Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 [05] May 12May 12, 2004 Page 1 of 2 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the St. Joseph Planning Commission and St. Joseph Park Board met in Joint session on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 at 6:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Planning Commission Members Present: Chair (Council Liaison) Gary Utsch. Commissioners Jim Graeve, Mike Deutz, Bob Loso, Marge Lesnick. St. Joseph Park Board Members Present: Chair Bruce Berghorst. Board Members Chuck Muske, Dedra Duehs, Marge Lesnick, Bob Loso. Council Liaison Dale Wick. Others Present: AI Rassier. Utsch opened the meeting and stated the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposed amendment to Ordinance 54.1 S, Park Dedication. The Planning requested to meet jointly with the Park to discuss the need for changing the fee and why the change is requested. Weyrens stated that at this meeting the Planning Commission should focus vn the methodology of determining the fee, not the rate that will be charged. The City Council will review the request of the Park Board and establish the fee. Berghorst stated that the Park Board was provided information from Waite Park, whereby they completed an analysis of the area Park Dedication policies. This analysis indicated that St. Joseph charged below what the other Cities are charging. In addition, the Cities reviewed all charge the Park Dedication. Fee on a per lot basis rather than a percentage of the land value. Wick stated that the Park Dedication fees are the only revenue source for the Park Board and those funds must be able to provide recreational opportunities. Loso stated that he is concerned that the City does not budget for Park Development. Weyrens responded that when the City was faced with $ 126,000 in LGA cuts, the Council reviewed the entire budget and tried to determine how to maximize the revenue. The City is experiencing rapids growth and the park dedication fees far exceed any monies the City could budget for Park Development. Therefore, the Council eliminated the 2003 Park Development Budget and stated that until development slows down, they will not budget additional funds. Weyrens further stated that the City does provide financial support to the Park as the Public Works budget includes maintenance and capital outlay. Deutz and Utsch stated that they agree that the formula should be based on a per lot fee, but question what the number should be. The City has implemented many new fees and they are concerned that increasing the dedication fee substantially will have a negative effect on development. Utsch stated that he is also concerned that the City requires connection or establishment of trails in addition to the Park Dedication fees. Lesnick stated it is her opinion that the City should be concerned with the profit the developers are making, rather what impact a proposed development has on park requirements. Deutz took exception to the comments of Lesnick and stated the discussion at this meeting should not be what the developer is making, rather the need for the fee and how parks will be sustained. Wick stated that the Park Board is working on a Capital Improvement Plan and some of the improvements include bathrooms for Klinefelter and Northland. It is estimated that the bathrooms will cost approximately $ 25,000 each. Park Development is expensive and the Park Board wants to assure that park development is ongoing and equipment and facilities can be updated and expanded as necessary. Weyrens stated that the fee should be related back to the Capital Improvement Plan and what funds are needed to develop parks based on an established plan. Weyrens stated that the per lot fee is an equitable method and she recommends implementing the new methodology. However, the City needs to make sure that the fee charged is equitable to both the City and developer. Loso made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt an amendment to Ordinance 54.18, Park Dedication fees and change the method for calculating dedication fees from the current percentage of land value to a per lot fee. The per lot fee will apply to all residential zoning May 12, 2004 Page 2 of 2 districts, with R1 based on a per lot basis and R3 based on number of units. Commercial and Industrial requirements will remain at 2% of the fair market value. The motion was seconded by Lesnick. Discussion: Utsch again stated that he is concerned that the City is asking the Developer to contribute a park dedication fee and a trail fee. Deutz concurred with Utsch and questioned if charging the developer for both is equitable. Utsch stated he is not opposed to the new methodology, just the proposed fee. Deutz questioned if the Park Board surveyed the Cities such as Avon? Berghorst stated that he did contact Cities with the same poplulation such as Zimmerman and Baxter. Of all the Communities Berghorst contacted, St. Joseph had the least expensive Park Dedication fee. Loso amended the motion to include that the Cities of St. Cloud, Waite Park, Sauk Rapids, and Bartell will be contacted to determine if their Park Dedication Fees include trails or if the Developer is required to construct trails in addition to the dedication fee. The trail system can include sidewalk andlor bituminous surfacing. If the majority of the Cities contacted include trails, then that will carry forward to a recommendation to the Council. If they have a separate trail requirement, that fee will be added to the dedication fee. Lesnick agreed to the amendment and the motion carried unanimously. Adjourn: Loso made a motion to adjourn at 6:55 pm; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. ~y d Weyfens d inistrator