The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7A - PAC Funding SourcesAGENDA# PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND: 7(A) BILL MANGAN, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIS CUSS PARKS ADVISORY COMMITFEE RECOMMENDED FUNDING SOURCES FOR FUTURE PARK AND TRAIL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT. DECEMBER 5, 1994 This item is a result of a City Council directive to the Pm-ks Advisory Committee to research and recommend funding soumes for future pm'k acquisition and development based on the five year CIP and the proposed 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The PAC has researched and discussed the different funding sources and developed a recommendation to the City Council. Historically, the City of Prior Lake has funded Community Park and Trail land acquisition and development from the General Fund balance which has been matched with State and Federal grant proceeds. While this may have been acceptable in the past, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to acquire lands, much less develop them. The Pm'k Dedication fee that is charged at the time of the building permit application is used for trail development within the subdivision and the development of the neighborhood parks. There is no funding mechanism for community parks and the citywide trail system. The cun'ent policy for acquisition of park land for the different kinds of parks is as follows: TOT LOTS; NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS; 10% land dedication or fee in lieu of land based on raw land value of $8,000 per acre for Residential and $1 per square foot for Commercialflndustrial. COMMMUNITY PARKS; State and Federal Grants matched contribution. with General Fund ENVIRONMENTAL PARKS; State and Federal Grants, General Fund, 10% Pm'k Dedication, donation, or Wilderness Easement (The Wilds). TRAILS AND WALKWAYS; Municipal State Aid, General Fund. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER DISCUSSION: The current policy for ~ of parks and trails is as follows: TOT LOTS, NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS; $400 per building permit park dedication fee. COMMUNITY PARKS AND PLAYFIELDS; State and Federal Grants and contribution from General Fund to match grant. ENVIRONMENTAL PARKS; $250 per building permit trail dedication fee. TRAILS AND WALKWAYS; Citywide Trail System-Municipal State Aid, Ad Valorem taxes, General Fund contribution. Neighborhood trails-S250 per building permit trail dedication fee. In reviewing the existing funding sources for land acquisition and development, it is apparent that there is no ongoing mechanism to acquire and develop land or to develop citywide trails and community parks. As a result, this was the major focus of the Parks Advisory Committee discussion. For the purposes of discussion, their are basically four methods of raising funds for the purpose of acquisition and development of park land. Those methods are as follows: 1. Park Bond Referendum. 2. Ad Valorem Taxes. 3. Impact fees on new development. 4. Franchise fees on public utilities. Of these four methods, a successful Park Bond Referendum is the most preferable since this would be approved by the voters for the specific purpose of expansion or enhancing the park system. Ad Valorem taxation is very difficult in a growing community because there is so much demand for the tax dollar yet everyone wants to hold the line on increased taxes. A franchise fee, while unpopular to the residents, is an equitable method of raising revenue because this is a tax that is uniform across the board. An example of this is the $5 per billing period on the Sewer and Water bills for Capital Facilities. An impact fee is what we currently use for the park dedication fee for new building permits. This is the $650 that is dedicated to the Capital Park Fund, $250 for trail construction and $400 for neighborhood park development. Attached for your review is a copy of the preliminary Parks and Open Space portion of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. While this plan has not been adopted, it does provide staff with a guide from which to make future decisions based on certain standards. At the top of the page is the future park sites inventory showing the open ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: space that is recommended for acquition by the year 2010. At the bottom of the page is the Athletic Facility Need which shows the various playfields, the number of existing fields, the local standard necessary, the current facilities needed per population and the facilities need by 2010 based on that population. Given this information, the Parks Advisory Committee met at their regular meeting of November 14, 1994, to discuss various alternatives. This item has been discussed at the PAC at every meeting since it first appeared on the agenda in July. After considerable discussion, the following motion was made by Sam Emond: A motion proposing that future park acquisition and development be funded by a Park Bond Referendum to include at a minimum, those items listed in the five year Capital Improvement Program and the proposed 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Further, that any other funding sources not be excluded to fund these projects. With a second to the motion by Art Schoot, the motion passed unanimously. In addition to the recommendation for a referendum, the PAC requested that staff review the Park Dedication fee for building permits annually in the event that those fees could be used to supplement the monies acquired through the referendum. An adjustment of the impact fees should be made annually so that those fees can augment the development of the park system and the city will not fall behind on development and have to "catch up". The alternatives available to the City Council are as follows: Accept the recommendation of the Parks Advisory Committee and proceed with plans for a Park Bond Referendum with the amount of the referendum and the date of the referendum to be recommended by the Parks Advisory Committee and determined by the City Council. Do not accept the Parks Advisory Committee recommendation and send the issue back for further research. 3. Table this item until the 2010 Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Staff would recommend Alternative #1, accept the recommendation of the PAC and proceed with plans for a Park Bond Referendum in 1996 as reflected in the 1995-1999 Capital Improvement Program. Based on the survey of 1990, the community supported trails and walkways followed closely by expanded and improved athletic facilities. With the number of participants in P.L.A.Y., soccer, and hockey, there should be enough support in the community for a referendum for these improvements. In addition, safe trails and walkways were the ACTION REQUIRED: REVIEWED BY: AGN8 number one priority of those respondents to the community survey in 1990. In the event that a Park Bond Referendum would fail, rather than abandon the Parks and Open Space element of the 2010 Plan, staff would recommend that this matter be referred back to the PAC for further research. At that time, the PAC would revisit the use of the other financing options and the possibility of paring back our parks and trails aspirations and come back with another recommendation to the City Council. Depending on the discussion, a motion is in order directing staff Committee on one of the three alternatives. FUTIJ'RE PARK SITES INVENTORY SIZE IN PAR/< NAME ACRES CLISSIFICAlqON EST. COST Pike Lake JO Knob Hill C [ North Shor~ Oaks D t Vierting Farm F i Island View O i Ko~ I C&,'dinal Hei.~hrm I [ Bmoksv/IIe Hills I } Marktev Lake [Community Trails TOTAL 12 3O 10 I0 25 15Mi. Commumry Pazk~lavi:ield 500,000 N~/~thborhood Park Pk. Dod. Nei.~.hborho~d Park Community Park Pk. Ded. 500,000 Environmental Ooen Soac¢ Pk. Ded. Nei,ahborhood PaZ,</Envirorrmenr. al 200,000 So~ial Use Park Nei.~hborhood Park Nei.mhborhocd Park EmSronmenm/Ooen S ~ac.' 200,000 Pk. Ded. Pk. Ded. 200,000 Linear Park 400~000 $2,000,000 ATHLETIC FACILITY NEED No. of ~xisring Cur':. =hr F-_cilikes facilities in Facilities N~ded by Prog,mmmed Community P -~.<~ L¢cal N~d 20 I0 Plav'ieids or Plavfietds Standard (Pop. 11.482) (Pop. 10,200) Softball } 8 [ 1/1000 I l i [ 20 Bazeball [ 3 I 1/3000 } 4 ! 7 Socc~r/Foo~ball [ 4 ! 1/4000 [ 3 I 5 Hockey I 2 I 1/6000'= I 2 t 3 Pl~,-ure Slenrin.~= t 9 ] 173000 ] 4 } 7 Term~" I 0 I 1/1500 I S I 13 '"i'nis srm. ndard is higlner than .typical since the demand for hockey is one: by the indoor toe ar~,na ' May be provid~ in either playSelcis or neighborhood parks 1995 CAPITAL BUDGET and 1995-1999 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS I.Description and Location: Paving .Lakefront Co .mmun. i.ty. Par.k roads ~d parking ors w~tn concrete curt> ana t>tturmnous surfaces. II.Purpose: Paving access roads and parking lots for dust and traffic control will enhance the ~mage of the park system and provide better traffic control. Department: Parks & Recreation Project Title: Pa~k Paving Project Number: Project Useful Life: 25 Years III.Needs Assessment: Medium Priority Ranking: 2 IV.Cost/Benefit Impact Statement: p~r, re. mend. ous .benefit. to comm.u, ni~j~ equal to cost. m.s prolect .~,s, co~ntmge,nt on. me q, zv Improvement oject. It wm not stanct on ~ts own. Project Financing ] 1995 I 1996 I 1997 I 1998 I 1999 Property Tax Project Lev? 150,000.00 Equipment Certificates Special Assessments Intergovernmental Ci.ty MSA Funds Capital Park Funds Fund Balance Grant/Contributions Other/ Construction(New) 150.000.00 Renovations/Repairs Land Acquisition Buildings & Plant Equipment Vehicles Other - · I 0,0®.00 I I I I - CIP-14 1995 CAPITAL BUDGET and 1995-1999 CAPITAL I3{PROVEM~NTS I.Description and Location: The Pond Athletic Complex-Irrigation II.Purpose: .Irrigation of athletic fields p. rovides s.afe, quality,. lastin~ turf. Irrigation will significantly enhance ttae c.o,ndi¢o.n, and appearance of'the fields while reducing ask or injury to users. Department: Parks & Recreation Project Title: The Pond Complex Irrigation Project Number: Project Useful Life: 25 Years III.Needs Assessment: Medium Priority Ranking: 2 IV.Cost/Benefit Impact Statement: By irrigation, turf will not require constant renovation and it saves money in the long mn. Project Financing [ 1995 I 1996 [ 1997 [ 1998 I 1999 Property, Tax Project Levy, Equipment Certificates Special Assessments Intergovernmental Ci,ty MSA Funds Capital Park Funds Fund Balance Grant/Contributions Other/(Referendum~ 100,000.00 Construction(New) 100,000.00 Renovations/Repairs Land Acquisition Buildings & Plant Equipment Vehicles Other CIP-16 I 1995 CAPITAL BUDGET and 1995-1999 CAPITAL EMPROVEMENTS I.Description and Location: The Pond Athletic Comp, lex Liehtine and Field Expansion, includine: 2 SoftbalI F_iel'ds, 2 Football/Soccer Fief'ds, 4 Tennis Courts. II.Purpose: To expand athletic fields to meet the demand from the c~ommun, ity a.s id&ntified within the master Parks comprenens~ve man. Department: Parks & Recreation Project Title: Pond Field Expansion Project Number: Project Useful Life: 50 Years HI.Needs Assessment: Medium Priority Ranking: 1 IV. Cost/Benefit Impact Statement: Cost, s ,w, ill. provide.adequ,ate~pumb, er of athl. etic fields avalmme to meet clemana, there ~s currently a shortage of, pla~v~,elds resulting in residents not having access to pmyneias. Project F~ancin~ Proper ,ty Tax Project Lev~ Equipment Certificates Special Assessments Intergovernmental Ci,ty MSA Funds Capital Park Funds Fund Balance Grant/Contributions Other/(Referena~um) TOTAL 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 325,000.00 325,000.00 Project Expenditures Construction{New) Renovations/Repairs Land Acquisition Buildings & Plant Equipment Vehicles 1995 ] 1996 Other TOTAL 325,000.00 325,000.00 CIP-17 1997 1998 1999 1995 CAPITAL BUDGET and 1995-1999 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS I.Description and Location: Lakefront Park Land Acquisition and Entrance Relocation. II.Purpose: Prer>are plans, identify those uses most compatible with our largest open svace park and develop, those facilities consistent with our existing Master Plan or a new one at City Council direction. Department: Parks & Recreation Project Title: Lakefront Park Development Project Number: Prqject Useful Life: 50 Years III.Needs Assessment: Low Priority Ranking: 1 IV. Cost/Benefit Impact Statement: L~akefront P_ar.k is currently under utiljze~d fo.r a variety or re. asons. Ihis~projec.t would proyiae rqr the maximum use or a major commumty par~:. Project Financing [ 1995 [ 1996 [ 1997 I 1998 I 1999 Property Tax Project Levy, Equipment Certificates Special Assessments Intergovernmental Ci.ty MSA Funds Capital Park Funds Fund Balance Grant/Contributions Other/(Referendum) 400,000.00 Construction(New) Renovations/Repairs Land Acquisition 400,000.00 Buildings & Plant Equipment Vehicles Other CIP-18