Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 21, 1974February 25, 1974 TO: John Kalton Don Williams Pat Devitt FROM: Pete Patchin Enclosed is a summary of our discussion at our first Park Board meeting on 2-21-74. Also included is a large amount of other material that relates to items discussed in order that you may have a better understanding of what has transpired. I advise you to review it and keep it for your files for when these subjects will come up again. I have penciled notes above some correspondence in order that the point at hand may be quickly realized. Following is a summary of enclosures: Summary of discUssion 2-21-74 Park Acquistion & Development Program Land Acquisition Map Kop Option Agreement Boesser Option Agreement Pearson Letter (last correspondence) Notice of Sale - Oakwood Hills property Sewer & Water Cost - Watzl Park Dedication Fees Park Land Sale Law (HoF. 492) Planners Proposal Legality of Park Fee Ordinance (73-2) Legality of Supporting Non-City Recreation Legality - M~ves Property PaKes l&2 3-4 5 6 - 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 - 16 17 - 20 21 - 22 23 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION PARK BOARD MEETING Old Park Property 1. Memorial Park a. 11 acres in size. b. Good quality picnic facilities. c. Good quality baseball field. d. Dilapidated grandstand - problem area. e. Possibility of baseball field lights. f. Reservation system. 1. Picnic shelters - with city clerk. 2. Baseball field - high school & Jays have priority. 2. Neighborhood Parks a. Willows - 2.8 acres. 1. To be filled with sewer line dirt surplus by 7-31-74. 2. Should be graded, seeded. 3. Add playground equipment. b. Boudins Manor - 1 acre 1. Needs grading and seeding. 2. Addition of some equipment. 3. Possibility of acquiring adjacent lots for expansion. 3. Surplus lands (see enclosed map) a. 16 Parcels. b. Not developable as park property - too small. c. State law allows Prior Lake to sell these properties - see H.Fo 492 (enclosed) d. Project $20,000.00 revenue from sale of these properties over next few years. e. Oakwood Road property presently offered for sale for $12,000.00. New Park Property 1. Lakefront Community Park a. 131 acres - 2,100 ft. shoreline. b. Status of land acquisition - see enclosure. c. Costs budget - see enclosure. d. Means of payment. 1. Sale of surplus properties. 2. Park fee - see ordinance 73-2 3. Subdivision Platting dedications - 5% of land area or cash equivalent. 3. Land acquisition problems 1. Watzl Property 2. Gravel washer property (Wm. Pearson) a. Offered trade for old village dump plus cash to boot. b. Will have to pay for moving costs. CITY OF PRIOR lAKE PARK BOARD MEETING SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION (Continued) Future Park Property 1. Community divided into north and south segments by lakes. a. South portion fairly well developed. b. North portion has very light development. 2. Plans call ior a major park for both north and south sides. a. Lakefront Park satisfies need for major park on south side. b. Preliminary search for north side site is now in progress - at 100 acres. 1. Jeffers property with small lake. 2. Pike Lake area. 3. Pick up neighborhood park sites as available from platting dedications. a. Minimum size 2.5 - 3.0 acres. b. Possible addition to existing surplus park lands through future platting dedications - to make a workable park area - (North Shore Oaks). 4. Future dedication of pOint between Mud Bay & main lake from Dennis McWil liams. State & Federal Grants 1. Have received $50,000.00 grant for 1974 from State Natural Resources fund. 2. Very limited funds available in recent years - intense competition between municipalities. 3. Explain system of matching grant funds with local money on a parcel by parcel basis. a. Cannot receive grant more than once for same parcel of land. b. Cannot acquire fee title in land before grant 'is awarded. ¢. Council intends to apply for further grants in 1975-76. 4. $50,000.00 received has not been budgeted - treated as windfall at moment. Park Board will have to decide whether to add this amount to land or improvements budget. CITY OF PRIOR LAKE PARK ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AS OF 2-21-74 PURPOSE: To acquire a large multi-purpose lakefront park, while a suitable tract of land is yet available in the Prior Lake area. Rapid development and land value increases in the community make immediate acquisition of land imperative. Preferably, this tract of land should also be located to serve the center of population with the greatest convenience, (~.~= enclosed map). Also included would be a separate small lake which would be almost entirely within the boundaries of the proposed park. COSTS WLand Acquisition ~'PltnFea~Property *Watzl Property North ½ of RoLoSo #22 Approx. Approx. Estimated Status' Acreage Shoreline Cost ~ ~. - ~_--f-7~__.' 83 800 ft. $250,000' v~.~.on ~ecuz~d 22 700 ft. $ 75,000. Optic= 2.5 600 ft. $ 95,000. Negotiating 2.6 -- $ 16,000. " -- $ 6,000. " -- $ 15,000, " $ 3,200. $ 13,000. .,z',_ ~ ..- ......... $ 12,000. ~ .... '= ~"." .... Already Owned W. 225~ of Lot C, R.LoSo #39 2.0 Gravel Washer Site 5.5 Gravel Washer Moving Costs ~,~t. Paul's Church Property 4.0 wB~oeser Property 2.6 Old Village Dump 7.8 Totals 131.2 2,100 ft. $485,200. *Sand beach suitable for bathing beach. Imp rovement s Remodel Cottage as beach house Picnic Shelters Trail Development On-Site Roads Playing Fields Other Improvements 5.,000.00 lO,OOO.OO 5,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 Total Improvements $ 45,000.00 Grand Total Cost - Land Acquisition & Improvements $530,200.00 Interest Payments on C/D MEANS OF PAYMENT 38,500. oo $568,700.00 Terms of land acquisition - most parcels one year options, plus 5 year contracts for deed Proceeds: Sale of surplus properties Park fee - per Village Ordinance #73-2 - Average 125 units1 per year @ $100.00 each average = $ 12,500.00 20,000.00 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE PARK ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AS OF 2-21-74 Subdivision Platting Dedications: 100 acres per year @ $1,500.00 per acre = $150,000.00 raw land value x 5% = General Obligation Bonds2 Financed by park fees & dedication fees $20~000.00 annual revenue .07265 (30 year - 6% bonding constant) $ 7,500.00 $ 2o,ooo.oo $275,000.00 Matching Federal or State funds - to be secured sometime over 5 year payoff , period - matches $295,000.00 in local funds - Gross proceeds3 ~295,000.00 $590,000.00 NOTES: 1. Present rate of building appears to be at 80 to 100 units per year. An average of 125 units per year would yield 3750 units over 30 years, or a population growth of less than 15,000 in 30 years which is less than all planners estimates for population growth in this area. 2. General obligation bonds would be used instead of revenue bonds, even though they are funded by revenues, because GoO. bonds are about ~ of 1% cheaper on interest rates. 3. The apparent excess of gross proceeds over total cost is illusory. There would be additional costs of interest charges on the contracts for deeds on the land purchases which is impossible to accurately calculate at this time, but which would approximately offset this 'apparent excess. Estimated Contract Interest Costs Kop Contract @ 5.5% = Others $ 27,500.00 ~....11,000.00 $ 38,500.00 4. Bond issue of 10-2-73 passed for $560,000.00. As of 12-31-73, $280,000.00 of these bonds were sold - proceeds are now invested in treasury bills. Balance of bonds have yet to be issued can be issued at any time that we know that money can be spent for park purposes within two years. MoS. OV'MT I I I I I co. ~. es :54 -----.J I. I0 ,/ MARKLE' SCOTT COUNTY November 12, 1973 Mr. W. G. Pearson 7831 E. Bush Lake Rd. Minneapolis, Minn. Re: Prior Lake Gravel Washer Site Dear Mr. Pearson: It has been some time since-I sent you copies of appraisals of land sites that we had discussed trading in the process of our park land acquisition program. There has been some changes in our position since that time and it is the purpose of this letter to bring you up to date. Our bond issue for the park was passed by the voters, so we are now proceeding with land acquisitions. The Village Council has decided that it wishes to keep the 4 a'cre site on County Rd. //44, that we had discussed, trading with you. Our offer for your property would then become the appra;sed value of this property ($17,500.00) plus the cost of moving the gravel washer equipment to another location. I would appreciate hearing from you concerning your position on this matter. You may contact either myself at 926 - 6531, or Michael McGuire, Village Clerk at 447 - 4230. Yours truly, Peter J. Patchln Pricr Lake Village Councilman Mr. Mark Sullivan Coulter, Nelson & Sullivan Mid land Bank Building Mtmneapolis, Minnesota 55401 RE: Park Land Option Ralph Boeser Property Dear Mark: Here are the facts you will need to prepare the option agreement for the purchase of the Boeser Land parcel. Seller: Buyer: Purchase Price: Option Cost: Expiration Date: Ralph Boeser & Wife Carl Village of Prior Lake $12,000. O0 $300.00 cash - to be;applied to purchase price. June 30, 1973 Legal Description: Lots 2 & 3, Yhe Oaks, formerly part of R.L.S. ~53, Section 35, Township 115-22. Yours truly, PATCHIN APPRAISALS, INC. PJP:vm Peter J. Patchin, Vice President: SCOTT COUNTY i~OTICt£ OF SALE The VlllaF.:c Council of the Village of Prior Lake hereby gives, official notice that t]~e following described parcel of land, ~resently owned by the Village of Prior Lake, is for sale. The West 225 ft. of the South 178.71 ft. of the N.W. 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of Section 36, Township 115, Range 22, lying_., South o£ Oakwood Road as ~.latted in the Village of Prior Lake, Scott County, Minnesota. Site Data- 237.0 ft. frontage on Oakwood Road. ]-78.71 to 114.0 ft. lot depth land area. ^n~roximatelv .30,}00 s~ua~ et 225 ft width across }'ear lot line. Zonlns: R-2., residental with a two family dwelling, conditional use in a neighborhood of two family dwellings. I~pgovedents. Limitations. Sanitary sewer, city water, storm sewer, ~aved street, all assessments paid. Sewer main is approximately 4 to 5 ft. below street level in front of this eroperty, which would probably dictate a half baseme~t type of constpuctlon. Bid Proposals' Should be addressed to the Village Clerk's office, Prior Lahe Village ][all, Prior Lake, [4innesota, 55372. Terms: cash only, with 5% of bid price submitted in form of cashiers checks with bid proposal. Time Limitation- The Prior Lake Village Council shall not act upon any bids received until this notice has been published at least three ttme.n in the official Village newspaper. The CouncJ. 1 has the riEht to reject any and all bids with the 55 bid deposit being returned to unsuccessful biders within 45' days of date of bid. There shall be no time lirait imposed upon the Village Council as to the acceptance of a bid. Israelson & Assoc. Inc. SUITE 185, 9100 WEST BLOOMINGTON FREEWAY BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55420 CONSULTING ENGINEERS PHONE: 884-5371 october 16, 1973 Michael McGuire, Clerk Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 RE: Wat zl ' s Point Sewer & Water Mr. McGulre: The assessed cost for installation of sanitary sewers and watermains to serve the 5 lots in Watzl's Point is $18,104.25. This is based on current assessment policies. The approximate frontage is 700 feet and the approximate area is 3.73 acres. Yours truly, Israelson & Associates~ Inc. HGI/cmd cc: Mr. Pete Patchin d/ II ./ l/arch 29, 1973 Hrs. Bernice Pavic Deputy Village Clerk Village ltall Prior Lake, Hinnesota 55372 . . ' "' Re: Park DediCat~on Fees :/:... .: ..-,~ .? ,.., ..,.~ .. ~..... Subdivision Ordinance Dear Bernice:'- '" '" ~ ~' : : '"' " l~e have experienced considerable difficulty in collecting park dedication fees due under the terms of our subdivision ordinance. AC the present time, there are to the best of my knowled§e, three plots bein§ developed upon which park dedication fees are due. They are: · , Prior South - ~37.00 per housing unit .... '~ : ' Vale Addition - ~50.00 per housin~ unit . '~ ' . Blohm~s Addition - not yet negotiated .. According to the terms 'of the ordinance these fees are to be paid at the time of issuance of. the certificate of occupancy, l~ill you please instruct the building inspector to check with you to make sure these fees are paid before issuin§ a certificate of occupancy. The Oakridge Court Addition ($teiner) has agreed to pay their dedication fee in advance, at the time the ha~dshell is approved. A check for $2,500.00 should have been received before any permits are issued for this subdivision. In the future we will attempt to handle'the park dedication fees in advance such aa vas Just done for Oakrid§e Court. These fees are not to be confused vith the park charges on the individual buildin~ pexmits (Ord; ~?3-Z). If you have any questions, please call me at 926-6531. ccl ~alter Stock, Hayor Pete Patchin .~.~.TS, C]~,, G, ED FOR ,. P. rop.ert¥ Use Single f~nily dwelling Duplex or fourplex Townhouse Apartment building Mobile Home Park Boarding House or Rooming House Camps & Campgrounds Hotel or liotel Office or Clinic Cafe or Restaurant Tavern ' - Comm~rcia l Buildings Industrial Buildin§s Service Station Theatre. - - ~ -' Theatre - Drive-In,. _. Units CharRed . ~. ,. .' . I per unit I pe~ unit 0.8 per unit '~' '"!' '"~""~'~:"' 1 per unit .... ~"" '~'-"':'1 pe~ 5 persons .05 per visitor . . 1 pe~ unit -' ";"i'. .... ! per 2,400 sq.ft.* - . . .. , ' .02 per '" .0~ per '-'" ~<'~ " ~:~'~ ;~' '~1 per 3,000 sq.f~.* :.~. ~:..--I per 10,000 aq.f~.~ ! · ~' .... : ",. '" .7. :'~:, .,0i per seat " ...... -~ :- .:' ,,.c ~.02' per parking Space · oo SIXTY-EIGHTH SESSION State of Minnesota H.F. No 92 492 Introduced by ]Vlenke. Read First Time Feb. 8, 1973 and Referred to the Committee on Local Government. Committee Recommendations to Pass as Amended Feb. 26, 1973. Committee Report Adopted Feb. 26, 1973. Read Second Time Feb. 26, 1973. When existing htw is changed, matter in italics is new; matter in capitals when in ( ) is old law to be omitted. A bill for an act relating to the village of Prior Lake; authorizing the village to conduct public or private sales of its surplus park lands, proceeds to be dedicated to park capital .fund. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Mim~esot'a: 1 - Section 1. Notwithstanding ally statt,tc ~,r rule Of htw to the contrary, the village of Prior Lake 2 may conduct public or private sales of its surplus park lands that are dedicated to the public. All 3 net proceeds from such sales shall be dedicated to park capital fund of the village. The deeds of eon- 4 veyanee from the village shall convey absolute title to the purchasers. 5 Sec. 2. This act takes effect when approved by a majority of the council of the village of Prior 6 Lake and upon compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 645.021. tq CHARLES TOOKER city & t o vv n planning January 4, 1974 Mr. Michael A. McGuire Prior Lake City Clerk Prior Lake City Hall Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Dear Mr. McGuire' I am pleased to submit this proposal to initiate a Park Study for the City of Prior Lake. I am familiar wi th past planning efforts within the community and suggest that this proposal will extend the park information and help pro- vide a direction for future programs. My responsibilities shall include an inventory of all existing recreation resources plus an appraisal of the natural scenic and cultural resources having recreation and aesthetic value. I would also furnish a park system concept, site selection recommendations and a preliminary development plan for Lakefront Community Park. The attached scope of services spells out these study assignments in more detail. I can begin this study immediately and anticipate approximately three months for completion. As I indicated, the cost of this program shall be $2,000.00 payable upon completion of work phases. Thank you very much for' giving me the opportunity to become involved in the Prior Lake park planning process. Sincerely yours, Charles T. Tooker Enclosure (612) 463-7800 316 third street farmington, minnesota 55024 SCOPE OF SERVICES LAKEFRONT COMMUNITY PARK PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA A. Snventory. and Analysis 1. Review all relevant planning studies which would con- tr.ibute to the creation of an open space system for Prior Lake. The Scott County 701 plan proposals and all avail- able community park plans will be included. 2. Conduct a basic resource study of the land, water, wild life, scenic and historical assets of Prior Lake. Determine which natural features should be preserved as well as those which might be developed for recreational use. 3. Assist th(; I'ark board in formulating goals, objectives and policies including recolnlnendations for the reservation of open lands. B. Plan Development 1. Select sites and create a complete park and recreation plan including parkway concepts and connecting trail systems between various use areas. Consider semi-public and private contributions to the system. The result will extend the recreation and public land recommendations of the 701 Plan. 2. Prepare a preliminary development plan for Lake' Front Community Park to help illustrate the open space options for Prior Lake. C. Plan Presentation A development narrative shall be prepared which records the study findings and Park Board goals for future action. $ 500 $1,000 $ 500 TOTAL $2,000 ~' .'. ,,.. :-, ~ -. (, L.t! Mr. Walter Stock, Mayor Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 M~y ?3, 1973 Members of the Village Council Viilc~ge of PriOr Lake Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Gentlemen: You have asked our opinion as to the legality of Ordinance 73-2 which requires a S1C0.00 per residental unit cash payment to be added on to the building permit fca, said funds to be used for park development. ]'he general F-'ovvers clause of Minnesota Statute 412.221, is authority tsar Ihe Village to purchase and maintain property for park purposes and to Day for it from it's r..;zncral fbnd. (Opinion of the Attorney General, 476-B-10, Feb. 14, 1949). Minnesota Statute Section 412.491 also authorizes the Village to establish and tm?eve, maintain and manage parks by ordinance. Minnesota Statute Section 412.501 provides for the esfab!ishment of a Park Boord. '!f a Village doas not have a Pc~rk £oard, the Park Board's powers enumerated acm ~'-'.',.. excrci:ed by the Villog:~ Council . .,~.: In regard to raising revenue, the only authority is contained in Minnesota St~hute 412.531, Sub. 1, which provides that fo,' the purpose of carrying out the powers of 11'~:~ ',;e, rl.: ~oc,,'cl tl~cre .~'.l~c~ll be eslablisl~cd in I'l~e Village Treasury a specic;I fund c.'_~llcd ~- ~ "[)c~l'J< Fund". Statute slal'es that tl~o Village council may t'l'ansJ:or to the ParJ-. Fund ?:c!~ r.'~.~n]es as it shall consider necessary for park purposes. Presumably these monies are to come fi'om the general fund of the Village, although the statute does not specifically ~o state. Perhaps the best recognized encyclopedia of law in reflard to Municipalties is Mc~uillin, Mu~icip¢'~l t. orr'o,'"a~]ons, '3rd ~.~me 9, Section 26.01 dcals with F:-rmi~ sl~ould be ,'ea~onal:)lc c~nd li,,~]lcd in ar~";oun~ 1o l'he cost o[ exam~naf~on o[ issu(.~cc of' ll~c i)c~'illil' ci~(l ed~ni~isl'Jalion o[ I)uildin9 rcg,JlatioJ~s". I1 --2'- Two furtller sec'.'io,ls al' the McQuillir~ t e:'.l r.]~c,I will~ our F, roblem, na:naly Sec~'ion 26.32 C wl~icl, stales .... "1'he general ~'ule is I'hof o license Fee or tax cl~arged fora , .... '~it must bereasonable in arnounta,~d excessive exaction is void" Under S~:cl'ion 26.3~ lbo lexl' states .... "Wl~e,'e c, iiccnse or pe,'mJ~ [e~ or r'o,/cnura, l];~e general rule ohlains lhat tl~e sum levie~l cannot l..,.~ more tJ'~on is rcasona[~ly nc .... m ~'J'~e co _ . .......... r~ to cover si's o~ ~ranting I'he license and invesiigation~ inspecting and exercising proper police supervision." These last two sections both cite the leacling Minnesota casa of Lyons vs City of Minncalzolis, 241 Minn. 439, 63NW2nc1585 (1954). This case involves an action brouc, ht by owners of a £'as station who contended that license fees ap?!ied by the Cii'y ['o ~he Cas s.~ations wore unreasonable and invalid since they con~i'T'i'ut'cd o revenue producing mc.xsure amounl'ing to a tax. The Court ha.!d as £ollows: ':1'o require a license as a conclition p,'ocec!ant to the right er privilegg of carrying on certain tyFos ot: business is a legitimate exorcise of t'he ?alice p~)wor, the general rule is lhol', to bo held roes. enable, a license fee should be in'i'cn ' ' c, ca to cover t-I~o expenses of issuing, i-ho services of o~ia~r~ c,~'~d ethel' ex~~ directly or indirectly imFosed or incurred But, as if is al'~ " ,,.os, an imFossibility to impose a license fee which exactly equals the nr~ce:sary costs of issuance and regulation, it is ggnarally held in our decisions that to be uphclcl as a valid exercise of the police power a fao need not be ro resi'rictcd in amount as to eliminate any rea:enable revenue whicl~ is pUl-el7 incid.:~'nial ia tl,e is~.uance oF l'J~a licensa and iation oF the business. (63 Nw2nd583). (On page 588 to 589 the Court States:) "Al"' ' ~,~oug~ th.~re is a prasumpl'ion tlx~i' in execlin.cl tho licanso ,rca a law,r'ul p,.~r,,~gra was inl'c:ndL:d, c, l icci~so fo;) may so far exceed the rcasonaJ)le c~[~uJs'), and ~]~erefore invalid .... but in general it is well settled in this state that the amount of the license ~ee is lorgely~Jthin the council's sound dis..., c~ ion. ~' Although the Lyons case appears to be the latest and most comprehensive Minnesota case c!oaling with fees of this nature, however, earlier cases have consiclarcd the question. MinnooFolis Slrcet Railway Co. vs Minneapolis, 236 Minn. 109, 52 NW2nd 120 (1952) involved a license Fee for streetcars and indicated that th~ amount of the license [co should [.:g limitod to ihe cost oF issuing the license and lbo probably expens~ of police suporvision oF¢]',z:~cn~ag'od in the business. The Court found that tho increased liconso fee boreno r.:z[z:tTon to tho costs incurred by the City in th~ exercise of it's statutory powers to regulate, rnere~ore~ the fee was unreasonable and excessive. Stafc vs Lot:o's Dircct Service, 232 Minn. 175, 4.4 NW2nd 823 (1950) is involving gasoline filling stations which held fl',at on increase in ~ha licc. nsa unrca~pnc, bla and invalid and lha;' at' Icast peri' of fha prescr~k~ ' ~ faa :ax designed merely to produce more revenue for lbo municipality. Acasaclo~oo~,r is¢hatofM~;rrelli vsCityoF St. Clair c, ~ '~ ...... ., 5'7,5 · · 76 ,..i,,"- , . ~...,',.'.nc~ !44, (1959). In that case th,', city~ which was raced w~l'n fiscal problems " * - t ,.. ! ' .. ' ~ r-1 ' ' d ri'..':zJ irr_rn ~n un,~rc...oc,,c:ntocl o>'.pu:-~ion of Fopulotion and roeu[f~n rnt~:;Jz!F~l -bi'vices, :ou..;,it ~ ',' a nartial solution in cn increas.:oFihe fcc. srclcl'i~gto l':uilrji:~g. . ~""~: ~_. ,. ..... ~.~J CZ:OS From J;U] IrJing permits incrertsed fi'om $180,223.00 For th~ fi¢~'~l..~-.- year cndJng .J,. ~ 30, I?~54-,~- to S51t~ .,,_,f~n°~.. 00 for the l',scal, year ending June 30~ i'/a~ . '[t~ere was no ,"~c~ qn, ~xq Th~ court m;d l'ha~ i~ v,c,s clear t'ho~ ~::..:..z .... ,,,,~ cntirelydispro,,~ortinate to ihe cost of '~'' ' inc~rcci' c..:.,t.~ of the ' ~ - ' ' ish-a~ion thereof. The court s~ated, at pa~"~ i49: "'~-' k ,,-:!,-,,-, of ~' b'z carrind far 'fire, ina ......... ac,z~itional revenue musfr of coui-ro~ ,oo(l...c~ on to ,~o oc'.m[r~'" ........ ' c~nd [,alice and sanitation, bul' ii' CC~nnof ba I ,-, i ,..k i.,.., ion s: . - . COt"~' tilC i ,--~r':" cn,o~cc~n.cn:' of the building co.c!~ c:.:y more than could ~'o, schcols occasion".d by those who live in the housas c:roc~.;c~ in con: ............ ' ",, ....th=ir n ..... ;'~e,"$ lr'l .... rr,;J in , '' 9) from o i'h::rwi r'; [;rov~c~in nov! I'lOtl~O3. u the public problems of the community c:nd tho ihe C..m~cral revcn~,os of I',~a cily, ri.of on a fi:::~ b:'.sJs court also stated at pa.r;,~ 150: I1'i I ¢ ~1,. ~ ,,~...~. [:3Ii,'::, ?-:~war ,nay ;~ot !~a used t~s a ~ul..c.,'luga 1o cnocl' (~n<~ cnforc ~ ,'., ::.:r is in rc':iI ity o ravcnue raisi,~g orcJir~anco," The Michig.qn court also cites tho Now Jersey case of Daniels vs Burrough of Point xeS, 2ua (]957), one which New Jersey ccur';' struck ,-~::::':~::'.', /.o NJ 0~7, lzgAl'lantlc 2nd ~' " ' ..... /~ ,'o f CO:f O '.:;'.":~ n'~'.'z b~jitcling, p~rrnit f,...~ which excced::d by. more then -~3<~' I-~,~ f in~,~c:'inn.,, ~ fha ' 01~1tlC111C... WeS I'C~lf .... I'q~ U" i:u~1,".,.ncs c'nd r~,ulating the construction TI~a purl:3~'~ o'[: th3 · "' ' ~ i'o v:::1 ,_. c:::ic~7 ~h3 incrpasod cost of schools and olhcr government serviccs. Tho F~ilocaF. hy ,',rdi~c:nc2 was lhet the tax rate of lhe buorrough should rcmain the ~ama c~nd that ncw ~':-..,:~i=~{] ir~lo tl~e mui~icil>ali'y should bcar the burden of ~'ha incrcascd cost o'F t'hcir court l'nought tl,ot /',~is was totally conl'rar~ Io lax philosophy ~s Io rcquire It .can be scan from the cases mentionad~ one_. general objection to Crdin:::c.: 73..-2 is that i~' requires ~hat thosr~ coming into thc community finance the park sys~'cm r,.:i",~,::r -4- cdministral'ion and should not be used as a revenue measure. x~n,i~e i1' is true that the Minnesota cases cl~ed do not deal specificc~11y ..... tI ~ I' 0 S Lui~:I~ng i':r:rrr'it [ecs, their rca~onln~couIJ ~ appiicd to attack ,'n~crc,~nanc--. it i our " ~' . , ' , ~ -"~f I in which m t var7 we,I ba ,uccuu., 0 p~:",~c;'l 1~ .... ~ ' ,,al' a court CJ~Cljcnr':~ i'O OrdJnclnce 73-2 , have ~o be reimbursed to the ........ ,~ ;~.,~ c~l~cc, tcd und'sr the ordinance would m*~viously, tacking an ex'i'ranoous foe onto the building permit has n~,;~ . ~:~ c,:',~cr ins;'c:ncos~ such c'.s the Metropolitan Council cd~ing o charge for ~"~'~'~ capacity oF i''~ :.~v"ur sys~'am, l.,s long as no one I~as any reason to challenge this arrangement, c~ht bm = on behalf cf such c:n c:rrc::~:~emCni', thrd- c~s !ong as the building permit fees are not gross1'/disFroporti°nate ~ ,- ,.- '-' .-,,: lhat perhaps t'hcn a court would bo reluct.znt to overturn i'he Yours vary truly, ORDINANCE 74-3 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PARK BOARD IN THE CITY OF PRIOR .AKE AND PROVIDING FOR ITS OR- GANIZATION, POWERS AND DUTIES. The City Council for the City of Prior Lake hereby ordains: SECTION 1. Formation of Park Board: A. There is hereby established in the City of Prior Lake, a Park Board, which shall operate in accordance with this Ordinance and :,n accordance with Minne- sota Statutes, Chapters 412.491 to 412.531, inclusive. B. The Park Board shall consist of four (4) members, one of whom shall be a councilman, appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the City Council. C. One member of the original Board shall serve for a term of one (1) year, one member for a term of two (2) years, and one for a term of three (3) years; and thereafter, one shall be aPpointed each year for a term of three (3) years. Vacancies shall be filled for the remainder of the original terms by appointment of the Mayor with the consent of the City Council. D. Members of the Park Board shall serve without compensation unless the Council authorizes compensation, and then 'n that event, it shall not exceed the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per year for each member. In any event, each member shall b.e entitled to reasonable reimburse- ment for travel and other necessary expenses incurred. E. Any member may be removed by the Mayor with the consent of the City Council for cause after hearing by the Council. SECTION H. Organization and Procedure: A. The Board shall choose one of its members as Chairman and may select a secretary from amon_g its own members or otherwise. Thc Secretary shall serve without compensation unless compensa- tion is allowed by the City Council and fixed not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per year. B. The Board may adopt and from time to time amend Rules of Procedure. C. The Board shall make quarterly reports of its activities to the City Council D. The Village Attorneys shall act as attorney for the Park Board. E. The Park Board shall file with the City Clerk immediately after the close of the calendar year an annual statement of it's receipts and disbursements. This report is to be included as part of the annual financial statement of the City Clerk in conformity with Section 421.281. SECTION Ill. Control of Park Activities: A. The Park Board shall have a full and exclusive control of the activities occurring on Park property. SECTION IV. Power of the Park Board: A. The Park Board may employ necessary personnel and fix their compen- sation. B. The Park Board may construct roadways, buildings and other necessary structures and improvements in parks, provided funds are available therefor. C. The Park Board may construct the consent of the City Council make contracts, leases for the construction and operation of the Park facilities for a term not to exceed five (5) years, but said leases shall be terminable at the discretion of the Council D. The Park Board may purchase all necessary materials and supplies, equip- ment and services, provided funds are available therefor. E. The Park Board shall insure that park property is maintained, beautified and cared for. F. The Park Board may provide musical and free entertainment for the general public, provided funds are available. G. The Park Board may perform whatever other acts that are reasonable, necessary and proper to carry out the powers above set forth. SECTION V. Park Funds: A. For the purpose of carrying out the powers of the Park Board, there shall bc established a special fund to be called a "Park Fund." B. The City Council may transfer to the Park Fund such monies as it shall consider necessary for park purposes. C. The Park Board may conduct benefits for the purpose of raising monies, run concession stands and solicit donations providing such activities are approved by the City Council and not in conflict with existing laws. D. Not later than September 1st of each year the Park Board shall present to the Council in such detail as the Council shall require, it's annual estimate of financial needs of the Board for the ensuing fiscal year and shall as a part of such estimate submit a budget outlining proposed expenditures. E. The Park Board shall in the same manner as the City Council under Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.271, Sub- division 1, and to the same extent, audit claims to be paid from the Park Fund, provided, however, that no expenses may be paid, no obligations incurred, which would result in an overdraft in said Park Fund. The Secretary of the Park Board shall draw his order upon the City Treasurer for the proper amount allowed by the Board and presentation orders shall be paid by the City Treasurer. SECTION VI. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Dated this 7th day of January, 1974. /s/Walter Stock Walter Stock, Mayor Attested to by: Michael McGuire, City Clerk Prepared by: COULTER, NELSON & SULLIVAN Attorneys for the City of Prior Lake 338 Midland Bank Building Minneapolis, Minnesota SS401 339-8131 CHARLES R. COULTER V. OWEN NELIION MARK SULLIVAN .., LYLE R. FREVERT GEORGE A. BECK ~)ULTER, NELSON AND SULLIVAN . A~ORNEY~ AT LAW 330 MIDLAND ~ANK BUILDINg MINNEAPOLIS, MINNEIOTA 612--339~131 May 8, 1973 Mr. Walter Stock, Mayor Village 'Council Members Village Hall Prior Lake, Minnesota Gentlemen: You have asked whether the Village has authority to pay or aid in payment of a light bill incurred by a private baseball club which rents a baseball field from a church. The legal question involved, is whether such an expenditure would violate the rule that public funds cannot be used for private ends, which rule is en~bodied in the Minnesota Con- stitution, Article IV, Section 33. The most recent case in this regard is that of Pipestone v. Madsen, (Minn.) 178 NW2d 594 (1970) wherein the court re- iterated its view that a public purpose within the rule that public funds may be expended only for public purposes is not susceptible to a precise definition, each case turning upon the particular end sought to be accomplished. Generally, how- ever, the court holds that a public purpose is such an activity as will serve as a benefit to the community as a body and which at the same time is directly related to the functions of govern- ment. Generally, the cases hold that a public purpose has for its objective the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, general welfare, security, prosperity, and contentment of all the inhabitants or residents within the municipal corporation. The modern trend of decision is to expand and liberally construe the term "public use". The Pipestone case, indicates that the right of the public to receive and enjoy the benefit of the use determines whether the use is public or private. The case of Visina v. Freeman, (Minn.) 89 N.W.2d 635 (1958), held that the determination What is and what is not a public use is initially for the legislative body and finally for the .courts and that great weight must be given to the finding of the legislative body. The court held that the mere fact that some private interests may derive an incidental benefit from Mr. Walter Stock Village Council Members - 2 - May 8, 1973 the activity does not deprive it of its public nature if its primary purpo~e is public. There is no dodbt that under Minnesota Statute ~412.221 and specifically under the general welfare section of that statute, the Village has authority to provide funding for recreational facilities for its citizens. It is our opinion that the payment by the Village of a private baseball club's light bill would be constitutional and any challenge to the payment would be unsuccessful in court. The use of funds in this manner obviously provides a source of entertainment and recreation for the citizens and this would appear to be the dominant purpose of the expenditure. While there may be some incidental benefit to the private organization, this would not prevent the use of public funds in this manner. Very truly yours, CO~.TER, NELSON & SULLIVAN George A. Beck GAB/mm tv~uy ~U, 1713 Mrs. Ellen Maves Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Dear Mrs. Mayas: The followMg Is an extract of minutes of the regular Vlllago Count[! meeting of May 21st, 1973 regarding action taken on your proposal !'o the Village Council: Mrs. Ellen Maves has made the following proposal to the Village Council: (She is the fee owner of lot adjacent to Lot I~ Maves First Lake Addition and also the owner of Lot 7 of Maves Second Lake Addition. Both are subject to non-exclusJve easements to various property owners in the area covered by the two lots for the pur- pose of ingress and an egress from the lcke. She proposes to convey the fee title to t-he Village of Prior Lake subject to the easements and the Village in turn can grant to tho public and ot'her~ similar easements for Ingress and egre:.s to and from ;ho iako~ but not to pormlt' l'he orocl'ion of a~y sh'uclurcs l!mreon. Tills convoycmce "" bli conditioned only on the Villago assuming theunpaid would be a gift to ,h~. pu c ;'c~xcs and assessments thereon). Tho special assessment figures dn Lot 7, Block I Mayas 2nd Addition and on tho lake access in Govt Lot I, Soclion 36~ Town~hlp 115, R~:mg, 22 ~'~ro as follows: Lot 7, Block !, $789.88 a,M on ti~u access $89'/:/97,. ~.XJ'loi'noy Mark Sullivan recommended tho Vi Ilaga reieci- the offer of Mrs. Ellen Maves because lhe entire Village would assume the costs and also said aszossmonfs and all residents will not be able to utilize sald property. A poll was taken of the, council fo see what their views were~ after which a motion was made by Councilman Wafkins to reject the offer of Mrs. Ellen Maves to convey the fee title of Lot l, Maves First Lake Addition and Lot 7 of Maves Second Lake Addition to H~.e Village of Prior Lake~ ihe motion was seconded by Councilman Busse and upon a vote taken, It was duly passed. If you have any questions regarding the above~ feel free to call me. V , VV; (.3'entz., .~. I(.'r14, .