The URL can be used to link to this page

1997-04-08 Parks and Rec Comm Agenda Packet (2) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTYU IINNESOTA AGENDA PARKS AND RECREATION CONMIISSION April 8, 1997 6:30 p.m.-Large Conference Room 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the March 11, 1997 Minutes 4. Park Dedication Fees 5. Prioritization of Open Space 6. Updates • • Caren Road Detention Pond • North Kensington Park • Wentworth Picnic Shelters • Wentworth Park Warming House • Dakota County CIP • Wood Duck Houses in City Ponds • Full-Time Recreation Facilitator • Park Police Summary for 1996 • Parks Report • Police Report(Available Tuesday) 7. Adjourn Auxgiary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received,the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however,be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 452-1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 3, 1997 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Park Dedication Fees DISCUSSION At the March 117 1997 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Commission asked Staff to place the park dedication policy on the April 8, 1997 agenda. The Commission also asked Staff to provide a comparison of what other cities require for their park dedication. The Commission was concerned that$750 may be low compared to what other Cities were asking for, especially in proportion to the land values in Mendota Heights. The current park dedication policy can be summarized as follows: Residential development. Upon subdivision, the developer must pay the City$750 per residential lot created or cede to the City an equivalent value in land. Commercial/industrial development. Upon subdivision, the developer must pay to the City at least 10% of the fair market value of the gross area created as a result of the plat, replat or lot division, or cede to the City an equivalent value in land. Constitutional Restraints Placed!!Von Cities Staff attended a workshop this week hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities. One of the guest speakers at this workshop, attorney George Knutson, explained that any Park Dedication Fee that a City wishes to exact from a developer must meet three legal tests in order to be considered legitimate: 1. The City must be able to demonstrate that the fee or land exaction is necessary to meet an increase in demand for park services or to mitigate a negative impact upon the park system caused by the development itself. i 2. The amount of the fee or land exaction must be roughly proportional to an increase in demand or negative impact caused by the development itself. 3. The entirety of the fee or land exaction must be used for the park system, and may not be merged with the general fund or used for any other purpose. Mr. Knutson said that the first two tests are easier to meet in the case of residential subdivisions than in the case of commercial or industrial subdivisions. It is relatively easy to demonstrate that a residential subdivision will increase the demand for park land and park services because it will bring more residents to the City who will use the park system. The link between increased commercial or industrial activity in the City and increased demand on park services is more tenuous. The City of Mendota Heights justifies its commerciaUmdustrial exactions because of the trail system running through the industrial park which workers can use during lunch and the fact that employees of Mendota Heights businesses are eligible to participate in local programs such as softball teams. Mr. Knutson also informed the audience that the recent court decision overturning the City of Eagan's Road Impact Fee has inspired the development community to challenge other such fees, including park dedication fees. It is therefore imperative that any increase in a city's park dedication fee be well thought out and fully defensible, based on more than merely"keeping up with Plymouth." In the case of Mendota Heights, this means that our Park Dedication policy should be consistent with goals and standards for parks and open • space as expressed in our Comprehensive Plan. Please see the following attached materials: 1. Resolution 91-94 amending the park dedication policy for the City 2. A comparison of other cities' park dedication fees provided by Councilmember Smith 3. Land Use Update: Dolan v. City of Tigard: Shifting the Burden by James G. Golembeck 4. New Federal Law Affecting Real Estate Practice- Case Law and Proposed Responsive Le 'slgi ation by John M. Koneck More information on this issue will be available Tuesday evening. ACTION REOUIRED This is an information item only. r CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Dakota County, Minnesota • RESOLUTION NO. 91- 94 RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 80-16, ESTABLISHING A PARK CONTRIBUTION FORMULA WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Statute, Section 462.358, Subd. 2, and Mendota Heights Subdivision Ordinance, Section 6, the City Council is authorized to require a park contribution for the platting or replatting of land; and WHEREAS, said park contribution may be either in the form of a cash contribution or a percentage of the gross area of the plat, whichever is deemed most appropriate by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, said open space contributions or cash contributions must be used for the purpose of maintaining and protecting open space or developing existing public open space; and WHEREAS, it is deemed advisable that the cash contribution be based on a standard contribution formula. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, that Resolution No. 80-16 be amended in its entirety; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following park contribution formula shall apply to all requests for platting, replatting or division of existing lots for which a cash contribution is deemed appropriate by the City Council: a. Property owner or developer shall contribute a minimum of $750 for each residential lot created as a result of plat, replat or lot division approval; and b. Cash contributions in the case of commercial/industrial plats, replats or lot divisions shall be at least ten (10) percent of fair market value of the gross area created as a result of the plat, replat or lot division; and BE •IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the contribution shall be payable • upon approval of the plat, replat or lot division or in a manner as outlined in the Subdivision ordinance. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 17th day. of December, 1991. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By 'A ,r a -ce Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor ATTEST: athleen M. Swanson, City Clerk 03i20i97 13:19 3M BLDG 42-SW-06 4 612 452 e940 NO.749 D05 WED-21-97 FRI 04 :79 pin OAKDALE NATURE CENT 777 6003 02 PARK DEDICATION FEES TOTALS 1996 TYPE OF UM7"OR DEt%>;'LOPMENT ' *_CatY Sin%le Family puplex Townbagse qud Mniri F=Up Moaae Some Commercial Industrial per Unit per Unit per Unit per Unit Unit Develop. Develop. :Acre acre Ptyaronth 51.300.00 S1.J99.00 SI]40.00 SI300.00 51.300.00 54.11".00 54,030.o0 Eden Prairie 1,200.00 1,200.00 1.200.00 1,200.00 1.200.00 4,500.00 4.300•00 Chanhassen 1,100.00 1,100.00 900.00 900.W 1.100.00 4,500.00 4,500.00 «�oodb+lr}r 1,000.00 1.000.00 t.000.00 800.00 350.00 200.00 Z.000.00 Cottage 1.000.00 750.00 710.00 7J0.00 1.000.00 4%of Fair i•/.of Per Market YaL Marko Val. Grove tskcville 900.00 900.00 900.00 900.00 900,00 5%of Pair 3%of Fair Market Val. Market Val. Maple 345.00 345.00 545.00 a45.Uc1 NA 3.600.00 2.775.00 Crow Brooklyn 800.00 800.00 600.00 6M.00 NA 2,990.00 l,soo.ao Fuk Maplewool 765.00 607.50 607.50 Z.7 person x 56Z.50 9'/c of Fair 9%affair rate x+tunits Markcr Val. Marl:d Val. New 730.00 650.00 500.D0 3M.00 500.00 NA NA Brighton Little 623.00 623,00 NA 312.30 NA 50/0 of Fair Market Yal. J•/Market Val. Canada Blaine 620.00 530.00 460.00 390.00 475.00 1,860.00 1,b30.0O Oakdale 600.00 500.00 300.00 300.00 NA 1.800.00 1,3W.00 Roseville 500.00 400.00 400.00 350.00 NA 4%offair 4%offair Market Val. Mukct VaL Crystal 400.00 400.00 4M,00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.90 Coon 364.00 326.00 ZE6 t .00 239.00 291.U0 .152.00 1.152.00 Ra G'/Q Of flair Mounds 100.00 130.00 150.00 1`lA j 3 230.00-4 200.00 10Market vat. 1Muk Val. View 19Y.affair 10*/.of Fair Arden MIS Muiax Yal. Market VaL Sea pORMtJLI► BELOW Shoreview 10•/4 of Fair 10`/•or Fair SEE FORMULA BELOW Market Vat. Market Val. Liao Lakes Z00.•1.000. SF of SEE FORM MA BELOW Building Golden valley I I1Y To too. OF ltAw LAND vALtrt: FOR ALL I CATirRGS. "Rank order based on Single Family Unit rate. 03/28i97 13:19 3M BLDG 42-GW-26 -+ 612 452 8940 N0.749 906 FEB-21-97 FRI 04 :59 PM OAKDALE MATUMt UMNI rrr o'.. r Arden Hills Residential fees arc based on gross density in dwelling: nit Acr 13 -0-2 6% 2 .3 7% 3 .4 80/4 , over 4 100/a Shoreview uni l 0-2 4•/*MV ! 2.1 -3 5%FMV 3.1 - 4 6%F1W 4.1 - 5 7%FivtN 5.1 + 10'/e FZ/N Liao Lakes Land 4:03daore lln n�or��" x fD Fa=r%x Subd Acreas a Park Dedication per Unit Number of Lots is Subd. LAND USE UPDATE: DOLAN v. CITY OF TIGARD SHIFTING THE BURDEN JAMES G. GOLEMBECK LAND USE UPDATE: DOLAN V. CITY OF TIGARD SHIFTING THE BURDEN I. DOLAN V. CITY OF TIGARD In Dolan v City of Tigard, the U. S. Supreme Court held that the City of Tigard's dedication requirements for pedestrian/bicycle pathways and greenway space constituted an uncompensated taking of property. 1994 U.S. Lexus 4826. The Dolans owned a chain of electrical and plumbing stores in Oregon. The Dolans desired to expand the square footage of their Tigard store as well as pave the parking lot. They subsequently applied to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits. The City conditioned the store's expansion and improvements upon the Dolans' dedicating: (1) a public greenway along a creek to minimize flooding that would be exacerbated by the Dolans paving of their parking lot; (2) a pedestrian/bicycle pathway to relieve congestion in the central business district. The U. S. Supreme Court, in an Opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, defined a new takings test which has been coined the "rough proportionality test. " II. THE ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY TEST Under the rough proportionality test "no precise mathematical calculation is- required, " -but the City must make some- .sort of _ individualized determination that the required dedication "is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. " Dolan at 4828 fn. 8. The Court indicated that "in evaluating most generally applicable zoning regulations, the burden properly rests on a party challenging the regulation to prove that it constitutes an arbitrary regulation of property rights. " See, e.g. , Euclid v Ambler Realty Company, 272 U.S. 365, 71 L.Ed. 3030 47 S.Ct. 114 (1926) . Here, by contrast, the city made an adjudicative decision to condition petitioner's application for building permit on an individual parcel. In this situation, the burden properly rests on the city. Dolan at 4828. In Dolan, the Court ruled that there was no reasonable relationship between the flood plain easement and the petitioner's proposed improvements. The Court said that the City demanded too much. In addition to the City attempting to preclude petitioners from building on a flood plain, it also wanted Dolans' property for its greenway/ recreational system. The Court said "it is difficult to see how recreational visitors trampling a lawn on the City's flood plain easement are related to the City's legitimate interest in reducing flooding problems along Fanno Creek. " 1994 U.S. Lexis 4826 at 4832. iLikewise, the Court held that the City had not met its burden of demonstrating the bike/pedestrian path was reasonably related to the number of trips generated by Dolan's development. In other words, not too many customers were going to take their bathtubs home on their bike or carry their sinks on their shoulders along the pedestrian path. III. FUTURE ISSUES CREATED BY DOLAN 1. One question created by Dolan is whether the Dolan ruling applies to impact fees. Impact fees are typically levied to pay for services such as storm water drainage and/or park improvements or expansion. Potential issues created by Dolan could include: (1) whether the city's park dedication fee is roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development. Issues may be raised where large tract developments are proposed which have historically been viewed as creating recreational opportunities on the large lot not in a public park. In addition, many cities have comprehensive plans outlining the optimum amount of park space and park development in the city. The question . arises when the city has reached the optimum level of park space whether there is any basis for additional dedication for park space. 2 . -Dolan may. also call certain dedications into _ question, especially width of street dedication. Cities commonly take 6-6 foot easements utilizing roughly half of the easement for pavement and backslopes. Is the extra easement necessary or roughly proportional to the impact of the development? 3. Bike paths, recreational paths, greenspace - the Dolan decision puts the onus on the city to show how the proposed development necessitates the need for the greenspace, bike path, etc. 4. Ponding - cities have in the past required flowage and drainage easements to enable the city to construct the drainage system through or over certain developments. Dolan will raise the question whether the need for the easement is necessitated by the actual development or by the city's overall plan. If the need is for the overall plan and is not necessitated by the development, the city may face challenge as a • taking. 2 5. Dolan may raise the issue of whether the city can require public streets, especially if the only reason is to lower density of the development. In a nutshell, Dolan v City of Tigard imposes higher scrutiny upon the city and actually imposes the burden on the city to prove a rough proportionality of impact caused by the development and the necessitated dedication or exaction. IV. WEtAT CAN CITIES DO TO LESSEN THE IMPACT OF DOLAN? 1. City staffs will have to take better care in drafting memoranda regarding proposals. City staffs will have to keep in mind that the city has a burden in showing that the impact of the development does create a need for the proposed dedication or exaction or impact fee. 2. Cities should review comprehensive plans to modify exactions, especially regarding park dedication fees and why these fees are necessary. Such a review could include a park dedication study as to the amount of the fee and how the fee was derived, taking into account the size of the development and the burden on the city's park system. 3. Cities may have to take property in fee instead of easements for ponding. In most cases _ there is very little difference in actual cost in taking a fee easement versus a ponding easement. 4. Staff can start defending cases earlier once litigation is threatened so a record can be built for appropriate review. Documentation would include the impact of development and the need for the dedication or exaction or impact fee. 5. More creative use of staff experts or retention of outside experts regarding planning could be utilized to establish burdens created by increased development. This would include increased reliance upon staff engineers. 6. Perhaps greater use of the PUD process to enable cities to wrap up dedication processes into a developers agreement so that the dedication can be viewed as a trade off for density or relaxation of variance requirements. 3 7. Update or implement comprehensive drainage plans so that dedication of ponding flowage easements can be justified. V. MINNESOTA LAW AND DOI,liN At least for exactions and dedications, the U. S. Supreme Court appears to be enacting a higher standard which places higher scrutiny and greater burden upon the city to justify its actions. Minnesota, however, has always basically required a showing of a reasonable relationship between a planned subdivision and a municipalities need for the land. See Collis v. Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5, 246 N.W.2d 19 (1976) . The real impact of Dolan is that it now places the burden upon the city to justify its decision. What remains to be seen is how the courts will view Dolan and whether the courts will view Dolan as a change in the way the municipality's zoning decisions are reviewed. Traditionally, Minnesota courts have characterized city zoning decisions in two classifications (1) that such matters are legislative decisions or, (2) that these zoning issues were administrative or quasi-judicial decisions. Examples of a legislative decision are the adoption of an amendment to a zoning ordinance and adoption of amendment to a comprehensive guide plan and/or re-zonings. Administrative or quasi-judicial decisions are decisions tied to a particular development request which directly affects the applicant and adjoining landowners such as conditional use permits, subdivision applications and requests for variances. Minnesota courts give more deference to municipalities' legislative _ decisions than to quasi-judicial decisions. See Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409 (Minn. 1981) . Traditionally, Minnesota courts have viewed zoning decisions with the "rational basis" standard. So long as the city's decision has a "mere rational basis, " the decision will not be disturbed. It is clear that the rough proportionality standard is a higher standard and is not to be confused with the mere rational basis standard applicable in most all reviews of city zoning decisions. VI. THE FUTURE OF TAKINGS LAN The U. S. Supreme Court in its last two major taking decisions, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission, _ U.S. _ (1993) and Dolan, appears to be attempting to define takings analysis by attempting to fashion rigid tests. Certainly, the current direction of the U. S. Court favors property owner/developers and places higher scrutiny and greater burdens on governmental entities. 4 ESSENTIAL GLOSSARY OF IMPORTANT ZONING TERMS NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard NIMTO - Not In My Term Of Office CAVE - Citizens Against Virtually Everything 5 DEC 14 '94 11:55 LAPP, LRURIE, LIBRA P.2 • SEMON 1V i . New Federal Law Affecting Real Estate Practice - Case Law and Proposed Responsive Legislation • • Prepared by John M. Koneck Fredrikson&Syron,PA Minneapolis, Minnesota DEC 14 '94 11:56 LAPP, LAURIE, LIBRR I. DOLAN TAE SUPREME COURT ADDRESSES REGULATORY KING . On June 24, 1994,the United States Supreme Court decided Dolan v. Mggd, 512 U.S. , 114 S. Ct. 23091 62 U.S-L.W. 4576 (1994). For the fast time, the Court shifted the burden to the government to prove that it is 'substantially advancing legitimate State interests' by requiring properly owners to convey a portion of their property as a condition of governmental approval. Furthermore, the Court established an additional requirement that the government prove "rough proportionality" between the required dedication of land and the impact of the proposed development. An understanding of the impact of Dolan must begin with a review of the constitutional underpinnings and past United States Supreme Court decisions regarding regulatory "takings.« A. Historical Context. 1. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United " States Constitution states: Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 2. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to state and local governments through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chicago_ B k Q.R. Co. v. ica o, 166 U.S.226,239, 17 S. Ct. 5812 585, 41 L.Ed. 979 (1897). 3. In Agins v. -Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 100 S.Ct. 2138, 65 L.Ed. 106 (1980), the Court announced a general test to determine whether a zoning law constitutes a taldng: The application of a general zoning law to particular property effects a taking if the 1 DEC 14 194 11:56 LAPP, LAURIE, LIBRA P.4 ! ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or.denies an owner economically viable use of his land. (emphasis added). jd. at 260, 261. Despite announcing this general test, the Court did not determine whether a landowner was entitled to monetary damages because of the taldng or whether the landowner was only entitled to invalidation of the zoning requirement. 4. In First English Evaneelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v_, Counnt of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 107 S.Ct. 2378, 96 L.Ed.2d 250 (1987), the Court for the first time held that if a regulation went 'too far" and became a taldng, the property owner was entitled to monetary compensation from the government for the losses sustained. EjULEngUsh involved an ordinance that temporarily prohibited the contraction of structures in a flood protection area. The Court held that '[i]nvalidatign of the ordinance without payment of fair value for the use of the property during this period would be a constitutionally insufficient remedy." 5. In Nallan v California Coasial_Commission, 438 U.S. 825, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed. 677 (1987), the Court for the first time announced the test that the government must meet to impose a condition on a new development. The Court found that in order for a condition to not constitute a taking, that there must be a "substantial nexus" between the condition imposed on a development and some adverse effect on the public health, safety, and welfare that otherwise would be caused by the new development without the condition being imposed. The NdIlans sought a permit from the California Coastal Commission to replace an old cabin with a new home 2 DEC 14 '94 11:57 LAPP, LAURIE, LIBRA �•� • J similar to neighboring homes. The Commission granted the permit subject to the condition that the Nollans grant an casement to allow the public to walls along the portion of their property adjacent to the ocean. The Supreme Court found that there was no nexus between the permit condition and the interest of the government. Consequently, the easement requirement constituted a taking and compensation was required. 6. In T uca v,,South Carolina Coastal Council,505 U.S. 112 S. Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992), the Court for the first time created a 'categorical' rule that a total regulatory taldng must be compensated unless the use proscribed was already a nuisance in common law at the time the regulation was adopted. Lucas bought two residential lots on a South Carolina barrier island. At the time Lucas purchased the lots, they were zoned for single family residential construction and were not subject to the South Carolina Coastal Zone Building Permit Requirements. Approximately two years _ later, however, the South Carolina State Legislature enacted the Beachfront Management Act, which barred Lucas from erecting any permanent habitable structures on his lots. The United States Supreme Court found that the Beachfront Management Act constituted a taking because it denied 'an owner["] economically viable use of his land." Ld. at 813. B. The Dolan Case. 1. Facts. a. Dolan owned a plumbing and electrical supply store located on Main Street in the central business district of Tigard, Oregon. The store covered approximately 9,700 square feet of a 1.7 acre 3 DEC 14 194 11:57 LAPP, LAURIE, LIERR r.o commercial parcel. There was a small gravel parking lot on the parcel as well as a small stream that ran along the western boundary of the parcel. b. Dolan applied for a permit to double the size of the store and to pave a 39 space parking lot. The City Planning Commission approved Dolan's permit application, subject to two conditions: (1) Dolan's dedication of a portion of the property lying within the 100-year flood plain for improvement of a storm drainage system along the creek, and (2) Dolan's dedication of an additional 15 foot strip of land adjacent to the flood plain as a pcdesstrianlbicycle pathway. The total required dedication consisted of approximately 7,000 square feet or 10% of the property. Dolan could rely on the dedicated _ property to meet the 15% open space and Iandscaping requirement already mandated by the City's Zoning Code. c. Dolan sought variances to the condition. The request for the variance was denied by the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the Land Use Board of Appeals. The state Court of Appeals and the state Supreme Court both affirmed. 2. The Decision. a. Dolan was a 514 decision. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority, joined by Justices O'Connor, Sdaha, Kennedy, and Thomas. Justice Stevens wrote a strong dissent, joined by Justices 4 DEC 14 '94 11:58 LAPP, LAURIE, LIBRA r. r • Blaclanun and Ginsburg. Justice Souter wrote a separate dissent. b. The Court first applied the test from Nollan to determine whether an "essential nexus" existed between the "legitimate state interest" and the permit condition imposed by the city. Dolan, 114 S. Ct. at 2317. The Court found that preventing flooding along the creek and that the reduction of traffic congestion in the central business district were legitimate public purposes. Id. at 2318. The Court furthermore found that a nexus existed between these public purposes and the conditions imposed by the city. Id. c. The second test is whether the city established that the conditions imposed bear a "rough proportionality" to the projected impact of petitioner's proposed development. Id. at 2319. The Court stated that "no precise mathematical calculation is required, but the City must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development." Id. at 2319-2320. d. The Court found that the findings relied upon by the city did not show the required relationship between requiring a dedication of the property within the flood plain and DoIan's proposed building. The Court focussed on the fact that this was a dedication rather than just an easement »the Court noted that the difference to Dolan was "the loss of her ability to exclude others," which constitutes "one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property." Id. (citation omitted). 5 DEC 14 '94 11:5e LAPP, LAURIE, LIBRA P.8 I e. The Court also found that the •City has not met its burden of demonstrating that the additional number of vehicle and bicycle taps generated by petitioner's development reasonably relate to the CSity's requirement for a dedication of the pedestrian/bicycle pathway easement." Ld. at 2321. The Court stated that the City must make some effort to guan& its findings in support of the pedestrian/bicycle dedication, instead of mere conclusory statements that such dedication could offset some of the traffic demand generated. 3. Impact of Dolan. a. Dolan made clear that the government has the burden to prove the "essential nexus test' of Nollan that the condition substantially enhances legitimate state interest. b. The Dolan court extended the �tollan decision by also requiring the government to prove-*rough _ proportionality" between the condition and the impact of the proposed development. C. The Doin court focussed on the fact that this was a dedication versus just a restriction on Dolan's use of the property. Consequently, Dolan could easily be interpreted as not applying to a situation where a governmental entity does not require a dedication of property. $ee Harris v. City of Wichita, F.Supp. (D. Kan. 1994); 1994 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14080 (containing a very detailed analysis of Dolan and finding that olan's rough proportionality test did not apply because the city did not require a dedication of property). 6 d. Thus, the Dolan case can easily be interpreted as holding that courts will apply greater scrutiny to a condition that a developer actually dWd portions of the property to the city. Furthermore, Dolan may create an incentive for a city to AM an application for a project Instead of imposing mitt conditions, so tong as the denial does not deprive the owner of all economically viable uses of the land. e. After Dolan, political subdivisions requiring a dedication or exaction must provide detailed studies in support of their actions. General conclusory statements or findings of fact by the government to support the dedication or exaction are insufficient under Dom. IL FORECLOSURE SALES: SUPREME COURT ENDS CONFUSION. The United States Supreme Court finally clarified yeah of confusion surrounding mortgage foreclosure sales and fraudulent transfers. In $FP v. Resolution Trust Corporation, _U.S. _, L.Ed.2d , 114 S.Ct. 1757 (1994), _the Court ruled that a noncollusive, regularly conducted, nonjudicial mortgage foreclosure sale cannot be set aside as a - fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a). i A. Earlier Conflicting Decisions. Before the decision in RM three distinct lines of cases existed in evaluating the propriety of a foreclosure sale. 1. 70% Rule: Durret v. Washington Nat'l Ins. Co 621 F.2d 201 (5th Cir. 1980). The Fifth Circuit established the rule that a foreclosure sale yielding less than 70 percent of the property's fair market value could be set aside as a fraudulent transfer. 7 DEC 14 '94 11*59 LAPP, LAURIE, LIBRA P.10 i 2. Totality of the Circumstances Rule: h rye jq m, 738 F.2d 323 (8th Cir. 1984); In re Bundles, 856 F.2d 815 (7th Cir. 1988). The Fighth and Seventh Circuits did not adopt the 70 percent rule from Durret and instead applied a case by-case approach holding that a foreclosure sale could be a fraudulent transfer if, under all of the circumstance, the amount bid at the foreclosure sale was less than the fair market value of the property, 3. No Fraudulent Transfer Rule: In re Madrid, 21 S.R. 424 (SAP CA 9 1982), affd 725 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1984). The Ninth Circuit, as well as others, rejected Dj=e holding that the consideration received at a noncollusive regularly conducted real estate foreclosure sale constitupes Sreauonagly equivalent value' as a matter of law under 11 • U.S.C. § 548. B. Confusion for Lenders. 1 These conflicting decisions created confusion for mortgage lenders. If the bid price at a foreclosure sale is greater than the amount of the debt, the surplus goes to the junior lien holders or the debtor. Because the mortgage lender is often the only bidder at a foreclosure sale, it seldom wants to bid more than the amount of its debt. Yet, in jurisdictions finding that a foreclosure sale may be a fraudulent transfer (including Minnesota), if the foreclosing lender does not do so and the amount bid at the foreclosure We is Iess than the fair market value of the property, the foreclosing lender could be sued for a fraudulent transfer claim under the Durret and Hulm rules. g L f . CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 3, 1997 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Prioritization of Open Space Discussion At the February 11, 1997 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Staff presented the"short list" of highly desirable remaining open space parcels which was compiled at the Joint Workshop between the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council on January 14, 1997: • Map#6 Acacia Area TIF Acquired Property • Map#9 Slowinski Property • Map#11 Foss Homestead by Wentworth Park • Map#16 Acacia property north of Acacia Boulevard • Map 918 Resurrection Cemetery"Break Off' Area • Map #19 Visitation Convent Property • Map 921 Tousignant Property off Mendota Heights Road Staff then asked the Commission for their thoughts on these parcels. Most Commissioners indicated that they were more interested in preserving parcels that were heavily wooded or otherwise had natural scenic beauty for"passive" park use(Foss, Slowinski)than parcels that were basically barren and flat for"active" park use(Tousignant). These sentiments, however, were not unanimous. Other factors that the Commission considered important for securing more open space included visibility, proximity to residential areas, adjacency to existing parks, cost, and the risk of future development. Please see the attached summary chart of characteristics of these sites, as well as maps of each site. Action Required Review the above materials and discuss which of the above parcels warrant further 40 consideration. Advise Staff accordingly. Open Space Short List Map Parcel Size Adjacent to Topography Visibility Close to Risk of Future Possible Use Existing Residential Development? Park? Area? 6 Acacia 7 acres no wooded high no low active/ sports 9 Slowinski 7.7 acres yes wooded low yes medium passive/ (Valley) natural 11 Foss 8 acres yes wooded high yes medium passive/ (Wentworth) natural 16 Acacia 15+ acres no wooded high no low active/ sports 18 Resurrection 116 acres no wooded low no medium/high passive/ (inc. water) natural 19 Visitation 27.5 acres no recently high no low active/ cultivated sports 21 Tousignant 19.7 acres no recently high no high active/ cultivated sports '� 1 Cx•, , f' 1 IV I in * i � I I I 1 I L f • 'I I 1 �I 1 1 .. 1 •-\ Yr�l• 11\ � l ti ' 1 ::::�::::9.:•r,::::: it • 1 1 �:::2::::: 13 to It 11 oil 1..• ..1..!. 1 . 1 I x 1 } 1 p;a•ai tL 1 I 1 1 x• 0.2 1 V 1l1- 1 •• - Shaded property has been purchased by the City using Tax Increment Fianancing. The area south of Acacia Blvd. is zoned Industrial and the north parcel is in a Residential zoned area. The north parcel is less than one acre in size while the south parcel is over 7 acres. "Friendly" offers have been made to the two remaining houses on the west; side along Pilot Knob Rd. • DRG # 6 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARTIALLY DEVELOPED AND 1101 Victoria Curve UNDEVELOPED LAND OVER GK Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 • (612) 4524850 ONE ACRE IN SIZE 1 1 /96 rmT tar mot A GO 1 1 � r \ / '• N 1J •• • i h ..' its ov xl --- t -7 it 11 l y — �I w ■ ♦ " The Slowinski parcel, east of the Par 3 Golf is 7. 7 acres in size and zoned R-1 . The parcel is bordered by Valley Park on the east and south sides. The 1995 Tax value on this parcel was $223,000. DRG 9 i CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARTIALLY DEVELOPED AND 1101 Victoria Curve UNDEVELOPED LAND OVER GK Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 • (612) 452-1850 ONE ACRE IN SIZE 11 /96 11 040 / 4! j •'r 7 1 N11 � ' � ttt• !! it TIL N,1 h 00IlOM•� wt 3 I r Jjvf, , • 1- ' •I• SWI771 1 r� ..:s::�v�•: 7,y,�am{:•:�: y t t --------------- , f 1 i • DRG # 11 The Foss homestead, adjacent to Wentworth Park is 8 acres in size. The parcel 's tax value in 1995 was $192, 000. The area is zoned R-1 . A watercourse runs through the property from the Wentworth pond towards Valley Park on the west. • CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARTIALLY DEVELOPED AND 1101 Victoria Curve UNDEVELOPED LAND OVER GR Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 9 (612) 452-1850 ONE ACRE IN SIZE 11 /96 kwei-t, 122�. LO X. ji � X f ram, � •:'•.:�T:•:•:�:t1:. {�::�; •. �:l' �! :yam'%• ; + � �• ' 1� 1 � 1 1 1 H 0 a H a Top shaded area is owned by Acacia Cemetery but is not plated as cemetery. City ownes several T.I.F parcel south of the cemetery lands. This 15 plus acres has two houses on it and is zonedR-3 and R. DRG rr i 6 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARTIALLY DEVELOPED AND 1101 Victoria Curve UNDEVELOPED LAND OVER GK Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 0 (612) 4521850 ONE ACRE IN SIZE 11 /96 l �s. r, .w r' y,. --------------- r / ►'p,C V t(` �� - ��MI..eWV�IMI�VVA'I�V.'•I. I ,� ':� 1 .�'� J - ROGE?S n _ VISITATION CONVENT ... .,.------ � •3 . j I. � R 11/ • ST. THOMAS ACADEMY km ' H of iACRES %� �? ' :':<: ::::> - •. "Y•'`•'�••''i�'•'''"�"�'Y' �` __ Property owned by Visitation Convent corner of main school/convent "''•'�.6Y.''•'Y :••Y: I site is undeveloped and could • :�.'+.�r.;`�'f. ••,;•w ;�,'•:t'•�%t::;':;5:::.Y:Y;��:,:.; ;�%, i I «•• nccomidate a full size baseball .-,. i.Y:t?::.::.;:.:...• .�r.:c#f:;:Y.;;••;;:•:. •. . ,•:'} :::. • field. • ;.<rf:�Y`.::Yt:::::�':`:,`:':S:Y;.:.;:i�,M1S:•:•.Y.:::.•k• .e::;y::.i ::; ;^;:'� �;+'': i#Yiti ::i:::;a,:,;:•.....•:q.;.., 2. Property on south aide of Mendota + :YSY,;..4++,••+:Y••::.::.Y::,.:': :•:Y:Y•+;: •,`:;::�4i y{?,c•kw;r — — Heights Rd. is over 27 acres in size :;r,.•:r,.:: �:�%+.':oY:oy.,;::;:.fw•,:W;:�i�?;'+.:5:.::: :•}:•$,!�.;i 'i ``c 9 J. :YY::::•,••,:�:: ::22•.;r,:z,;;:y:.:4:�k,;:;:•;:�;.;{:..:t: ::.�:.; � -�. . . and and has been considered for an ice ''`C• ':::?' :::x :•:::::_.'.::...•'< %!fi:%•Y:Y:3 '.:::# ! \; arena. A joint powers agreement with .L '\ •••••$"'�Y! :f:;•• 27.5 ACRE9':�`+ . }'"$' " ; Convent could open this parcel for +••.,.;:,;.,$• ,•,;: .x:•� ;::Y:;4'••• 1 1 � temporary use as ballfield site. �. 1 YYY;.Y"Y:::;:;;::::: r'tiia#:;::;:?::},•::•?,<,Y;>:f :'::f :;:<: f 1 `_� .,.,.,;,Y;. ;;;;.Y.;; :;;;;,;,,; ;;,:4;�r,; •;Y•: cti +i'":a:;i { �, Both parcels are currently zoned R-1 r �L•--�' 2. ..... I '::;:,+•;'i�'i,'••Y:YY:'•:.:•:.ti.Y:::•:.:,; .::$'Y:: .:i.Y•:.. 1 __ j� :::ti�F�:::v?:SAY::}'}::Y>Y.'•%.Y:•Y::.... f.� ram.._... ��}_-_ .Y ��1�'• ..` ' 1 •:. ..Y:Y•'}: ;:::•'•'��' fit - -_—_ -• -- =-•-•-•-•-._..._._...- r� - ._. -_r,._:___:_ _ •_:_._ INTERSTATE' 999 __ _ DRG #1 9 CITY OF MEND0T1!lEIG!!7S [UNDEVELOPED ARTIALLY DEVELOPED AND 1101 Victoria Curve LAND OVER Cx Mendota lielyhis,Minnesota b511E NE ACRE IN SIZE 11196 Try;I•R � I ".•:�.•.:."`^ _ •r ,r � �< � �� 'II i y % •� ri lot( ••A: •`,,~•'n •`'�• III f ~ - is l.•:. ti V`\, _'1! ` \ —' ,I wjA '� I }y t.� • "4`.ff%:'"i%'::"'''G�'ti:'•is ':':;v'•br'i.:•:•o`i.•::+•:"::•+'"{r?i:•' "... i 4 I I +i� \ I 'I1jS�- •::::::i:•:i' :::°''::i•••,v�::` ii:•$2•r -"{n.� •• v;.;q. §;: • ( SITE /1 Size 2.2 Acres v' : �:^'Si'�• .,, i Zoned: E-tA r r`~''�` ::• n "�. ' Owner: Patterson Dental ___ _ '_r"_'�_ __ i N2.Size 2.5 Acres _.-.•._. r" ' _ .__:_ •--'1?!N a...•`- —- . Zoned: E-tA •r-�•^- r•-•-••,•-•- _ _ _ -•-•---•-•-•-•-• -•- _ '-- Owners Bieanz Rogers Lake Co _ +""-i'•_•_•_,._. 'Ir•�.' :itusK- .ter--•^_'G-'=•-•-=._ ._._• _,_- -- _ r. r yYa v x_: _'-'- ' '•�- I3 Size . 19.7 Acres !, sN r. � '1 1 • ��'JK—��•f'Mw•Siw�.. .._,_,_�i+�.• r--..r•.__,—.�..—_ _ `� " _!-'-,"� �r""' Zoned: R-1 (Comp Plan LB-PUD) Owner: Tousignant /5 Size . 27.5 Acres Zoned: R-1 (Comp Plan LB-PUD) Owner: Visitation Convent /A Size • 2 Acres Zoned: R-1 (Comp Plan LB-PUD) Owner: 3 S. F. Parcels DRG #21 Tousignant Parcel is currently CITY OF ME ."arA HEIGHTS being marketed for development,1101 Victoria Cur•a PARTIALLY DEVELOPED AND Mendota Height., Minnesota 66118 UNDEVELOPED LAND OVER GK ONE ACRE IN SIZE 11/96 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 3, 1997 TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager SUBJECT: Updates 1. CAREN ROAD DETENTION POND This parcel of City property is used as a detention pond for storm water runoff and is covered by volunteer vegetation which has survived since the original development of the area in the late sixties. Primarily deciduous trees (cottonwood, boxelder, etc.) cover most of the site, with sumac covering the northern portion. Steep slopes descend from the streets about twenty feet to the low point/ponding area. As part of the street project a turf mow strip a minimum of ten feet behind the curb will be developed and maintained by City crews. Neighbors wishing to continue to plant and maintain will flower areas behind the mow strip may want to consider some sort of rustic fence to delineate the beginning and end of the planting area. The addition of several native hardwood trees at the top of the knoll on the northerly part of his parcel would merit consideration. The street project will also provide for some tree removals, if requested by the adjoining neighbor, and some "cleaning up" of dead branches and trees on the City parcel. There does not appear to be any existing "foot paths" developed by local youth or residents. The addition of any sort of formal path or walkway would provide little benefit to the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: If the Commission wants improvements other than the restoration of the disturber) areas with turf grasses they should make a specific recommendation to the Engineering Department and consider involving the neighborhood. The residents have voiced strong objections to the current assessments and should be involved in any project cost increase. 2. NORTH KENSINGTON PARK . A meeting was held at City Hall to discuss the design concept for this park. In attendance were Councilmember Smith, Commissioner Linnell, Kevin Batchelder, Patrick Hollister and Guy Kullander. Guy was directed to graphically display the planning concept agreed to at this meeting to Mr. Linnell and Councilmember Smith for final review before the final plans were prepared and submitted to Council for approval. Following this approval, bid documents will be prepared and the project constructed this summer. 3. WENTWORTH PARK PICNIC SHELTERS Plans and specifications will be distributed, bids received, and reviewed by Council in May. If approved, construction would be done on the two shelters this summer. The exact location of the two shelters will be marked in the park on Monday, April 7th so that the Commissioners can better visualize how they will "fit" into the park. Both sites are visible from your car. 4. WENTWORTH PARK WARMING HOUSE The park maintenance crew has stated that the existing warming house is too small for the number of users of this park during the skating season. Moving the larger warming house from Ivy Park was deemed too expensive and not practical partially due to the age (25-30 years old) of the structure and the high moving costs. The Commission may want to discuss this issue and make a recommendation on whether to leave the structure as is, enlarge and remodel the existing house, or build a new one. Consideration should also be given to possible summer use of this building and how this should effect the design of a new or remodeled building. is CrrY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 31 1997 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Patrick C.Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Dakota County CIP 1997-2001 Discussion Staff has received the 1997-2001 Dakota County Capital Improvement Plan, and has attached those pages relating to trail improvements of most interest to the City of Mendota Heights, specifically: • North Urban Regional Trail(Pages 1, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 110) • Big Rivers Trail(Pages 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 105, 106) • Action Required This is an information item only. B MET? PT and 1 ST='2001"CAPITAL``IMPROVEMENTS Project Title:_I North Urban Regional i n L Description and Location: a Project Number: "' ' ', NRT/Urh n'A3� ACquisitio Center Number: North Urban Regional Trail: Uydale, Mendota Heights,West St.Paul Land Acquisition. Project Useful Life: 20+years Project Type: New Agency Priority: High III.Impact on Operating and Maintenance Costs: II. Purpose and Justification: Additional budget funds will be required for stewardship and maintenance of land acquired for the trail. Additional security and maintenance staff and equipment will 1929: Begin land acquisition for regional trail connection from Dakota County Regional Trail in South St. be required when trail is developed and open for public use. Paul to Lllydale Regional Park,subject to regional designation by the Metropolitan Council. 1999: Complete land acquisition. IV. Effect on County Revenues: Regional park grants will be expected to provide acquisition funds,subject to Master Plan approval by the Metropolitan Council. Project Prior to 1997 Beyond Revenues Revenues 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 TOTAL Property Tax $ _ Federal State/Metro $ 600,000 $ 600,000 other Total I $ Is Is I $ 600,000 Is - I $ Is - $ 600,000 Project Prior to 1997 Beyond Expenditures Expenditures 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 TOTAL Acquisition $ 300,000 $ 300.000 $ 600,000 New Construction $ _ Modifications or Repairs $ _ Consulting Services $ _ Other Total Is - Is - $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ _ Is _ $ 600,000 Project Fund Balance P 1 1997 CAPITAL BUDGET and 1997 - 2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Project Title: TH 13 - Mendota Heights Rd to 1-494 I.Description and Location: Project Number: B13-2 Off-road bikeway on TH 13 from the scenic overlook area at Mendota Heights Road and Center Number: 12-34-56-3698 Sibley Memorial Highway to I-494. Length: approximately.7 miles. Project Useful Life: 20 Years Project Type: New A enc Priori : Medium III.Impact on Operating and Maintenance Costs: If. Purpose and Justification: This segment will provide a further connectin for Eagan/Burnsville residents to the B( Rivers Unknown at this time. Maintenance responsibility for this segment will Regional Trail.This segment is presently rated unsafe for biking by MnDOT. 9 have to be determined. IV. Effect on County Revenues: The bikeway will be constructed with 100%County funds consistent with the adopted County policy. Project Prior to loos Beyond Revenues Revenues 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 TOTAL Property Tax $ 80.000 $ 80,000 Federal State/Metro Other $ - Total $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ - $ 80,000 Project Priorto logs- Beyond Expenditures Expenditures 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 TOTAL Acquisition $ - New Construction $ 80,000 $ 80,000 Modifications or Repairs - Consulting $Services $ Other Total $ - $ $ - $ $ $ eo,00o $ $ sa,000 Pro ect Fund Balance ' � P 87 �,:•: Yv.,✓r,;r,;,r�tr�P,ytitcr�o��,pr-any 1997 - 2001 PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PAGE TOTAL METRO YEAR PARK PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT COST OPEN SPACE OTHER COUNTY 1997 Lake Byllesby Regional Park Land Acquisition $300,000 $300,000 1997 Lake Byllesby Regional Park Byllesby Dam $521.500 $229,500 $292,000 1997 Lake Byllesby Regional Park Park Development $596,000 $146,500 $449,500 1997 Lebanon Hills Regional Park Land Acquisition $103,000 $103,000 1997 Lebanon Hills Regional Park Park Development $958,893 $948,893 $10,000 1997 Miesville Ravine Park Reserve Land Acquisition $153,000 $153,000 1997 Miesville Ravine Park Reserve Park Development $156,877 $150,000 $6,877 1997 Spring Lake Park Reserve Land Acquisition $315,000 $315,000 1997 Spring Lake Park Reserve Park Development $0 $0 1997 Thompson Park Park Development $193,325 $0 $193,325 1997 Big Rivers Regional Trail Land Acquisition $50,000 $50,000 1997 Big Rivers Regional Trail Trail Development $544,000 $55,000 $489,000 1997 Miss. River RT- S.St.Paul Segment Land Acquisition $85,000 $85,000 1997 Miss. River RT- S.St.Paul Segment Trail Development $660.000 $180,000 $480,000 1997 North Urban Regional Trail Land Acquisition $0 $0 1997 North Urban Regional Trail Trail Development $0 $0 1997 Playground Development Park Development $135,000 0 $135,000 1997 Parks Capital Contingency Fund Park Acq/Dev $86,480 $0 $0 $86,480 1997 total: $4,858,075 $2,715,893 $2.055,702 $86,480 • �e89 Page 90 PAGE TOTAL METRO YEAR PARK PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT COST OPEN SPACE OTHER COUNTY 1998 Lake Byllesby Regional Park Land Acquisition $175,000 $175,000 1998 Lake Byllesby Regional Park Byllesby Dam $0 $0 199$ Lake Byllesby Regional Park Park Development $0 $0 1998 Lebanon Hills Regional Park Land Acquisition $0 $0 1998 Lebanon Hills Regional Park Park Development $591,500 $500,000 $91,500 1998 Miesville Ravine Park Reserve Land Acquisition $175,000 $175,000 1998 Miesville Ravine Park Reserve Park Development $130,336 $125,000 $5,336 1998 Spring Lake Park Reserve Land Acquisition $0 $0 1998 Spring Lake Park Reserve Park Development $470,000 $470,000 1998 Thompson Park Park Development $185,000 $0 $185,000 1998 Big Rivers Regional Trail Land Acquisition $0 $0 1998 Big Rivers Regional Trail Trail Development $0 $0 1998 Miss. River RT- S.SLPaul Segment Land Acquisition $145,500 $145,500 1998 Miss. River RT- S.SLPaul Segment Trail Development $0 $0 1998 North Urban Regional Trail Land Acquisition $0 $0 1998 North Urban Regional Trail Trail Development $0 $0 1998 Playground Development Park Development $35,000 0 $ 35,000 1998 Parks Capital Contingency Fund Park Acq/Dev $89,940 $0 $89,940 1998 Total: $1,997,276 $1,590,500 $281,836 $124,940 "ISl . � � `1}ELT•r i[�' ��1 lM. 'iL 1 7... .• _:v __ ...,.__ _..i _ r_L+. n_ .1, o._ .. TOTAL PROJECT METRO PARK PROJECT COST OPEN SPACE OTHER COUNTY 1999 Lake Byllesby Regional Park Land Acquisition $0 $0 1999 Lake Byllesby Regional Park Byllesby Dam $635.000 $317,500 $317,500 1999 Lake Byllesby Regional Park Park Development $500,000 $500,000 1999 Lebanon Hills Regional Park Land Acquisition $175,000 $175,000 1999 Lebanon Hills Regional Park Park Development $500,000 $500,000 1999 Miesville Ravine Park Reserve Land Acquisition $0 $0 1999 Miesville Ravine Park Reserve Park Development $0 $0 1999 Spring Lake Park Reserve Land Acquisition $176,000 $175,000 1999 Spring Lake Park Reserve Park Development $530,000 $530,000 1999 Thompson Park Park Development $250,000 $0 $250,000 1999 Big Rivers Regional Trail Land Acquisition $0 $0 1999 Big Rivers Regional Trail Trail Development $0 $0 1999 Miss. River RT- S.SLPaul Segment Land Acquisition $0 $0 1999 Miss. River RT- S.St.Paul Segment Trail Development $0 $0 1999 North Urban Regional Trail Land Acquisition $300,000 $300,000 1999 North Urban Regional Trail Trail Development $0 $0 1999 Playground Development Park Development $65,000 $65,000 1999 Parks Capital Contingency Fund Park Acq/Dev $93,540 $0 $93,540 1999 Total: $3,223,640 $2,662,500 $317,500 $343,540 P�e 91 • Page 92 PAGE TOTAL METRO YEAR PARK PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT COST OPEN SPACE OTHER COUNTY 2000 Lake Byllesby Regional Park Land Acquisition $175,000 $175,000 2000 Lake Byllesby Regional Park Byllesby Dam $0 $0 2000 Lake Byllesby Regional Park Park Development $0 $0 2000 Lebanon Hills Regional Park Land Acquisition $175,000 $175,000 2000 Lebanon Hills Regional Park Park Development $300,000 $300,000 2000 Miesville Ravine Park Reserve Land Acquisition $175,000 $175,000 2000 Mlesville Ravine Park Reserve Park Development $0 $0 2000 Spring Lake Park Reserve Land Acquisition $175,000 $175,000 2000 Spring Lake Park Reserve Park Development $0 $0 2000 Thompson Park Park Development $0 $0 2000 Big Rivers Regional Trail Land Acquisition $0 $0 2000 Big Rivers Regional Trail Trail Development $0 $0 2000 Miss. River RT- S.SLPaul Segment Land Acquisition $0 $0 2000 Miss. River RT- S.SLPaul Segment Trail Development $0 $0 2000 North Urban Regional Trail Land Acquisition $300,000 $300,000 2000 North Urban Regional Trail Trail Development $0 $0 2000 Playground Development Park Development $0 $0 2000 Parks Capital Contingency Fund Park Acq/Dev $97,280 $0 $97,280 2000 Total: $1,397,280 $1,300,000 $0 $97,280 Mp. ti J V J :♦.4uc.. (A-!. _ . _ . ' _ iJ yL} :�. .. ., :1 . . Wo ; . . A S 3 J , TOTAL PROJECT METRO PARK PROJECT COST OPEN SPACE OTHER COUNTY 2001 Lake Byllesby Regional Park Land Acquisition $0 $0 2001 Lake Byllesby Regional Park Byllesby Dam $400,000 $200,000 $200,000 2001 Lake Byllesby Regional Park Park Development $900,000 $900,000 2001 Lebanon Hills Regional Park Land Acquisition $0 $0 2001 Lebanon Hills Regional Park Park Development $225,000 $225,000 2001 Mlesville Ravine Park Reserve Land Acquisition $0 $0 2001 Mlesville Ravine Park Reserve Park Development $0 $0 2001 Spring Lake Park Reserve Land Acquisition $0 $0 2001 Spring Lake Park Reserve Park Development $0 $0 2001 Thompson Park Park Development $0 $0 2001 Big Rivers Regional Trail Land Acquisition $0 $0 2001 Big Rivers Regional Trail Trail Development $700,000 $200,000 $500,000 2001 Miss. River RT S.St.Paul Segment Land Acquisition $444,500 $444,500 2001 Miss. River RT S.SLPaul Segment Trail Development $365,000 $80,000 $285,000 2001 North Urban Regional Trail Land Acquisition $0 $0 2001 North Urban Regional Trail Trail Development $355,000 $100,000 $255,000 2001 Playground Development Park Development $400,000 $0 $400,000 2001 Parks Capital Contingency Fund Park Acq/Dev $101,170 $0 $101,170 2001 Total: $3,890,670 $2,149,500 $1,240,000 $501,170 Pit 93 C�1P �A BUDGET°"`:; :" "'Jil 1997 -•2001'CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Project Title:• r.-Big Rivers RegionalayTrail?-AcquisitionM �{ w I.Description and Location: Project Number: BRT-A2. Big Rivers Regional Trail:I-Hydale,Mendota,Mendcta Heights. Center Number: Land Acquisition. Project Useful Life: 20+years Project Type: Continuing Agency Priority: High III. Impact on Operating and Maintenance Costs: 11.Purpose and Justification: Acquisition of parcels required for regional trail from Fort Snelling State Park to LAydale Regional Park. Minimal impact until development occurs. 1995: Toll road easement. 1997: Yacht Club easements/Mendota lots. IV.Effect on County Revenues: Regional funding in hand to complete acquisition. c Project Prior to 1997 Beyond Revenues Revenues 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 TOTAL Property Tax Federal State/Metro $ 15,500 $ 34,500 $ 50,000 Other Total $ 15,500 Project Prior to 1997 Beyond Expenditures Expenditures 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 TOTAL Acquisition $ 50,000 $ 50,000 New Construction $ Modifications or Repairs $ Consulting Services $ Other Total $ - $ 50,000 Is I $ - $ - $ _ $ I $ 50,000 Project Fund Balance Pip 105 Page 106 1997 CAPITAL BUDGET and 1997 - 2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Project Title: Big Rivers Regional Trail- Development I. Description and Location: Project Number: BRT-D2 Big Rivers Regional Trail: Lllydale,Mendota,Mendota Heights Center Number: Development. Project Useful Life: 20+years Project Type: Continuing Agency Priority: Hl h III. Imoact on Ooeratina and Maintenance Costs: II. Purpose and Justification: Facility development and public use will require additional security and maintenance Development of 4.8 mile regional trail to provide recreational benefit connecting major regional facilities personnel and equipment. Future building will require added budget for utilities and including Ulydale Regional Park and Fort Snelling Stale Park. supplies. Pre Phase I -TH 110 Tunnel 1996: Phase I -from Mendota Bridge north to Lilydele Regional Park south to overlook. 2001: Phase II- south to MN Valley Trail at 494 bridge-restroom building,picnic area,fighting. IV. Effect on County Revenues: 2001: Phase III-Primary Trallhead facilities,parking lots,and other amenities. Federal Highway and Metro funds are pending for 1997 construction Beyond 2001: Phase IV-trail corridor enhancements,reforestation,Interpretive areas. projects. Federal Highway,ISTEA,DNR and Metro grants will be sought Phase V-HVVY 13 tunnel,Mendota Heights trail segment. for future phases. Phases VI and VII-support facilities,enhancements-Mendota Heights segment. Project Prior to 1997 Beyond Revenues Revenues 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 TOTAL Property Tax Federal $ 954,000 $ 489,000 $ 500,000 $ 99,000 $ 2,042,000 StateiMetro $ 366,000 $ 55,000 $ 200,000 $ 38,000 $ 659,000 Other $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Total $ 1,350 000 1 $ 544,000 $ $ - $ - $ 700,000 $ 137,000 $ 2,731,000 Project Prior to 1997 Beyond Expenditures Expenditures 1997 1990 1999 2000 2001 2001 TOTAL Acquisition New Construction $ 1,257,000 $ 489,000 $ 500,000 $ 99,000 $ 2,345,000 Modifications or Repairs $ Consulting Services $ 93,000 $ 65,000 $ 200,000 $ 38,000 $ 386,000 Other Total $ 1.350.000 $ 544,000 $ S $ - $ 700,000 $ 137,000 $ 2 731,000 Pro ect Fund Balance Page110 1997 CAPITAL BUDGET and 1997 - 2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Project Title: North Urban Regional Trail - Development I.Description and Location: Project Number: NRT/Urban-D3 North Urban Regional Trail: Lilydale, Mendota Heights,West St.Paul Center Number: Development. Project Useful Life: 20+years Project Type: New Agency Priority: High III.Impact on Operating and Maintenance Costs: 11.Purpose and Justification: Facility development and public use will require additional maintenance and security 2001: Begin development of regional trail connection from South St.Paul to Lilydale costs in the form of personnel and equipment. Regional Park,subject to regional designation by Metropolitan Council. IV. Effect on County Revenues: Regional and ISTEA grants will be pursued for development funds subject to Master Plan approval by the Metropolitan Council. Project Prior to 1997 Beyond Revenues Revenues 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 TOTAL Property Tax $ _ Federal/ISTEA $ 255,000 $ 1,775,000 $ 2,030,000 State/Metro $ 100,000 $ 500,000 $ 600,000 Other $ _ total $ 4 ¢ f $ - $ 306,000 _$ 1,270,000 2�03t►IIUU Project Prior to 1997 Beyond Expenditures Expenditures 1997 1996 1999 2000 2001 2001 TOTAL Acquisition $ _ New Construction $ 320,000 $ 2,075,000 $ 2,395,000 Modificatlons or Repairs $ _ Consulting Services $ 35,000 $ 200,000 $ 235,000 Other $ _ Total $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ 355,000 $ 2,275,000 $ 2,639,000 Project Fund Balance C TIVITY REPORT MENDC_T.; GT=• '-AF.;•;':• T _ . � T(M.'= t_i?t . '-Till( _.., fl i r.+=_....«... • :} �. - _ `i.^i L.t_L.si 'f 1`..'.11 .•`.y i'.i� -r r i�t"t,6. '_CCATIOM t';^y� _ i�lI!MpFr- �,1 .`1 +1 _ •'r L;_ ._m.N�t- f ___ . �•''r•'+h'il '_t�,�r}t} .dij '-._ JE`LCi'-llPTItON: THEFT 2-Cl--500 MS 7R!V; Y>3Rwv :j7H-" 4'A T_ 'TinC r_'}�..iTI��N ....=: , `1! ��•qrr=.. P70UND PROPER DATE TIME _tDi'^ r T"i,.l !j�try Er {y. 1 -% Trk \ _ Tr3f.t OTHCR '•'AF. VIE - r T_,%r., r ACTIVITY REPORT -• MENDOTA uGT: PART.*i• ' RP.porrin_i =rimer° O1 to IVENTS. SATE TIME LOCATIO f t A'.c `IUMEEP. DESCRIPTION ., FIRES-GRA':S,'er%0S,-I DATE T T"ME _Ew-C -._c*I-?N PROP DAMAGE ";,:-SP.:- _ i-4 �,.r-TVA !C'ATE TIME LOCATION =ACE .mimeE� 05fC4",9 1 ' 27 ?;.IENDL'. €-!ILL:? «n! a DESCF.TPTION7 PROR DAMAGE TRESPASS MS PRIVATE UNK DEE'S 0T10N : PRO*, 0AMt-GE iKE _ Me r+--'!;."TV iINll°: I't TG ;IM,'".-. LOCH 7 IOPt E NUMEEc 1 : :N 7 i� DL? i;I'_-! :='t-`,RS. -•.'+rj�:1 (�ryry .. OATE TIME LOCATION I.iy.c r`It..'MEEs- = IxNlL)LY �TL_ A�:l; : ;O:'?O'? 41 y-• :E NUM2ZZ, ACTIVITY !kEPORT - MENDOTA HGTS RARK�i R-.porting Period, 01/01/96 to ItICIDENTS: W TIME IME I-OCATIOM r�-ASE NUMEER ---- ---- -------- ----------- jl . �t V TS PARK --OC205 C DE3CRIPTION' DOS-AL' OTHER DA T CE 71ME L C-C A T 10 N CASE NUM.E E:F -------- ------------ -)AKOT.) PARK -4 0� *I'•I !�,* ?4 MEML -. -CIO I�,-.'7 D53CRIP77MN THEFT $20C MS CR.M MOTOR: VEf-:--, C!-E OTH rf<O?- CIATE T-rmE �-OCATION m4UMEEIR -------- ----------- 02:/11?6 12: 40 MENDAKOTA PARK �ll>00 1 6.5 DE;:C-RIPT TONI: THEFT $nC MS FPM MOTOR. VEHICLE OTpt PROF' IDA E r:.ME CASE NumeER ?f------------- 229 �."t0o� 07HE5 A 7 E L C t-A T I-�P-1 CAM2-C ---- -------- ----------- - -t'. - �VEP -,OK 01. 6 $tC I: � L,- �S%I r:T T 0,N za -=-UW INTENT TIME LO,-,� SE MUMSE�.TION i- �ri * -------- ----------- 20 : 44 MEINDMOTA PAPK 96001789 DE 'E C R r-T-'r 0 N THEFT 2101-50C M,: FrRfll MOTOP OTU PtkOP C'A.T EE CAZ-a M.)MEER DE-',C'--I PT I ON- $200 M", --c"'Dp E -:A�E MJMEE: A 7 MENDAKOTA PARK ----------- 100 X! C.01 E- A I'lZ 5:Z I M NVU I 'i t-..3 i Reporting Period: 01/01/96 to 12/31/96 INCIDENTS: &E TIME LOCATION CASE NUMEER - ---- ---------- - 0 rx"'. 1%, .? -,, . I I :t4�C C1 .C -,1: WENTWOR711-1 AP[., DESCRIPTION: D06-PAPKING LOT DATE T ZM E '-OCAITION CASE NUMSER ---- -------- ----------- MARTE PARK 6001450 DESCRIPTION: ANIMA!-AL' OTHER DATE TIME LOCATION CA NUM.2EP -------- ----------- T Ily rFALLS PARK 9600192,-�- ION: DOG SITE DATE TIME LOCATION CASE tliumeER ---- -------- ------------- ./2* lVY FALLS PARK 0 DESCRIPTIIDN DOC CITE DATE -TXE LOCA7110N --------i '_3 ROGERS LAKE --;.AP.K DESA-F 19TION . (:ONSUMF�T A r:11 :3_ U M 'ER ROGER LAKE PARK DESCRIPTION: CONSUMPTION AGE 1$-21 DATH TT AE '-OCAT 10N NVMEV� -------- ----------- VALI E'! r 'rUVEN11- COHOL O'er. -I DESI--':-71-T Ot I -j-jtiqNlj! f- -joL J� Reporting Period: 01/01/96 to 1I/??!?r• INCIDENT$: DATE TIME LOCATION CASE NUMBER 07 !i 21 :pE• VALLEY ='AR! •003061- _ DES•C:F'IPTIOP}: JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER. ')ATE T I E L O ITION CASE NUMEEF p'/0 •!`' ; i0 ROGERC LAKE PARK 96002095 DESCFIPT ION: POSSESSION OF DRUG, PARAPHERNALIA PROHIeIT£D DATE TIME LOCATION CASE NUMEE; ___ 21111 WENTWORTH PARPARK1;6 02,22 DESCRIPTION: DOB-ALL OTHEP DATE T'_ME �_OC;=T I?�? CASE NUMBER DESCRIPTION : FOUND PROPERTY fRE -!ME LOCATION CASE NUMBER 0?!2'ar'?H• w2 • _'•0 ROGER S LAKE PAFX 60022::121 DESCRIPTION ' CONSUMPTION AGE 13 C DATE TIME LOCATION CASE NUMBEF: •� . .. , .-+r , r, — — • ,._•. » : MENDAorCi T,-: � ,'•: •'t64r';:'7mot: DESCRIPTION: THEFT $200 LESS MS FFI,4 MOTOF. V5"r.T_'-LE• OTH PROR `AT` TIMME LOCATION CASE NUMEE*!. MENDAKOTA i.., •,RR a�.tap �,_—_ C.•E�CRIP T ION: THEFT $200 LESS M*i FRIM MOTOR VENT_ LE ' T;- P R:.R •Je-TC r I�4E L1.�'Cr: 1 ..:jai vr{.•. :I(•�i�r Cam. 1 ^t i ROGEIRS DES•CR:I^TIO.N . CONSUMPTIOri AGE ilT Fri I'" C,CC•i;w''• .. rn:j.�l_,�_`:':i ,...iaT':. ;-'n�•i't'� F«portinO Pero.).. to INCIDENT$: DATE TIME LOCATION .-A$E NUMBER - ___ 07•!96 �0 43 ROGERS LAKE PARK '9�-•003150 DESCRIPTION" CON16UMPTION AGE 1'e3 1 DATE TIME LOCATION CASE NUMEEF: ' '"7; 1`. :0 FT SNEL LINO :500..._ 3 DES^R_T:^TION: ;FOUND PROPERTY GATE TIME LOCATION CASE NUMSER 07/30/96 10: 50 rT SNELLING 9:_>'z00 4C- DESCRIPTION: FOUND PROPERTY DATE TIME LOCATION CASE NUMBER 10, 50 FT SNEL LING DESCRTP7TON: FOUND PROPERTY .E tIsME LOCATION CASE MUMEES, 07/0 ItI6 ?O : 50 FT S lE+LING ' 40''; ___ DESCRIPTION: FOUND PROPERTY DATE TIME LOCATION -A TIME NUMEEF ry7 IVY HILL c Ril< 00 2'33 DESCRIPTION: MISC PUSLIC-ALL OTHEF C',1TE TIME LOCATION :ASc : !UME'ER DM^•CRIPT IOP?: 5U SPIC'•I�?US'-PER�OP! ,ATE TIME -')CATIOii CAS•r 'It:PIwE,w `)✓.•1•?%`"."14' 0 .4.»_-_ DE_•CRI.'TION : FOUND PROPE.al* . ACTIVITY REPORT - MENDOTI A HGTG• PARKS ReC,•;ttin, -. Yin,,. t.. INt_TDENTS DATE TIME LOCATION CASE NUMBER 07/30:96 11 : 48, WENTWORTH PARK 96002371 . DESCRIPTION: ANIMAL-DOMESTIC/LOOSE DATE TIME LOCATION CASE NUMBER 07/03/`6 _ : 17 MENDAKOT PARK DESCRIPTION: MISC PUBIC-ALL OTHER DATE TIME LOCATION CASE NUMBER ------------ 08 T7.' is3 :00 VALLEY F A RK 3cOC3'0; DESCRIPTION: SU SPICIOUcl~PERSON DATE TIME LOCATION CASE NUMEER __ C8/24/9t 15 : 1,3 WENTWORTH PARK '4600I67; DESCRIPTION: ASSIST PUBLIC-UNLOCK ( VEH ) DATE TIME LOCATION CANS lUMcE= 05'ZO 6 _ : 4? MASIE R`APK '16002655 _- DESCRIPTION: DOE-ALL OTHER DATE TIME LOCATION CASE NUMEER; 03/20/96 23: 57 HT: PARK DESCRIPTION: Doe-ALL OTHER: DATE TIME LOCATION CASE ,tUMEER 08/09-g� 15 : sa MENDAKOIT=� PARK. .a600'24y7___ DESCRIPTION : ASSIST PUBLIC-ALL OTHER OATS TITHE _Ot_,= r,: 4 �..1r :il.!M.EER s.� DESCRIPTION : AZ*=•T.- AGENCY-AOD :=6.00 ACTIVITY REPORT - ME�100TA HGT'3 PAPK INCIDENTS: DATE TIME LOCATION CASE NUMEER 08/05/96 15 : 05 VALLEY PARK 960022431 DESCRIPTION : ASSIST PUSLIC-UNLOCK ( VEH ) 40 DATE TIME LOCATION C.ASE �iUMEER 08112S'/'a5 11 :39 PICKEFE'_ L KE 9U a00 -n DESCRIPTION : FOUND PROPERTY DATE TIME LOCATION CASE NUMCEF f ors ? KEI'ISINfaT'�N PAR.< DESCRIPTION : DOE—ALL OTHEr7 DATE TI"E LOCATION ? = NUMEEG �0 : 41 IVY HILL PARK: a�'0005— C9,l10/'D6' DESCRIPTION : FIRES—ALL OTHER DATE TIME LOC, TI^r1 :,ryS,_ •JUMEE.IR .''c' _ _ 10 VI CT IRI.1 uHL, PID �— —J =I 9600340_ DESCRIPTION : FOUND FROPERT'r DATE TIME LOCATIC' CASE ,il"MEER _OJE1/'a5 14 : 15 VALLE't I''=:J PAR,"' DESCRIPTION DATE TIME LOCATION CASE MUMEE71 ---- ---- ------- ----------- lOf?1:'96 14 : 15 VALLEY `•1;=tJ PARK 9E003414 DESCRIPTION : DATE TIME LOCATICtl CASE NUMEE, nE .CF.IPTI�N : n0E—ALL I— E- -i C, i IVIT •i' PEPO T .'. M_.4DOTA !_"G7_• CAFKS INC_IDENTC. F' HATE TTm tr+;- 10/17/96 : 31 HAGSTROM LANG PARI; DESCRIPTION : SUSPICIOUS-NOISE E TIME LOCATION CASE NUMBER ` ld/01.�9F. 1 3: 12 ROGERS LAKE PART: DESCRIPTION: ASSIST PUBLIC-UNLOC". (, VEH ) DATE TIME LOCATION ."S PiUNEE: 10/E1/9c 23: 33 WENTWORTH PAP, 9,=,nd; 11 DESCRIPTION : FIRES-ALL OTHER DATE-. TIME LOCATION CASE NUMBER 10: 58 ROGERS LAKE '600370 DESCRIPTION : DOE-ALL OTHER ')ATE TIME LOCATIOf! CASE ;,lUMEE4 11/0,,'' VALLEY F'AFK 9e•0d3:40 DESCRIPTION : MISC PUBLI_-LOUD PERSON D.AT= T1,ME LOCATION CASE NUMEER' II1`-22 9c• 16: 13 WENTWORTH PARK v E�_:CFIPTICfI : DOE-AL'_ OTHEP. n�;ITE TIME LOCATION SE NUN_EP 1=. 31"9=. 16 : 28 ROGERS LAKE. `7,:' 00d2':4 DESCRIPTION : MISC PUBLIC-ALL OTHER • CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 4, 1997 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Terry Blum, Parks Leadperson SUBJECT: March Parks Report * Clean out cul-de-sacs after snow. * Plow pedways/parking lots. * Begin sweeping pedways. • * Build and install wood duck houses. * Install new vanity tops and plumbing at Mendakota bathrooms.