashworth, City Manager
-3-
11