2017-9-5_PR Comm Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

49Staff provided the following comparisons of the current method vs. the League of MN Cities 50methodology for the collection of Park Dedication of recent Roseville developments: 51 CurrentMethodologyLeagueofMNCities DevelopmentTypeCollectionAmountMethodology (2017Rate)CollectionAmount Farrington(2016)Residential$20,000$12,168 2201Acorn(2016)Residential$7,000$20,233 Home2Suites&HamptonInn(2015)Commercial$194,980$398,346 52 53 54Commissioner Baggenstoss noted that the higher rate for non-residential would be a put off if 55he was a potential developer. 56 57The Commission discussed ways to reduce the potential for too broad of an interpretation in 58the League of MN Cities methodology. Discussion points included varying employee counts, 59average person/household, residential/commercial need and varying plat size. The 60commission agreed that they would want to limit the use of arbitrary numbers and potential 61differing of interpretations in the Park Dedication calculation. 62 63Commissioner Baggenstoss questioned if other Cities are utilizing the League of MN Cities 64Methodology. Staff provided information on surrounding Cities (Saint Louis Park, Eagan, 65Plymouth, Golden Valley and Maplewood) current methodology for determining their Park 66Dedication rates. All of the cities surveyed were utilizing a similar list to Roseville of 67surrounding community’s rates to determine Park Dedication. Golden Valley had looked at 68the League of MN Cities Sample Methodology for potential guidance. No cities are known to 69be using the League of MN Cities method. 70 71Commissioner Stoner suggested that we review statistical information every other year 72during the Commissions Park Dedication analysis (in addition to the survey of surrounding 73communities rates). He stated that this would provide empirical data for the Community to 74review and not just a comparison of other cities rates. He also commented that he liked the 75idea of potentially looking at “densities by development” as part of the Park Dedication rate 76analysis. 77 78The Commission suggested providing a recommendation at the September 5, 2017 meeting. 79This would allow further review of the methodologies. 80 81Staff reiterated the importance of Park Dedication to be clear, concise, consistent, non- 82negotiable and fair. They also suggested that the Commission consider one method, rather 83than a hybrid that is open to too much interpretation. 84 85Commissioner Hoag added that we need our Park Dedication rates to be competitive, in order 86to spur growth and development in the City. 87 88