06-1047SUBSTITUTE - 3/07/07
AMENDED - 3/21/07
Presented by
Council File # 06-1047
Green Sheet # 3033992
ORDINANCE
OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
25
2 An ordinance amending the Saint Paul Legislative Code by creating a new section,
3 Legislative Code § 69.511, entitled "parkland dedication requirements," pertaining to the
4 dedication of land or payment of cash in lieu of a land dedication far public use for parks
5 and open space, and establishing policies and procedures for these new requirements; and
6 renumbering old Leg. Code § 69.511 and § 69.512.
7 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN p;;� c}
s
9 Section 1 � 3 S �
1 o That the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by adding the following new language to read as
11 follows:
12 Sec. 69.511. Parkland dedication requirements.
13 (a) Generally. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 462358, Subd. 2, as amended and as otherwise nrovided
14 below, for subdivision and development of land, the owners, subdividers, or develoners of the land
15 shall convey to the citv or dedicate to the nublic use a reasonable portion of the land for public use
16 for parks, plav�'ounds, trails, ouen snace, or conservation pumoses. The citv council shall determine
17 the location and confi¢uration of anv land dedicated, taking into consideration the suitabilitv and
18 adantabilitv of the land for its intended purpose, future needs of the provosed develonment, and the
19 followinQ criteria:
2 0 (1) conformance with the city's adopted comnrehensive plan and develonment or nroiect plans for
21 sub-areas of the citv;
22
23
24
25
26
27
(21 areas identified for park or conservarion purposes in an adonted citv, reQional, state, or national
plan;
(3) areas that connect existing comnonents of the onen space network;
(4) areas adiacent to existing nublic oarks, trails, or onen space;
(5) areas representin� siaiificant landforms, native ulant communities, sensitive habitat. or
historical events;
28 (6) areas containin� ve�etation identified as endaneered or threatened, or that provide habitat for
29 animals identified as endangered, threatened, or of svecial concern under 15 U.S.C. &1531 et.
3 o seq. or Minn. Stat. & 84.0895, and rules adonted under these resoective laws;
31
32
33
34
(7) availabilitv and commihnent of resources vublic and/or nrivate to develou operate and
maintain the new park land:
(8) prioritv will be eiven to areas that are under-served bv parks due to distance to existine narks
population densitv, or inadequate size of existin2 nearbv parks;
3 5 (9) land to be dedicated shall be laree enou�h for its intended nuroose•
06-1047
36 (10) land dedicated solelv for roadwav, stormwater retention, ar utilitv pumoses, or otherwise
3 7 unsuitable for the purposes listed above, shall not be accented;
38 (11) dedicated land shall be accessible to the public served unless the citv council determines that
39 the dedicated land is an environmentallv or ecolo�ically sensitive azea far which public access
4 0 would be detrimental.
41 (b) Parkland dedication at the time of platting. For platting of land for residential, commercial, or
42 industrial develonment, the pronertv owners, subdividers or developers shall dedicate two (21 percent
43 of the total acrea�e of the plat, on a one time basis, prior to or at the same time as recordine the fmal
44 plat, for the nurposes listed in subdivision (al of this section. Land so dedicated shall be within the
45 plat and/ar, subiect to agreement bv the citv council and the subdividers, in close proximitv to the
4 6 plat•
47 (c) Parkland dedication option; land and/or cash dedication. At the discretion of the citv council, the
48 owners, subdividers, or develouers of uropertv subiect to this section shall contribute an amount of
4 9 cash, priar to obtaining the citv clerk's sienature on the final nlat, in lieu of all or a nortion of the land
50 reauired under subdivisions (al and (bl of this section or an equivalent value of unnrovements as
51 approved bv the citv counciL The amount of cash shall be based upon the countv assessor's estimated
52 market value of the total acrea�e of the plat, at the time of citv council approval of the nlat,
53 multiplied bv one-third of the percenta¢e of the land that would otherwise be dedicated. In
54 determininQ whether land dedication or cash in lieu thereof will be required, the citv council shall
55 consider without limitation the suitabilitv and adavtabilitv of land within the site for the nurposes
56 listed in subdivision (al of this section and criteria for land dedication in subdivision (a) of this
5 7 section. � J ���
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
develovment, the propertv owners, subdividers or developers shall dedicate land or cash in lieu of
land, on a one time basis, for the purposes listed in subdivision (a) of this section based on the
number of additional accessorv off-street parking spaces, and conversion of existin�
commerciallindustrial accessorv parking to residential snaces, for the development. For residential
development, the amount of land shall be one hundred (1001 square feet ner surface narking space
and fiftv (50) square feet per parking space within a shucture, to a maximum of seven (71 percent of
the total land area of the propertv. For commercial and industrial develoroment, the amount of land
shall be thirtv (30) square feet ner surface parking svace and fifteen (15) square feet per parkin�
space within a structure, to a ma�cimum of two (2) percent of the property. Land so dedicated shall be
within or in close nroximitv to the develonment. The amount of cash in lieu of land shall be based
upon the county assessor's estimated market value of the parcel of land per square foot, multinlied bv
one-third of the square feet of land that would otherwise be dedicated. For narkin¢ spaces for
dwelline units required to be affordable under Saint Paul Housin� and Redevelopment Authoritv or
other similar financing a�reements, or other contractual a�reement with the citv, the amount of cash
othenvise required shall be multiplied bv the specified vercenta¢e of Twin Cities area median income
at which the unit is required to be affordable. The citv council mav require the land dedication option
under this subdivision (dl as a condition ofplat anuroval, and in so doine mav require that the land be
dedicated prior to or at the same time as recording the final plat. In all other cases. the dedication of
land or cash in lieu of land required under this subdivision (d) shall be done nrior to obtaining
buildin� permits for develooment to which the nuking spaces are accessorv, and the dedication of
land shall be subiect to a�reement bv the citv council and the owners. subdividers or developers:
without such agreement, cash shall be paid in lieu of land dedication.
06-1047
81 (e) Parkland dedication option� private land maintained for public use. The citv council mav, at its
82 discretion. waive all or a portion of the land or cash dedication required under subdivisions (b), (c) or
83 (d) of this section and enter into an a�eement for the orivate develooment and/or maintenance of
84 land for public use for parks, playQrounds. trails, oroen space, ar conservarion pumoses within the
85 pronosed plat, subiect to the followin� conditions:
86 (1) The land area or value of the land and improvements nrivatelv develoved and maintained for
87 public use for uarks, plav�'ounds, trails, open snace, or conservation pumoses must at least
88 equal that required under this ardinance.
8 9 (21 Land, facilities. and imurovements acceoted under this provision shall be accessible to the
90 public in a manner similaz to nublic land.
91 (3) The citv council must find, after recommendation of the director of pazks and recreation and the
92 parks commission, that such land and imnrovements will serve the purposes listed in
93 subdivision (a) ofthis section; and
94 (4) The citv and the owners, subdividers, or deveIoners of the land must have executed a parkland
95 develonment a�reement insurin� that specified land shall be developed and maintained bv the
96 owners, subdividers, or develoners, and anv and all successors in interest thereof, of anv twe
97 whatsoever, which includes, but is not limited to heirs and assigns, for the numoses listed in
98 subdivision (a) of this section. The owners, subdividers, or develoners must include a covenant
99 running with the snecified land indicatin� that the land to be develoned and maintained for the
10 0 purposes listed in subdivision (a) will revert to the citv in the event of a failure to comvlv with
101 this requirement. When a recordable covenant concerning the ownership, maintenance or use
102 of nrivate areas and facilities for parkland develonment is required, the covenant shall be
10 3 submitted to the citv for approval. Such covenant shall be recorded nrior to or at the same time
104 as the final plat when related to requirements under subdivision (b) of this section, and prior to
l 0 5 obtainin� building permits when related to requirements under subdivision (dl of this section.
106 (fl Parkland dedication� convevance standards. Prior to dedication and convevance of the required
107 propertv to the citv, the owners, subdividers or developers shall provide the Citv with an acceptable
108 abstract of title or re¢istered vronertv abstract for all land dedicated for park puruoses, evidencinQ
109 good and marketable title without liens ar encumbrances of anv kind except those encumbrances
110 which the citv council has avnroved or required in connection with the nroposed plat. The foreQOing
111 abstracts shall otherwise evidence good and marketable title free and clear of anv mort�ages, liens,
112 encumbrances, assessments and taxes. For anv dedication of land reauired under subdivision (bl of
113 this section that is not formallv dedicated to the citv with the final nlat, the landowner sba11 record all
114 deeds for convevance of the propertv to the citv prior to or at the same time as recordine the fmal
115 plat. For anv dedication of land required under subdivision (d) of this section, the landowner shall
116 record all deeds for conveyance of the pronertv to the citv prior to obtainin� buildin� permits for the
117 development.
118 �g) Parkland dedication; parkland development special fund created. There is herebv established a
119 parkland develonment special fund. All funds collected pursuant to the parkland dedication orocess
12 0 shall be deposited in the parkland development special fund and used solely far the acquisition and
121 development or improvement of lands dedicated for oublic use for puks, plav�rounds, trails, open
12 2 soace, or conservation pumoses in the vlannin� district of the subdivision or develoroment far which
123 the fiznds were collected, or in an adiacent vlanning district within one-half mile of the subdivision or
124 develonment. Such fixnds mav not be used for onQOing operations or maintenance. All fund
[�I:�GZ41
12 5 exroenditures shall be auproved bv the citv council unon recommendation of the director of parks and
12 6 recreation in consultation with the parks and recreation commission. Expenditures from the narkland
12 7 develoDment snecial fund shall be in conformance with the citv's adopted comprehensive plan and
128 development or nroiect nlans for sub-areas of the citv, and shall be consistent with other applicable
12 9 criteria in subdivision (al of this section. Pavments made to satisfv the requirements of this section
13 0 shall be made senaratelv from anv pavments for buildine vernuts or anv other pavment.
131
132
Section 2
13 3 That Legislative Code § 69.511 and § 69.512 are hereby renumbered as follows:
134 Sec. 69.51�2. Public sites.
13 5 Where a proposed park, playground, school ar other public site is wholly or partly within the boundary of a
136 proposed subdivision and such proposed public site is not dedicated to the city, no action shall be taken
13 7 towards approval of the preliminary plat for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days to allow the planning
138 commission or board of educarion the opportunity to consider and to take action towards acquisition of
13 9 such public site by purchase or other cause.
140 Sec.69.5133. Monuments.
141
142 This ord
143 a35saee.
om a nd after :
�� �.,�
��� ��
Requested by Department o£:
Parks and Recreation
/�i7t« � J ���
Form Approved y City Attorney
s !�- l✓. ��— 3-`-0 7
adopted by Date ��
Council: /C /!9d/!�o���.�1�7
Form Ap oved b Mayor for Submission
Adoption Certi£ied b Council Secretary to Cou il
By' �� By:
Approved by Date y- a- aoo � °'
Mayor: �J�� Fi ,.1 J
� � r��-�-�z�
Section 3
take effect and be in force
�`�' '"-'°i APR � 5 '�7
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
06 -/o`f �
DepartmeM/office/council: Date Initiated:
pR — p���axecreation � 2�T-06 Green Sheet NO: 3033992
Contact Person & Phone: DeoarlmeM Sent To Person Initial/Date
Bob BietSCheid � 0 ar and Recreation
2666A09 ASSign 1 IParks and Recreation � Denartment Director �` -
Must Be on Council /�enda by (Date): Num6e� Z laonin & Economic Develo F�`� J
For
Routing 3 itvAttomev «'l-+C �
Order 4 a or•s Office vor i tant
5 ouncil
6 i Clerk
7 arks and Recreation Bob Bierscheid
ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Loptions for Signature)
Action Requested:
Sig�atures on attached ordinance amending the Saint Paul Legislative Code by creating a new section (Leg Code 69.511) enritled
"pazkland dedication requirements, residenrial developments".
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Mswer the Following Questions:
Planning Commission 1. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contract for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/frm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm passess a skill not normally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
6cplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
City staff in Pazks and PED together with Raxnsey County Friends of Pazks and Trails have worked togeffier for ovex two yeazs to
develop a mutually acceptable ordinance that will assure that our pazk system will continue tomeet the needs of a growing population.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft Parkland Dedication Ordinance on 7/28/06 and 8/11/06 where all
persons present were afforded an opportunity to tesrify conceming the draft ordinance. On 10/20/06, the Plann
Advantages If Approved: '-"-'� � ; '� � t a �+� �� -�,
Our Pazk system will continue to meet the needs of residents. �� t� � �$�� ,.� ��
�
,�,.W c . �..
a; • . . _ `i;L�3
NoneVanWnes If Approved: y� J � y_�- ���a� � ry� `�,h�`
����.__., ..-._...,.. 0.
� R@��fi�� �!��
DisadvanWges If NotApproved:
Our Pazk system will not be able to continue to meet the needs of residents. i, pg y/ /� C � r � c
ILUY V c9 CQQ�71
ToWI Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: ,
7ransactiorr. ����� ���
Funding Source: Activity Number:
n:/ ZUQ6
�FL i Ej)
Fi naneial Information:
(Explain) -�
��"�°�„ :°'�'''���
., �.��
�
�
G�
The Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation's mission is to: Reconnect the city of Saint Paul
and its people, places, ancl neighborhoods to the Mississippi River in ways that are
consistenl with the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework.
We support the Parkland Dedication Ordinance before you today - as part of an integrated
City development strategy_
Following Ben Thompson's vision of Saint Paut as a Great River Park, we believe in the
vision of "a ciTy in a park, and a pazk in a city." This concept of Great River Park is part
of a value-based economic development strategy — where place not only matters, but is a
cornerstone of community growth and revitalization — a special asset that distinguishes
Saint Paul from other regional and national marketplaces.
For a dozen yeazs, the Riverfront Corporarion has focused its efforts on the roughly four
square miles of the riverfront downtown, helping orgauize and drive over $100 million in
public realm investment that helped catalyze and leverage over $1 billion in private
investment. Now, as we expand our efforts to the entire 17-mile sweep of the Mississippi
River through Saint Paul, we continue to balance important matters of place and ecology
with community development and neighborhood vitality.
As Saint Paut grows and our density increases - the Metropolitan Council forecasts one
million new metro residents by 2030 - how we manage the ne�ct steps of our growth is key.
Former Metropolitan Council Chair Ted Mondale said, "You have clear numbers that say
that more dense developments with more shared open space will be more valuable. That
means mare value for developers, more value for the city and more value far the
homeowners."
The Ewnomic Value of Open Space report, prepared for the McKnight Foundation by
Paul Anton of Wilder Research, "confirms that many types of open spaces, from parks
and nature preserves to greenway, wedands and lakes, haue a positive effect on nearby
property values." It also reported that two thirds of current Twin Cities residents
interviewed said they would pay 10-25% more for a home within walking distance of
open space.
The Wilder report's executive summary concludes, "Communities that have a more
complete understanding of the fiscal implications of open space will be better equipped to
set priorifies and strike a balance between open space and other objectives that wiil lead
to a higher qualiTy of life for their residents now and in the years to come." The
Riverfront Corporation concurs.
We support the Pazktand Dedication Ordinance before you today, but would like to see it
as part of a broader, integrated, City economic development policy. Specifically we
suggest that:
�
�
• This ordinance be part of a broader comprehensive plan for developing, managing and
maintaining the city's park and open space (this proposed ordinance will help create
pazk and open space, and brick and mortar facilities, but does not idenrify how to
manage or maintain them); secondly
• Make sure that decisions on land, or cash in lieu of land, from this ordinance be made
based on existing, or in concert with developing, community small area plans; and lasUy
• Pazkland Dedication should be combined with a comprehensive set of Economic
Development Principles aud Strategies for the city to fully integrate public realm
place-based development with neighborhood/community economic development,
to understand the relationship between the two, and prioritize decision-makin° criteria.
Council File #�j��'/D��-
Green 5heet # 3033992
OF
by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ORDINANCE
\INT PAUL, MINNESOTA
An ordin ce amending the Saint Paul Legislative Code by creating a new section,
Legislative ode § 69.511, enritled "pazkland dedication requirements, residential
developments, ertaining to the dedication of land or, in some instances, the payment of
cash in lieu of a d dedication, for public use when platting or replatting parcels of land
for residenrial devel ment which will result in an increase in the number of dwelling units,
and establishing polici and procedures for these new requirements; and renumbering old
Leg. Code § 69.511 and 9.512.
9 THE COUNCIL OF THE �I'I
l0 \
11 That the Saint Paul Legislative Code is
12 follows:
13 Sec. 69.511. Parkland dedication rea'.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2, 3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
sub-areas ofthe citv;
plan;
OF SAINT PAUL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
Section 1
amended by adding the following new language to read as
�4) azeas adi acent to existingpublic narks, trails, or oUen space;
historical events
maintain the new roark land;.
population densitv, or inadequate size of existin�nearbXparks;
�
37
3S
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
�9) land to be dedicated shall be lazge enoueh for its intended purpose;
unsuitable for the ourposes listed above, shall not be accepted:
section.
pro on sed �lat, subiect to the followina conditions:
equal that required under this ordinance.
uublic in a manner similar to public land.
subdivision (a) of this secrion; and
C�L -io�f�-
06 -/Otf�Z.
8 0 develonment a�reement insurina that specified land shall be develo�ed and maintained by tl�e
$1 owners. subdividers or develoners and any and all successors in interest thereof of an�tvpe
82 whatsoever, which includes. but is not lunited to heirs and assi�s for the pumoses listed in
$ 3 subdivision (a) of this secrion. The owners subdividers or develoroers must include a covenant
84 n,nnina with the sroecified land indicating that the land to be develoned and maintained for the
85 oses listed in subdivision a will revert to the Cit in the event of a failure to com 1 with
86 ' re uirement. When a recordable covenant concernin the ownershi maintenance or use
8 7 of bate areas and facilities for arkland develo ment is re uired the covenant shall be
8 8 submi to the Cit for a roval. Such covenant sha11 be recorded rior to or at the same time
8 9 as the fina nlat
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
Section 2
114 That Legislative Code § 69.511 and § 69.512 are hereby renumbered as
115 Sec. 69.51�2. Public sites.
116 Where a proposed park, playground, school or other public site is wholly or partly ithin the boundary of a
117 proposed subdivision and such proposed public site is not dedicated to the city, n action shall be taken
118 towards approval of the preliminary plat for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days t allow the planning
119 conunission or board of education the opportunity to consider and to take action tow ds acquisation of
12 0 such public site by purchase or other cause. ,
121 Sec.69.5133. Monuments.
. . o� -�o� f �
izz
Yeas Nays Absent
Benanav
Bostrom
Harris
Helgen
Lantry
Montgomery
Thune
Adopted by Date
Council:
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By:
Approved by Date
Mayor:
ste bw Departm t of: ,
� and R �creatj,on� Director
By: \ 7-��
`�5�
Planning �
Form
By:
Form
to G
By:
aic Development Director
City Attorney
/(�(.• J C
9t RE.G•c• FGY.ri�
for Submission
o� io��
city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number o6-so
date October 20, 2006
Parkland Dedication Ordinance
WHEREAS, MN Stat. § 462.358, Subd. 2b, Dedication, states that municipal subdivision
"regulations may require that a reasonable portion of a proposed subdivision be dedicated to the
pubtic or preserved fior conservation purposes or fior public use as parks, recreational faciliiies ...,
playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space; provided that ...(4) the municipality reasonably
determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes stated in this paragraph
as a result of approval of the subdivision;" and
WHEREAS, the Division of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Planning and Economic
Deveiopment have colfaborated in drafting an ordinance to amend Chapter 69, Subdivision
Regulations, of the Zoning Code by creating a new Sec. 69.511, parkland dedication requirements,
residential developments, in conformance with the provisions of MN Stat. § 462.358; and
WHEREAS, MN Stat. § 462.357, Subd. 4 requires that an amendment to the Zoning Code be
referred to the planning agency for study and report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft Parkland Dedication
Ordinance on July 28, 2006, and August 11, 2006, where all persons present were afforded an
opportunity to testify concerning the draft ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Plan chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, adopted
by the City Council on January 9, 2002, Policy 3 calls for pursuing opportunities and partnerships to
acquire land specifically for open space and natural resource protection according to any of the
following criteria: areas containing species included on the State of Federal list of endangered or
threatened species; areas representing significant landforms, native plant communities, or sensitive
habitat; areas that connect existing components of the open space network; and areas adjacent to
existing parkland/open space; and
WHEREAS, Policy 16 of the Parks and Recreation Plan calls for pursuing opportunities and joint
use partnerships to acquire or provide access to land for parks, open space, or recreation
development according to the following criteria: priority will be given to areas that are under-served
due to distance to existing parks, population density, or inadequate size and condition of existing
nearby park(s); land parcels must be of adequate size to accommodate proposed development;
availability and commitment of resources, public and(or private, to develop, operate, and maintain
new park facilities; gifts of suitable land will be accepted when resources, public and/or private, are
identified to maintain the property; and conformity with other applicable public policy; and
WHEREAS, the criteria in Policy 3 and in Policy 16 of the Parks and Recreation Plan are reflected
in criteria listed in Sec. 69.511(a) of the draft Parkland Dedication Ordinance; and
moved by Donnellv-Cohen
seconded by
in favor Unanimous
against
�� '�oy7
Planning Commission Resolution # 06-80 regarding Parkland Dedication Ordinance
October 20, 2006
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the provision in Sec. 69.511(d) of the draft Parkland Dedication Ordinance for private
development and maintenance of private land for public use for parks and open space is consistent
with Policy 5 of the Parks and Recreation Plan, which calls for taking advantage of opportunities
that arise from redevelopment aciivities to add or enhance the cifij's open space and natural
resources, and giving priority opportunities that do not add publicly-owned and developed parkland
that will require additional public maintenance or operating expenses; and
WHEREAS, Policy 6.2 of the Housing Plan chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, adopted
by the City Council on January 9, 2002, calls for the City to enable the preservation and
construction of affordable housing, and Policy 6.1.a of the Housing Plan supports an incentive
program for communities to lower housing construction costs associated with local requirements;
and
WHEREAS, Policy 6.4 of the Housing Plan states that "the City should encourage the development
of housing affordable to households with incomes below 50, 60 and 80 percent of the regional
median income by:
a. Investing public financing only in developments where a minimum of 20 percent of the units are
reserved for households with incomes below 50 percent of the regional median income, with
half of those for households with incomes below 30 percent of the regional median income;
b. Supporting the efforts of Habitat for Humanity and other philanthropic organizations in their
production of 25 homes a year affordable to households with incomes below 50 percent of the
regional median;
c. ... providing additional incentives to ... developers willing to take advantage of federal revenue
bond programs that offer 4°/o tax credits in return for the construction of rental projects in which
at least 20% of the units are affordable to households with incomes below 60% of the regional
median;
d. Promote alternative ownership and financing mechanisms such as community land trusts,
limited equity cooperatives and condominiums, nonprofit ownership of rental housing, mutual
housing associations and deed restrictions that are designed to ensure that the housing remains
affordable for an extended period of time;" and
WHEREAS, Policy 6.6 of the Housing Plan supports a variety of initiatives that will allow lower
income households to move into homeownership, including philanthropic and self-help efforts such
as Habitat for Humanity, and alternatives such as cooperatives and land trusts that preserve
affordability beyond the first owners of the property; and
WHEREAS, the proposed local park dedication requirements would increase the cost of developing
new housing, including affordable housing, and without a provision for a reduced fee for affordable
housing, particulariy housing required to be affordable under HRA or other financing agreements,
the park dedication fee would be inconsistent with these policies in the Housing Plan; and
WHEREAS, land in close proximity to a plat may be better land for parks and open space than land
within the plat, and most in keeping with the city's comprehensive plan and development or project
plans for the area; and
WHEREAS, there should be a process for adequate public participation in decision making
regarding parkland development special fund expenditures to ensure expenditures best meet
citizen needs, determined with a process that incfudes possibility for review and recommendations
by district councils and those most affected, and helps to tie parkland development special fund
expenditures to a holistic strategic plan, with funding decisions made according to planned service
levels, informed and carried out with a long term vision; and
b� �/ai{7
Planning Commission Resolution # 06-80 regarding Parkland Dedication Ordinance
October 20, 2006
Page 3 of 3
WHEREAS, expenditures from the parkland development special fund should be in conformance
with the city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas of the
city; and
WHEREAS, there may be a change in the number of housing units between the time of filing a plat
and getting building permits that would affect the amount of a parkland dedication fee, and in the
case of reduced fees for affordable housing, the number of housing units required to be affordable
would often not be known until just before getting building permits and well after filing of a plat;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends the attached
amendments to Chapter 69, Subdivision Regulations of the Zoning Code by creating a new Sec.
69.511, parkland dedications requirements, residential developments, with the following changes
noted in the attached amendments:
1. Added language in paragraph (a) to make it clear that dedicated land may be in close proximity
to the plat as well as within the plat;
2. Added language in paragraph (c) to provide for reduced parkland dedication fees for dwelling
units required to be affordable under Saint Paul Housing and Redevelopment Authority or other
financing agreement, or other contractual agreement with the City;
3. Added language in paragraph (fl to require adoption of a process to ensure adequate public
participation in decision making regarding parkland development special fund expenditures;
4. Added language in paragraph (t� to require all expenditures from the parkland development
special fund to be in conformance with the city's adopted comprehensive plan and development
or project plans for sub-areas of the city; and
5. Change to language in paragraph (� to change the time of payment of a parkland dedication fee
from prior to filing of a plat to prior to obtaining building permits for additional dwelling units
within the piat.
(5G �/o�f 7
An ordulance amending the Saint Paul Legislative Code by creating a new section,
Legislative Code § 69.511, entitled "parkland dedication requirements, residential
developments," pertaining to the dedication of land or, in some instances, the
payment of cash in lieu of a land dedication, for public use when platting or replatting
pazcels of land for residential development which will result in an increase in the
number of dwelling units, and establishing policies and procedures for these new
requirements; and renumberin� old Leg. Code § 69.511 and § 69.512.
TFIE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
Section 1
That the Saint Paul Lea slative Code is hereby amended by adding the following new language to
read as follows:
Sec. 69.511. Parkland dedication re4uirements, residential developments.
(al Generally. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.358, Subd. 2, as amended and as otherwise
nrovided below, for plattine of land for residential development that will result in an increase
in the number of dwelline units, the owners. subdividers, or developers of the land shall
convev to the citv or dedicate to the uublic use a reasonable vortion of the land for public use
for parks, plav�.ounds, trails o,�en snace, or conservation pumoses. This requirement shall not
anplv to nlattin� of land that does not increase the overall number of dwelling units. The Citv
Council shall determine the location and confi�uration of anv land dedicated, talang into
consideration the suitabilitv and adaptability of the land for its intended purpose, future needs
ofthe prouosed develonment, and followine criteria:
(1) conformance with the citv's adopted comprehensive plan and develoUment or proiect
plans for sub-areas of the citv;
(2) areas identified for park or conservation purposes in an adopted citv, re�ional, state, or
national plan;
(3) areas that connect existin� components of the open space netwark;
(4) areas adjacent to existingpublic parks, trails, or open space;
(5) areas representing siauficant landforms, native plant communities, sensitive habitat, or
historical events•
(6) areas containin�ve�etation identified as endaneered or threatened, or that provide habitat
for animals identified as endangered, threatened, or of special concem under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1531 et. sea. ar Minn. Stat. & 84.0895. and rules adopted under these respective laws;
(7) availability and coxnxnitment of resources, public and/or nrivate, to develop, operate, and
maintain the new park land;
(8) UriOrity will be given to areas that are under-served bv parks due to distance to existing
parks, population density, or inadequate size of existin�nearbv varks;
� land to be dedicated shall be lar�e enoueh far its intended � ose;
(10) land dedicated solely for roadwav, stormwater retention, or utilit�puruoses, or otherwise
unsuitable for the nurposes listed above, shall not be accented:
(11) dedicated land shall be accessible to the public served unless the Citv Council determines
that the dedicated land is an environmentallv or ecolo�icallv sensitive area for which
public access would be detrimental.
10/20/06 DRAFT ORDINANCE Sec. 69.511 Page 1 Zoning Code
[DRAFTING NOTES: Park dedication requirements are based on enabling legislation in MN Stat. 462.358
O�cial controls: subdivision regulations; dedication. MN Stat 462.358, Subd. 1a, Authorify, states that a
municipality may by ordinance adopt subdivision regulations to facilitate adequate provision for transportation,
water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, parks, playgrounds, and other public services and facifities. MN
Stat. 462.358, Subd. 2b, Dedication, states that municipal subdivision "regulations may require that a
reasonable portion of a proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation
purposes or for public use as parks, recreational facilities as defined and outlined in section 471.191,
playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space; provided that ...(4) the municipality reasonably determines that
it will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes stated in this paragraph as a result of approval of
the subdivision °
The criteria for land dedication listed here are consistent with the criteria listed in 3, 5, and 16 of the Parks
and Recreation Plan chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 3 of the Parks and Recreation Plan states, "Pursue opportunities and partnerships to acquire land
specifically for open space and natural resource protection according to any of the following criteria:
a. Areas containing species included on the State of Federal list of endangered or threatened species;
b. Areas representing significant landforms, native plant communities, or sensitive habitat;
c. Areas that connect existing components of the open space network; and
d. Areas adjacent to existing parkland/open space.
Policy 5 of the Parks and Recreation Plan states, "Take advantage of opportunities that arise from
redevelopment activities to add or enhance the city's open space and natural resources. Priority will be given
to opportunities that do not add publicly-owned and developed parkland that will require additional public
maintenance or operating expenses"
Policy 16 of the Parks and Recreation Plan states, "Pursue opportunities and joint use partnerships to
acquire or provide access to land for parks, open space, or recreation development according to the following
criteria:
a. Priority will be given to areas that are under-served due to distance to existing parks, population
density, or inadequate size and condition of existing nearby park)s);
b. Land parcels must be of adequate size to accommodate proposed development;
c. Availability and commitment of resources, public and/or private, to develop, operate, and maintain new
park facilities;
d. Gifts of suitable land will be accepted when resources, public and/or private, are identified to maintain
the property; and
e. Conformity with other applicable pubfic policy.}
(bl Parkland dedication formula. For plattin� of land for residential development that will
increase the nuxnber of dwelline units, the propertv owners, subdividers or developers shall
dedicate 0.008 acres (eight thousandths of an acrel of land per additional dwellin¢ unit within
the plat to a maYimuxn of twelve (12) percent of the total acreage of the plat, on a one time
basis, for the nurposes listed in subdivision (a) of this section. Land so dedicated shall be
within the rolat and/or. subiect to aereement bv both the Citv Council and the subdividers. in
close roroximitv to the olat.
[DR.4FTING NOTES: MN Stat. 462.358, Subd. 2b, Dedication, states that municipal subdivision "regulations
may require that a reasonable portion of a proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for
conservation purposes or for public use as parks, recreational facilities ... playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or
open space." For cities in the Metropolitan Area with percent of residential land park dedication requirements,
8% to 10% is the norm, one measure of what is a"reasonable portion:' A few are lower (e.g., 6.8% in Arden
Hills) and a few are higher. The few that are higher (Hastings, Hopkins, Lino Lakes, Plymouth, St. Louis Park,
and Stillwater) have requirements with a range of generally about 9-15% of residential land based on
development size and/or density.
10/20/06 DRAFT ORDINANCE Sec. 69.511 Page 2 Zoning Code
The 0.008 acres (348 sq. feet) per unit dedication requirement is 6.9% of a standard 5000 sq. foot one-family
residential lot. For a duplex, it would be 11.6% of a 6000 sq. foot two-family residential lot. Residential
development with more than,duplex density would hit the 12% parkland dedication requirement maximum.
The 12% standard would mean more than 1 block of parkland for every 8 residential blocks, a development
pattern in which on average every residential block would be adjacent to at least 1 block of parkland.
The requirement that the dedicated land must be within the plat or in close proximity to the plat, an
amendment recommended by the Planning Commission indicated bv double underlinina, makes it clear that
dedicated land may be in close proximity to the plat as well as within the plat. Land outside of the plat itself
may be the best land for parks and open space, and most in keeping with the cit�s comprehensive plan and
development or project plans for the area. Requiring that it be in close proximity to the plat helps to ensure
(as required under state statutes) that the dedicated land serves the need created by the plat for parks and
open space.]
(cl Parkland dedtcation option; land and/or cash dedication. At the discretion of the City
Council, the owners, subdividers, or develoroers of pro�ert�ject to this section shall
contribute an amount of cash in lieu of all or a nortion of the land required under subdivisions
(a) and (b) of this section or an equivalent value of improvements as approved by the Citv
Council. The amount of cash shall be based upon the County Assessor's estimated market
value of the total acreage of the plat, at the time of City Council avproval of the olat, multiplied
by the percenta�e of the land that would otherwise be dedicated. Notwithstandin� the
dedication formula in subdivision (bl of this section, the maacimum amount of cash dedication
required under this section shall not exceed three thousand dollars ($3000.001 per dwellin�
unit. The Citv Council mav review this maximum cash dedication amount on a yearl�asis
and adiust it for inflation. For dwelline units reauired to be affardable under Saint Paul
Housin� and Redeveloroment Authoritv or other financin� a�reements. or other contractual
a eement with the Citv, the amount of cash otherwise reauired shall be multirolied bv the
s ecified nercentaee of Twin Cities area median income at which the unit is reauired to be
affordable. In determining whether land dedication or cash in lieu thereof will be required, the
Citv Council shall consider without limitation the suitabilitv and ada tabilitv of land within the
site far the nurposes listed in subdivision (a) of this section and criteria for land dedication in
subdivision (al of this section.
[DRAFTING NOTES: This paragraph gives the City Council the option of requiring a cash contribution in lieu
of land dedication when land within the site would not be suitable or adaptable for the purposes listed in
subdivision (a).
Park dedication requirements are based on enabling legislation in MN Stat. 462.358 Official controls:
subdivision regulations; dedication. MN Stat. 462.358, Subd. 2b, Dedication, states that municipal subdivision
"regulations may require that a reasonable portion of a proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or
preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, recreational facilities as defined and outlined
in section 471.191, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space; provided that (1) the municipality may
choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to
be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later than at
the time of final approval" (emphasis added).
The provision recommended by the Planning Commission (in icated bv double underlinino) for a reduced fee
for dwelling units required to be affordable under Saint Paul Housing and Redevelopment Authority or other
financing agreement, or other contractual agreement with the City, responds to the unique problem that the
cost of the parkland dedication fee cannot be recouped by charging more for rent or purchase of such
affordable housing units. It also responds to the following policies in the Housing Plan chapter of the Saint
Paul Comprehensive Plan pertaining to provisions and incentives for development of affordable housing:
Policy 6.2 of the Housing Plan calls for the City to enable the preservation and construction of affordable
housing. Policy 6.1.a of the Housing Plan supports an incentive program for communities to lower
housing construction costs associated with local requirements.
10/20/06 DRAFT ORDINANCE Sec. 69.511 Page 3 Zoning Code
Policy 6.4 of the Housing Plan states that "the City should enco�rage the development of housing
affordable to households with incomes below 50, 60 and 80 percent of the regional median income by:
a. Investing public financing only in developments where a minimum of 20 percent of the units are
reserved for households with incomes below 50 percent of the regional median income, with half of
those for households with incomes below 30 percent of the regional median income.
b. Supporting the efforts of Habitat for Humanity and other philanthropic organizations in their production
of 25 homes a year affordable to households with incomes below 50 percent of the regional median.
c. ... providing additional incentives to ... developers willing to take advantage of federal revenue
bond programs that offer 4% tax credits in return for the construction of rental projects in which at
least 20% of the units are affordable to households with incomes below 60% of the regional median.
d. Promote alternative ownership and financing mechanisms such as community land trusts, limited
equity cooperatives and condominiums, nonprofit ownership of rental housing, mutual housing
associations and deed restrictions that are designed to ensure that the housing remains affordable for
an extended period of time"
Policy 6.4 also notes the value of using public financing for senior housing and encouraging older
households to make their larger homes available to larger family households.
Policy 6.6 of the Housing Plan supports a variety of initiatives that will allow lower income households to
move into homeownership, including philanthropic and self-help efforts such as Habitat for Humanity, and
alternative such as cooperatives and land trusts that preserve affordability beyond the first owners of the
property.
The proposed local park dedication requirements would increase the cost of developing new housing,
including affordable housing, in Saint Paul. Without a provision for a reduced fee for affordable housing,
particularly housing required to be affordable under HRA or other financing agreements, or other contractual
agreements with the City, the park dedication fee would be inconsistent with these policies in the Housing
Plan.
HRA financing agreements that require housing units to remain affordable for some period of time generally
apply to rental projects, where units are typically required to be affordable for 10 to 30 years. The primary
financing tools for rental housing, federal revenue bonds and tax credits, require at least 20°!0 of the housing
units to be affordable to households with incomes below 60% of the regional median income. This accounts
for a large majority of new housing units required to be affordable. HRA financed owner-occupied units are
generally not required to remain affordable for some period of time, so would generally not be covered under
the provision for a reduced fee for affordable housing in paragraph (c).
Habitat for Humanity and Rondo Community Land Trust do ownership projects for which they require housing
units to remain affordable. Habitat for Humanity typically retains the right of first refusal to buy back
ownership units to keep them affordable, usually at or below 50% of the area median income. The
community land trust requires housing to remain affordable below 80% of the area medium income. This
accounts for only a sma11 number of new housing units, which would be covered under the provision for a
reduced fee for affordable housing in paragraph (c).
Under the provision recommended by the Planning Commission for a reduced fee for dwelling units required
to be affordable under Saint Paul Housing and Development Authority or other financing agreement, or other
contractual agreement with the City, for a housing unit required to be affordabfe to households with incomes
at or below 60% of the Twin Cities area median income, the parkland dedication fee would be 60% of the fee
that would otherwise be required. For a 20-unit housing development in which 4 of the units are required to
remain affordable to households with income at or below 60% of the area median income, the parkland
dedication fee for the 4 affordable units would be 60% of the fee that would otherwise be required for the 4
affordable units; a fu11 parkland dedication fee would required for the other 16 units. For a housing unit
required to be affordable to households with incomes at or below 80% of the area median income, the
parkland dedication fee for that unit would be 80% of the fee that would otherwise be required for that unit. If
a unit is affordable only to households with incomes more than 80% of the area median income, or if it is not
�equired, to be affordable at some specified lower percentage, then 100°/a of the parkland dedication fee
would be required.]
10/20/06 DRAFT ORDINANCE Sec. 69.511 Page 4 Zoning Code
(dZ ParkZand dedication option: private land maint¢ined for public use. The City Council mav, at
its discrerion, waive all or a nortion of the land or cash dedication required under subdivisions
(bl or (c) of this section and enter into an a�eement for the private development and/or
maintenance of land for public use for pazks, plav�z'ounds, trails, open space, or conservarion
purposes within the proposed plat, subiect to the following conditions:
�11 The land azea or value of the land and improvements privatelv developed and maintained
for public use for uarks, �lay�ounds, trails. open space, or conservation purt�oses must at
least equal that required under this ordinance.
(2) Land, facilities, and improvements acceoted under this provision shall be accessible to
the public in a manner similar to public land.
(3) The Citv Council must find, after recommendation of the Director of Parks and
Recreation and the Parks Coxnxnission, that such land and un�rovements will serve the
�urposes listed in subdivision (al of this section: and
(4) The Citv and the owners, subdividers, or develo�ers of the land must have executed a
parkland development aereement insurin¢ that s�ecified land shall be developed and
maintained bv the owners, subdividers, or developers, and anv and all successors in
interest thereof, of anv tvue whatsoever, which includes, but is not limited to heirs and
assiens. for the nurposes listed in subdivision (a) of this section. The owners,
subdividers, or develoners must include a covenant nu�nine with the specified land
indicatin� that the land to be develoued and maintained for the pin listed in
subdivision (a� will revert to the City in the event of a failure to complv with this
reguirement. When a recordable covenant concerning the ownership, maintenance or use
o�rivate areas and facilities for narkland develo�ment is required, the covenant shall be
submitted to the Citv for approval. Such covenant shall be recorded prior to or at the
same time as the final plat.
[DRAFTING NOTES: MN Stat. 462.358, Subd. 2b(b)(3) states that "in establishing the reasonable portion to
be dedicated, the regulations may consider the open space, park, recreational, or common areas and facilities
which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision"]
(e) Parkland dedication: conveyance standards. Prior to dedication and conveyance of the
required property to the City, the owners, subdividers or develouers shall nrovide the Ci , with
an acceptable abstract of title or re�istered �ropertv abstract for all land dedicated for park
nurposes, evidencin��ood and marketable title without liens or encumbrances of anv kind
except those encumbrances which the City Council has approved ar required in connection
with the nroposed nlat. The fore�oing abstracts shall otherwise evidence �ood and marketable
title free and cleaz of anv mortgages, liens, encumbrances, assessments and taxes. For any
required dedication of land that is not formallv dedicated to the Citv with the final plat, the
landowner shall record all deeds for conve�ance of the propertv to the City prior to or at the
same time as recording the final,plat.
(fl Parkland dedication: parkland development s e�cial fund created. There is herebv established
a narkland development suecial fund. All funds collected pursuant to the parkland dedication
process shall be de�osited in the parkland develoroment special fund and used solely for the
�uisirion and development or unnrovement of lands dedicated for public use for kazks,
10/20/06 DRAFT ORDINANCE Sea 69.511 Page 5 Zoning Code
play�xounds, trails, open space, or conservation �urposes in close proximity to the subdivision
or devel�ment. Such funds mav not be used for oneoing operations or maintenance. All fund
expenditures shall be anproved by the Citv Council upon recommendation of the director of
Uarks and recreation in consultation with the narks and recreation coxnxnission and after
ado tion of a nrocess to ensure adeauate roublic oarticiroation in decision makinQ. Exnenditures
from the narkland develoroment suecial fund shall be in conformance with the citds adonted
comrorehensive nlan and develonment or nroiect rolans for sub-areas of the citv. and shall be
consistent with other aunlicable criteria in subdivision (al of this secrion. All fund
contributions shall be uaid
uVY Y� ,.a �, ,. y Qo ��+, r •i •+t, r a i + ,..,.,.+va •« �.....e.. » a a..
.-�. — ciry�� c c'�ov�cca�'axc css�rzr¢v"v'cxoFtacac cvn..�zsrctccc¢�i�c3, x'aae.^...
�11'lOr t0
obtauiiu� � building nemuts for �kase additional dwelline units within the nlat.
Pavments made to sarisfv the requirements of this section shall be made senaratelv from any
pavments for buildin� uermits or anv other �a,vment.
[DRAFTING NOTES: MN Stat. 462.358, Subd. 2b(b)(2) states that "any cash payment received shall be
placed in a special fund by the municipality used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained,
and may not be used for ongoing operation or maintenance" MN Stat. 462.358, Subd. 2c, Nexus, states that
there must be an essential nexus between the fees or dedication imposed and the need created by the
proposed subdivision or development.
The additional phrase recommended by the Planning Commission (indicated bv double underlinina) to require
adoption of a process to ensure adequate public participation in decision making regarding parkland
development special fund expenditures, along with the additional sentence requiring expenditures to be in
conformance with the city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans, is to make sure
expenditures best meet citizen needs, determined with a process that includes possibility for review and
recommendations by district councils and those most affected. Just as for any capital improvement budget
decision, it is desirable to tie parkland development special fund expenditures to a holistic strategic plan, with
funding decisions made according to planned service levels, informed and carried out with a long term vision.
In many cases where the cash dedication amount is relatively small, it may be used for acquisition and
development or improvement of parkland that will require coordination with other funding, such as regular CIB
or STAR funding.
There are a couple of reasons for the change to require payment of a parkland dedication fee prior to
obtaining building permits for additional housing units within the plat, rather than prior to filling of the plat.
There may be a change in the number of housing units between the time of filing a plat and getting building
permits that would affect the amount of a parkland dedication fee. In the case of reduced fees for affordable
housing, the number of housing units required to be affordable would generally not be known until just before
getting building permits and well after filing of a plat.]
Section 2
That Legislative Code § 69.511 and § 69.512 are hereby renumbered as follows:
Sec. 69.51�2. Public sites.
Where a proposed park, playground, school or other public site is wholly or partly within the
boundary of a proposed subdivision and such proposed public site is not dedicated to the caty, no
action shall be taken towazds approval of the preliminary plat for a period not to exceed ninety (90)
days to allow the planning commission or board of education the opportunity to consider and to take
action towards acqui sition of such public site by purchase or other cause.
Sec.69.5133. Monuments.
10/20/06 DRAFT ORDINANCE Sec. 69.511 Page 6 Zoning Cade
city of saint paul
• planning commission resolution
file number os-so
date October 20, 2006
Parkland Dedication Ordinance
WHEREAS, MN Stat. § 462.358, Subd. 2b, Dedication, states that municipal subdivision
"regulations may require that a reasonable portion of a proposed subdivision be dedicated to the
public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, recreational facilities ...,
playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space; provided that ...(4) the municipality reasonably
determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes stated in this paragraph
as a result of approval of the subdivision;" and
WHEREAS, the Division of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Planning and Economic
Development have collaborated in drafting an ordinance to amend Chapter 69, Subdivision
Regulations, of the Zoning Code by creating a new Sec. 69.511, parkland dedication requirements,
residential developments, in conformance with the provisions of MN Stat. § 462.358; and
WHEREAS, MN Stat. § 462.357, Subd. 4 requires that an amendment to the Zoning Code be
referred to the planning agency for study and report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft Parkla�d Dedication
Ordinance on July 28, 2006, and August 11, 2006, where all persons present were afforded an
opportunity to testify concerning the draft ordinance; and
� WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreafion Plan chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, adopted
by the City Council on January 9, 2002, Policy 3 calls for pursuing opportunities and partnerships to
acquire land specifically for open space and natural resource protection according to any of the
following criteria: areas containing species included on the State of Federal Iist of endangered or
threatened species; areas representing significant landforms, native plant communities, or sensitive
habitat; areas that connect existing components of the open space network; and areas adjacent to
existing parkland/open space; and
WHEREAS, Policy 16 of the Parks and Recreation Plan calls for pursuing opportunities and joint
use partnerships to acquire or provide access to land for parks, open space, or recreation
development according to the following criteria: priority will be given to areas that are under-served
due to distance to existing parks, population density, or inadequate size and condition of existing
nearby park(s); land parcels must be of adequate size to accommodate proposed development;
availabi{ity and commitment of resources, public and/or private, to develop, operate, and maintain
new park facilities; gifts of suitable land will be accepted when resources, public and/or private, are
identified to maintain the property; and conformity with other applicable public policy; and
WHEREAS, the criteria in Policy 3 and in Policy 16 of the Parks and Recreation Plan are reflected
in criteria listed in Sec. 69.511(a) of the draft Parkland Dedication Ordinance; and
moved by Donnellv-Cohen
seconded by
� in favor Unanimous
against
Planning Commission Resolution # 06-80 regarding Parkiand Dedication Ordinance
October 20, 2006
Page 2 of 3 •
WHEREAS, the provision in Sec. 69.511(d) of the draft Parkland Dedication Ordinance for private
development and maintenance of private land for public use for parks and open space is consistent
with Policy 5 of the Parks and Recreation Plan, which calls for taking advantage of opportunities
that arise from redevelopment activities to add or enhance the city's open space and natural
resources, and giving priority opportunities that do not add publicly-owned and developed parkland
that wili require additionai pubiic maintenance or operating expenses; and
WHEREAS, Policy 62 of the Housing Plan chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, adopted
by the City Council on January 9, 2002, calis for the City to enable the preservation and
construction of affordable housing, and Policy 6.1.a of the Housing Plan supports an incentive
program for communities to lower housing construction costs associated with locai requirements;
and
WHEREAS, Policy 6.4 of the Housing Plan states that "the City should encourage the development
of housing affordabie to households with inwmes below 50, 60 and 80 percent of the regional
median income by:
a. Investing public financing only in developments where a minimum of 20 percent of the units are
reserved for households with incomes below 50 percent of the regional median income, with
haif of those for households with incomes below 30 percent of the regional median income;
b. Supporting the efforts of Habitat for Humanity and other philanthropic organizations in their
production of 25 homes a year affordabie to households with incomes below 50 percent of the
regional median;
c. ... providing additional incentives to ... developers willing to take advantage of federal revenue �
bond programs that offer 4% tax credits in retum for the construcfion of rental projects in which
at least 20% of the units are affordable to households with incomes below 60% of the regionai
median;
d. Promote altemative ownership and financing mechanisms such as community land trusts,
limited equiiy cooperatives and condominiums, nonprofit ownership of rental housing, mutual
housing associations and deed restrictions that are designed to ensure that the housing remains
affordable for an extended period of time;° and
WHEREAS, Policy 6.6 of the Housing Plan supports a variety of initiatives that will allow lower
income households to move into homeownership, inciuding philanthropic and self-help efforts such
as Habitat for Humanity, and altematives such as cooperatives and land trusts that preserve
affordability beyond the first owners of the property; and
WHEREAS, the proposed local park dedication requirements wouid increase the cost of developing
new housing, including affordable housing, and without a provision for a reduced fee for affordable
housing, particularly housing required to be affordable under HRA or other financing agreements,
the park dedication fee would be inconsistent with these policies in the Housing Plan; and
WHEREAS, land in close proximity to a plat may be better land for parks and open space than land
within the plat, and most in keeping with the city's comprehensive plan and development or project
plans for the area; and
WHEREAS, there shouid be a process for adequate public participation in decision making
regarding parkland development special fund expenditures to ensure expenditures best meet
citizen needs, determined with a process that includes possibility for review and recommendations
by district councils and those most affected, and helps to tie parkland development special fund •
expenditures to a holistic strategic plan, with funding decisions made according to planned service
levels, informed and carried out with a long term vision; and
Planning Commission Resolution # 06-80 regarding Parkland Dedication Ordinance
October 20, 2006
• Page 3 of 3
WHEREAS, expenditures from the parkland development special fund should be in conformance
with the city's adopted comprehensive pian and development or project plans for sub-areas of the
city; and
WHEREAS, there may be a change in the number of housing units between the time of filing a plat
and getting building permits that would affect the amount of a parkland dedication fee, and in the
case of reduced fees for affordable housing, the number of housing units required to be affordable
would often not be known until just before getting building permits and well after filing of a plat;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends the attached
amendments to Chapter 69, Subdivision Regulations of the Zoning Code by creating a new Sec.
69.511, parkland dedications requirements, residential developments, with the following changes
noted in the attached amendments:
1. Added language in paragraph (a) to make it clear that dedicated land may be in close proximity
to the plat as well as within the plat;
2. Added language in paragraph (c) to provide for reduced parkland dedication fees for dwelling
units required to be affordabie under Saint Paul Housing and Redevelopment Authority or other
financing agreement, or other contractual agreement with the City;
3. Added language in paragraph (fl to require adoption of a process to ensure adequate public
participation in decision making regarding parkland development special fund expenditures;
4. Added language in paragraph (� to require all expenditures from the parkland development
� special fund to be in conformance with the city's adopted comprehensive plan and development
or project plans for sub-areas of the city; and
5. Change to language in paragraph (fl to change the time of payment of a parkland dedication fee
from prior to filing of a plat to prior to obtaining building permits for additional dwelling units
within the plat.
�
An ordinance amending the Saint Paul Legislative Code by creating a new secrion,
Legislative Code § 69.511, entitled "parkland dedication requirements, residential
developments," pertaining to the dedication of land or, in some instances, the •
payment of cash in lieu of a land dedication, for public use when platting or replatting
parcels of land for residential development which will result in an increase in the
number of dwelling units, and establishing policies and procedures for these new
requirements; and renumbering old Le�. Code § 69.511 and § 69.512.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
Section 1
That the Saint Paul Le�slative Code is hereby amended by adding the following new language to
read as follows:
Sec. 69.511. Parkland dedication requirements, residential developments.
(a) Generallv Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 462358, Subd. 2, as amended and as otherwise
provided below for plattin� of land for residential development that will result in an increase
in the number of dwellin� units the owners, subdividers, or developers of the land shall
convev to the citv or dedicate to the public use a reasonable portion of the land for public use
for parks nlav�ounds trails open svace or conservation puruoses This requirement shall not
applv to nlatting of land that does not increase the overall number of dwellin¢ units. The Citv
Council shall deternune the location and confi�uration of anv land dedicated. taldn� into
consideration the suitabilitv and adaptabilitv of the land for its intended purpose, future needs
of the nroposed develonment, and followinQ criteria:
(1) conformance with the citv's adonted comprehensive nlan and develonment or nroject
plans for sub-azeas of the citv; •
(2) areas identified for nazk or conservation purposes in an adopted citv reaonal state or
narionalplan:
(3) areas that connect existin� components of the open space nerivork;
S4) areas adiacent to existins nublic pazks. trails, or open space:
(5) azeas representin� significant landforms native plant communities sensitive habitat. or
historical events:
j61 azeas containing ve�etarion identified as endan�ered or threatened. or that vrovide habitat
for animals identified as endan�ered. threatened or of sqecial concem under 15 U.S.C.
� 1531 et seq or Minn Stat & 84 0895 and rules adopted under these resvective laws
(7) auailabilitv and commihnent of resources nublic and/or nrivate to develou onerate and
maintain the new park land;
f 8) prioritv will be given to azeas that are under-served bv narks due to distance to existin�
pazks nopulation densitv or inadeauate size of existin� neazbv nazks•
j91 land to be dedicated shall be laz�e enough for its intended pumose;
(10) land dedicated solelv for roadwav stormwater retention. or utilitv purooses. or otherwise
unsuitabie for the pumoses listed above, shall not be accepted;
(11) dedicated land shall be accessible to the oublic served unless the Citv Council detemiines
that the dedicated land is an environmentallv or ecoloacallv sensitive area for which •
public access would be detrimental.
10(20/06 DRAFT ORDINANCE Sec. 69.511 Page 1 Zoning Code
[DRAFTING NOTES: Park dedication requirements are based on enabling legislation in MN Stat. 462.358
Official controls: subdivision regulations; dedication. MN Stat 462.358, Subd. 1a, Authority, states that a
municipality may by ordinance adopt subdivision regulations to facilitate adequate provision for transportation,
� water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, parks, playgrounds, and other public services and facilities. MN
Stat. 462.358, Subd. 2b, Dedication, states that municipal subdivision "regulations may require that a
reasonable portion of a proposed subdivision be dedicated to the pubiic or preserved for conservation
purposes or for public use as parks, recreationai facilities as defined and outlined in section 471.191,
playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space; provided that ...(4) the municipality reasonably determines that
it will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes stated in this paragraph as a result of approval of
the subdivision °
The criteria for Iand dedication listed here are consistent with the criteria listed in 3, 5, and 16 of the Parks
and Recreation Plan chapter of the Saint Paui Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 3 of the Parks and Recreation Plan states, "Pursue opportunities and partnerships to acquire land
specifically for open space and natural resource protection according to any of the following criteria:
a. Areas containing species included on the State of Federal list of endangered or threatened species;
b. Areas representing significant Iandforms, native plant communities, or sensitive habitat;
c. Areas that connect existing components of the open space network; and
d. Areas adjacent to existing parkland/open space.
Policy 5 of the Parks and Recreation Plan states, "Take advantage of opportunities that arise from
redevelopment activities to add or enhance the city's open space and natural resources. Priority will be given
to opportunities that do not add publicly-owned and developed parkland that will require additional public
maintenance or operating expenses"
Policy 16 of the Parks and Recreation Plan states, "Pursue opportunities and joint use partnerships to
acquire or provide access to land for parks, open space, or recreation development according to the following
criteria:
� a. Priority will be given to areas that are under-served due to distance to existing parks, population
density, or inadequate size and condition o4 existing nearby park)s};
b. Land parcels must be of adequate size to accommodate proposed development;
c. Availability and commitment of resources, public and/or private, to develop, operate, and maintain new
park facilities;
d. Gifts of suitable land will be accepted when resources, public and/or private, are identified to maintain
the property; and
e. Conformity with other applicable public policy.]
�b) Parkland dedicatio�ormula. For plattin2 of land for residential development that will
increase the nuxnber of dwellina units, the pronertv owners, subdividers or developers shall
dedicate 0.008 acres (eisht thousandths of an acre) of land per additional dwellin¢ unit within
the plat to a maYimum of twelve (12) percent of the total acreaee of the plat. on a one time
basis, for the purposes listed in subdivision (a) of this section. Land so dedicated shall be
within the nlat and/or. subiect to asreement bv both the Citv Council and the subdividers. in
close nroximitv to the rolat.
[DRAFTING NOTES: MN Stat. 462.358, Subd. 2b, Dedication, states that municipal subdivision "regulations
may require that a reasonable portion of a proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for
conservation purposes or for public use as parks, recreational facilities ... playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or
open space " For cities in the Metropolitan Area with percent of residentiat land park dedication requirements,
8% to 10% is the norm, one measure of what is a"reasonable portion" A few are lower (e.g., 6.8°/a in Arden
Hills) and a few are higher. The few that are higher (Hastings, Hopkins, Lino Lakes, Piymouth, St. Louis Park,
� and Stillwater) have requirements with a range of generally about 9-15% of residential land based on
development size and/or density.
10/20/06 DRAFT ORDINANCE Sec. 69.511 Page 2 Zoning Code
The 0.008 acres (348 sq. feet) per unit dedication requirement is 6.9% of a standard 5000 sq. foot one-family
residential lot. For a duplex, it would be 11.6% of a 6000 sq. foot two-family residential lot. Residential •
development with more than duplex density would hit the 12% parkland dedication requirement maximum.
The 12% standard would mean more than 1 block of parkland for every 8 residential blocks, a development
pattern in which on average every residential block would be adjacent to at least 1 block of parkland.
The requirement that the dedicated land must be within the plat or in close proximity to the plat, an
amendment recommended by the Ptanning Commission indicated bv doutrie underlinina, makes it clear that
dedicated land may be in close proximity to the piat as well as within the plat_ Land outside of the plat itself
may be the best land for parks and open space, and most in keeping with the cit�s comprehensive plan and
development or project plans for the area. Requiring that it be in close proximity to the plat helps to ensure
(as required under state statutes) that the dedicated land serves the need created by the plat for parks and
open space.]
(cl Parkland dedication option • Zand and/or cash dedication. At the discretion of the Citv
Council the owners subdividers or developers of vronertv subject to this section shall
contribute an amount of cash in lieu of all or a portion of the land required under subdivisions
(al and (bl of this section or an equivalent value of imnrovements as approved bv the Citv
Council The amount of cash shall be based upon the Countv Assessor's estimated mazket
value of the total acreaee of the nlat at the time of Citv Council approval of the ulat multiplied
by the nercentaae of the land that would othenvise be dedicated. Notwithstandin¢ the
dedication formula in subdivision (b) of this secrion the maacimum aznount of cash dedication
required under this section shall not exceed three thousand dollars ($3000.00) ner dwellin�
unit The City Council mav review this masimum cash dedication amount on a veazlv basis
and adjust it for inflation. For dweilin� units reauired to be affordable under Saint Paul
�areement with the Citv the amount of cash otherwise reauired shall be multiniied bv the
. ecified �ercenta2e of Twin Ciries azea median income at which the unit is reouired to be .
affordable. In determinin¢ whether land dedication or cash in lieu thereof will be req uired, the
Citv Council shall consider without limitation the suitability and adaptabilitv of land within the
site for the vurposes listed in subdivision (a) of this section and criteria for land dedication in
subdivision (al of this section.
[DRAFTING NOTES: This paragraph gives the City Council the option of requiring a cash contribution in lieu
of land dedication when land within the site would not be suitable or adaptable for the purposes listed in
subdivision (a).
Park dedication requirements are based on enabling legislation in MN Stat. 462.358 Officiai controls:
subdivision regulations; dedication. MN Stat. 462.358, Subd. 2b, Dedication, states that municipal subdivision
"regulations may require that a reasonable portion of a proposed subdivision be dedicated to the pubiic or
preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, recreafional faciiifies as defined and outlined
in section 471.191, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space; provided that (1) the municipality may
choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to
be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later than at
the time of final approval" (emphasis added).
The provision recommended by the Planning Commission (indicated bv double underlinina) for a reduced fee
for dweliing units required to be affordable under Saint Paul Housing and Redevelopment Authority or other
financing agreement, or other contractual agreement with the City, responds to the unique problem that the
cost of the parkland dedication fee cannot be recouped by charging more for rent or purchase of such
affordable housing units. It also responds to the following policies in the Housing Plan chapter of the Saint
Paul Comprehensive Plan pertaining to provisions and incentives for development of affordable housing:
Policy 6.2 of the Housing Plan calls for the City to enable the preservation and construcfion of affordable
housing. Policy 6.1.a of the Housing Pian supports an incentive program for communities to lower �
housing construction costs associated with local requirements.
10/20/06 DRAFT ORDINANCE Sec. 69.511 Page 3 Zoning Code
•
►�.J
r
Policy 6.4 of the Housing Plan states that "the City should encourage the development of housing
affordable to househoids with incomes below 50, 60 and 80 percent of the regional median income by:
a. Investing public financing only in developments where a minimum of 20 percent of the units are
reserved for households with incomes below 50 percent of the regional median income, with haif of
those for households with incomes below 30 percent of the regional median income.
b. Supporting the efforts of Habitat for Humanity and other philanthropic organizations in their production
of 25 homes a year affordable to households with incomes below 50 percent of the regional median.
c. ... providing additional incentives to ... developers willing to take advantage of federal revenue
bond programs that offer 4% tax credits in return for the construction of rental projects in which at
least 20% of the units are affordable to households with incomes below 60% of the regional median.
d. Promote altemative ownership and financing mechanisms such as community land trusts, limited
equity cooperatives and condominiums, nonprofit ownership of rental housing, mutual housing
associations and deed restrictions that are designed to ensure that the housing remains affordable for
an extended period of time:'
Policy 6.4 also notes the value of using public financing for senior housing and encouraging older
households to make their larger homes available to larger family households.
Policy 6.6 of the Housing Plan supports a variety of initiatives that will allow lower income households to
move i�to homeownership, including philanthropic and self-help efforts such as Habitat for Humanity, and
alternative such as cooperatives and land trusts that preserve affordability beyond the first owners of the
property.
The proposed Iocai park dedication requirements would increase the cost of developing new housing,
including affordable housing, in Saint Paul. Without a provision for a reduced fee for affordabie housing,
particularly housing required to be affordable under HRA or other financing agreements, or other contractual
agreements with the City, the park dedication fee would be inconsistent with these policies in the Housing
Plan.
HRA financing agreements that require housing units to remain affordable for some period of time generally
apply to rental projects, where units are typically required to be affordable for 10 to 30 years. The primary
financing tools for rental housing, federal revenue bonds and tax credits, require at least 20% of the housing
units to be affordable to households with incomes below 60% of the regional median income. This accounts
for a{arge majority of new housing units required to be afEordable. FIRA financed owner-occupied units are
generally not required to remain affordable for some period of time, so would generally not be covered under
the provision for a reduced fee for affordable housing in paragraph (c).
Habitat for Humanity and Rondo Community Land Trust do ownership projects for which they require housing
units to remain affordable. Habitat for Humanity typically retains the right of first refusal to buy back
ownership units to keep them affordable, usually at or below 50% of the area median income. The
community land trust requires housing to remain affordable below 80% of the area medium income. This
accounts for only a small number of new housing units, which would be covered under the provision for a
reduced fee for affordable housing in paragraph (c).
Under the provision recommended by the Planning Commission for a reduced fee for dwelling units required
to be affordable under Saint Paul Housing and Development Authority or other financing agreement, or other
contractual agreement with the City, for a housing unit required to be affordable to households with incomes
at or below 60% of the Twin Cities area median income, the parkfand dedication fee wouVd be 60°l0 of the fee
that would otherwise be required. For a 20-unit housing development in which 4 of the units are required to
remain affordable to households with income at or below 60% of the area median income, the parkland
dedication fee for the 4 affordable units would be 60% of the fee that would otherwise be required for the 4
affordable units; a full parkland dedication fee would required for the other 16 units. For a housing unit
required to be affordable to households with incomes at or below 80% of the area median income, the
parkland dedication fee for that unit would be 80% of the fee that would otherwise be required for that unit. If
a unit is affordable only to households with incomes more than 80% of the area median income, or if it is not
required, to be affordable at some specified lower percentage, then �00% of the parkland dedication fee
would be required.]
10/20/06 DRAFT ORDINANCE Sec. 69.511 Page 4 Zoning Code
� Parkland dedication option • private land maintained for public use. The Citv Council mav. at
its discretion waive all or a portion of the land or cash dedication required under subdivisions •
(b) or (cl of this section and enter into an aereement for the nrivate develonment and/or
maintenance of land for public use for parks vlav�'ounds trails onen space or conservation
purposes within the pronosed pla� subiect to the following conditions:
(1) Tke land area or value of the land and improvements privatelv developed and maintained
for public use for pazks plav�rounds trails open space or conservation uurposes must at
least equal that reauired under this ordinance.
(2) Land. faciliries and improvements accepted under this provision shall be accessible to
the public in a manner similaz to public land.
(3) The Citv Council must find after recommendation of the Director of Pazks and
Recreation and the Parks Commission that such land and imnrovements will serve the
purposes listed in subdivision (al of this secrion: and
{4) The Citv and the owners subdividers or developers of the land must have executed a
pazkland deveIonment aereement insurin¢ that snecified land shall be developed and
maintained bv the owners subdividers or develovers and anv and all successors in
interest thereof of an v twe whatsoever which includes but is not limited to heirs and
assiavs for the purposes listed in subdivision (al of this section. The owners.
subdividers or developers must include a covenant rnnn;nQ with the specified land
indicatine that the land to be developed and maintained for the purposes listed in
subdivision (al will revert to the Citv in the event of a failure to comnlv with this
requirement When a recordable covenant concernina the ownership maintenance or use
of�rivate azeas and facilities for pazkland develonment is required. the covenant shall be �
submitted to the Citv for approval Such covenant shall be recorded prior to or at the
same time as the &nal n1at.
[DRAFTING NOTES: MN Stat. 462.358, Subd. 2b(b)(3) states that "in estabiishing the reasonable portion to
be dedicated, the regulations may consider the open space, park, recreational, or common areas and facilities
which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision."J
(el Parkland dedication• conv�s»nce standards Prior to dedication and convevance of the
reauired provertv to ffie Citv the owners subdividers or developers shall provide the Citv with
an accentable abstract of title or re�istered pmvertv abstract for all land dedicated for nark
pumoses evidencin� eood and mazketable ritle without liens or encumbrances of anv kind
except those encumbrances which the Citv Council has approved or reauired in connection
with the,�ronosed plat The fore�oing abstracts shall otherwise evidence good and marketable
ritle free and clear of anv mortgaQes liens encumbrances assessments and taxes. For anv
required dedication of land that is not formallv dedicated to the Citv with the final plat, the
landowner shall record all deeds for convevance of the propertv to the Citv vrior to or at the
same time as recording the final plat.
(fl Parkland dedication - parkland development sDecial fund created. There is herebv established
a�azkland develonment special fund. All funds coliected pursuant to the uarkland dedication
process shall be deposited in the parkland develonment svecial fund and used soleiv for the �
acauisition and development or unprovement of lands dedicated for pubiic use for nazks,
10l20/06 DRAFT ORDINANCE Sec. 69.511 Page 5 Zoning Code
plav�ounds trails. open soace. or conservation nurqoses in close proximitv to the subdivision
or develooment Such funds mav not be used for on�oing operations or maintenance. All fund
� expenditures shall be approved bv the Citv Council upon recommendation of the director of
pazks and recreation in consultation with the oarks and recreation commission and after
adoDrion of a �rocess to ensure adeauate roublic narticivation in decision makina. ExDenditures
from the roazkland develo�ment s�ecial fund s hall be in conformance with the citv's adonted
comnrehensive nlan and develonment or �roie �lans for sub-areas of the citv, and shall be
consistent with other a�nlicable criteria in s ubdivision (al of this section. All fund
contributions shall be naid
3A�r r -� �' c '� �i�E�k� EOAS�Ft16�2��o�3�2S8 ," �:.^a�
prior to
obtainine � building permits for t�at�kase additional dwellina units within the nlat.
Pavments made to satisfv the requirements of this section shail be made seuazatelv from anv
pavments for buildin� permits or any other payment.
[DRqFTING NOTES: MN Stat. 462.358, Subd. 2b(b)(2) states that "any cash payment received shali be
placed in a special fund by the municipality used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained,
and may not be used for ongoing operation or maintenance:' MN Stat. 462.358, Subd. 2c, Nexus, states that
there must be an essential nexus between the fees or dedication imposed and the need created by the
proposed subdivision or development.
The additional phrase recommended by the Planning Commission (in icated bv double underlinina) to require
adoption of a process to ensure adequate public participation in decision making regarding parkland
development special fund expenditures, along with the additional sentence requiring expenditures to be in
conformance with the city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans, is to make sure
expenditures best meet citizen needs, determined with a process that includes possibility for review and
recommendations by district councils and those most affected. Just as for any capital improvement budget
� decision, it is desirable to tie parkland development special fund expenditures to a holistic strategic plan, with
funding decisions made according to planned service Ievels, informed and carried out with a long term vision.
In many cases where the cash dedication amount is relatively small, it may be used for acquisition and
development or improvement of parkland that will require coordination with other funding, such as regular CIB
or STAR funding.
There are a couple of reasons for the change to require payment of a parkland dedication fee prior to
obtaining building permits for additional housing units within the plat, rather than prior to filling of the plat.
There may be a change in the number of housing units between the time of filing a plat and getting building
permits that would affect the amount of a parkland dedication fee. In the case of reduced fees for affordable
housing, the number of housing units required to be affordable would generally not be known until just before
getting building permits and well after filing of a plat.]
Section 2
u
That Legislative Code § 69.511 and § 69.512 aze hereby renuxnbered as follows:
Sec. 69.51�2. Public sites.
Where a proposed park, play�ound, school or other public site is wholly or partly within the
boundary of a proposed subdivision and such proposed public site is not dedicated to the city, no
action shall be taken towards approval of the preliminary plat for a period not to exceed ninety (90)
days to allow the planning commission or board of education the opportunity to consider and to take
action towazds acquisition of such public site by purchase or other cause.
Sec.69.51�3. Monuments.
10/20/06 DRAFT ORDINANCE Sec. 69.511 Page 6 Zoning Code
DEPAR'IMENTOFPLANNING& �
ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT o..e.,m,.
Cectle Bedor, Director
CTI'Y OF SAIN'T PAUL
Christopher B. Co[eman, Mayor
DATE:
TO
October 16, 2006
Comprehensive Plamung Committee
FROM: Allan Torstenson `��'
15 West Founh Street Telephone: 6�7-266-6700
SaintPaul,MN55102 Facsimile:651-228-32?0
RE: Parkland Dedication Ordinance — Response to Testimony and Issues Raised at
Planning Commission Public Hearing
A copy of the draft Pazkland Dedication Ordinance, along with minutes of the Planning
Commission's public hearing on the draft ordinance, and all written testimony and other
information submitted to the Plamung Commission for the public hearing is attached to this
memo.
• There was testimony at the public hearing, particulazly from some of our neighborhood CDCs,
about the impact the draft Parkland Dedication Ordinance would have on their projects. There
was also testimony expressing concern about the impact of the draft ordinance on
development of affordable housing units, and requests for consideration of a reduced fee or
exception for affordable housing. It was noted that most affordable housing developed in
Saint Paul involves public subsidy, often through the City, and the proposed park dedication
fee for these projects would just raise the amount ofpublic subsidy required. Under the draft
Parkland Dedication Ordinance, the requirement for dedication of land or cash for pazks would
take priority over using limited HRA or other funds for more affordable housing units, higher
quality materials and design, and other desirable amenities in housing projects. In response to
this testimony, Planning Commissioners commented that it would be usefixl to have data on
how the draft ordinance would have affected recent projects.
�
The attached tables show what impact the draft parkland dedication ordinance would
have had on all 35 plats for residential development in the last 5 years. For each plat, the
tables show the land dedication area and cash dedication that would have been required under
the requirements of the draft parkland dedication ordinance. The tables also show which of
the plats were for development that included affordable housing units and housing
development with HRA financing. The first table shows the impact of the draft pazkland
dedication ordinance without any special provision for affordable housing. The second table
shows the impact of the draft pazkland dedication ordinance with an exemption from the
parkland dedication fee for affordable housing units. The third table shows the unpact of the
draft parkland dedication ordinance with a graduated pazkland dedicarion fee for affordable
housing units based on the percentage of Twin Cities azea median income at wYuch the unit is
required to be affordable.
Comprehensive Planning Committee
October 16, 2006
Page 2
�
The informarion in the attached tables is useful to better understand how the draft ordinance
would work in practice. These recent plats can be used as examples to tlunk through how we
would have applied the draft ordinance. For which of these plats would we have required land
dedication, and when would it have made more sense to require cash? In which cases would
the option provided in the ordinauce for private development and maintenance of privately-
owned land for public use for parks haue been in the city's interest, and how might that have
worked?
Two of the 35 plats would haue had a parkland dedication area greater than 2 acres:
Upper LandinQ and Victoria Pazk. These aze plats for which dedication of land would have
been required. Pazks aze shown in the Master Plans for these two projects, and
pazkland was (or is being) dedicated as part of both of these projects. These aze pazks that the
City/HRA decided are necessary for these projects, and that are being paid for directly or
indirectly by the City/HRA.
In the Upper Landing project, West End Park is 17,500 sq. ft. in area, Chestnut Plaza is 22,780
sq. ft. in area, and additional open space is provided along the Sam Morgan Trail. This is less
pazkland than would haue been required under the draft parkland dedication ordinance. Under
the draft ordinance, additional parkland dedication or cash in lieu of this would have been
required.
For the Victoria Pazk project, one block (about 3 acres) of active recreation space will be �
provided in Central Green, and addirional passive open space is provided along the bluff. The
2.5 acres of pazkland dedication that the attached tables show would have been required for
the Victoria Pazk plat is for a plat that covers about half of the Victoria Park project azea.
Two of the 35 plats would have had a parkland dedication area between 1 and 2 acres:
Gatewav VillaQe and Brid�ecreek Senior Place. Looking at these two plats as examples might
be particularly useful in thinlang through some key policy issues with the draft ordinance.
For the Gateway Village plat, the CiTy may have required the cash dedication to put toward
acquisition and development land for the new neighborhood pazk, specifically called for in the
Shepard Davern Small Area Plan, to be located just east of this plat and large enough to serve
needs for more active recreational space. The Gateway Village project had HI2A financing,
with 199 of the 578 units required to be afFordable at or below 30-60% of Twin Cities azea
median income. This project was dependent on HRA financing, so the cash dedication would
have had to be paid with some combination of an additional HRA or other public subsidy and
project cost reductions.
All of the 160 Bridgecreek Senior Place units are required to be affordable at or below 30-60%
of azea median income. But for the HRA financing for this project it would not have been
economically feasible, so the cash dedicarion would have had to be paid with some
combination of additional HRA or other public subsidy and project cost reducrions. This is a �
plat for which dedication of land (a portion of the site that was a city dump and therefore not
developable for ottter uses) would probably have been required.
Comprehensive Planning Committee
October 16, 2006
Page 3
�
The Bridgecreek Senior Place plat is a case in which the City may have been interested in the
option provided in the draft ordinance for private development and maintenance of privately-
owned land for public use for pazks. However, this option is dependent on an a�eement with
the property owner. Particulazly for a senior project (this would also have applied to the
earlier Episcopal Homes plat at University and Fairview), the owner may wish to limit access
to their open space for safery and security reasons, and not want the liability issues tl�at may be
involved with the general public access required for the private land for public pazks option.
Three of the 35 plats would have had a parkland dedication area of between 0.5 acres
(21,780 sq. feet) and 1 acre: Phalen Crossitt¢ 2" Addition, Carleton Lofts/Johnson Bros.
Liauor, and JefFerson Commons. Because Phalen Crossing 2" Addition is adjacent to Phalen
Pazk and new Ames Lake, and the City may not need or want the additional expense of
maintaining additional parkland at this location, the City is likely to have required the
$124,920 cash dedication. For Carlton LoftsJJohnson Bros. Liquor and Jefferson Commons,
two plats in the West Midway area, it is also probable that the City would have required the
cash dedication to put toward acquisition and development of larger pazk areas to serve the
needs of this general area, such as those proposed in the draft new District 12 Plan.
Three of the 35 plats would have had a parkland dedication area of between 10,000 and
21,780 sq. feet: Phalen Crossine, Realife Senior Coop of Phalen Villa�e, and Emerald
� Gardens. Since Phalen Crossing and Realife Senior Coop are adjacent to Phalen Pazk and new
Ames Lake, and the City may not need or want the additional expense of maintaining
additional public pazkland here, it is likely that the cash dedication would have been required
to be used for improvements to the existing pazkland. For Emerald Gazdens, just as for
Cazlton Lofts and Jefferson Commons, it is probable that the City would have required the
cash dedication to be used for acquisition and development of larger parks to serve the needs
of the general azea, such as the new parks proposed in the draft new District 12 Plan. In any
case, the amount of pazkland dedication that would have been required for these plats is so
small that we probably wouldn't want them as sepazate little public pazks.
The remaining 25 of the 35 plats would have had a parkland dedication area less than
10,000 sq. feet. The lazgest of these is the Rondo Librarv project. This �oup includes 7
projects where affordable units are required, 9 HRA-financed projects, 4 Habitat for Humanity
projects, and 4 of the relatively small CDC projects the Planning Commission heard concems
about at their public hearing. This group includes 8 projects with one-family homes, 3
projects with two-family homes, 12 townhouse projects, and 3 with multi-family dwellings.
Given the small parkland dedication azea for these plats, in most cases these are plats for
which the City would require the cash rather than land dedication, to be used to provide new
or upgraded amenities in the closest existing pazk
•
AA-ADA-EEO EMPLOYER
�
City Hall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boulevard West
Minutes July 28, 2006
•
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, July 28, 2006,
at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Aall.
Commissioners Mmes. Faricy, Lu, Morton, Porter, Smitten
Present: and; and Messrs. Aligada, Alton, Bellus, Gordon, 7ohnson, Kramer and Nelson.
Commissioners Mmes. *Donnelly-Cohen *McCall, and *Trevino, and Messrs. *Commers, *Cudahy,
*Dandrea, '�Goodlow, *Kong and *Mejia.
Absent:
*Excused
Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Anne Hunt, Mayors Office, Allan
Torstenson, Patricia James, Lucy Thompson, Sarah Zom (intern), and Kate Fleming,
Deparhnent of Planning and Economic Development staff:
I. Approval of minutes July 14, 2006.
�
IL
MOTION: Commissioner Johnsox maved approval of the minutes of July l4, 2006.
Commissioner Morton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Chair's Annonncements
No announcemenTs
Planning Administrator's Annonncements
Larry Soderholm reported on planning-related business at the City Council for last week, the
agenda for next week had not been received. He reported on the City Council Resolurion
regarding Watershed District Rules.
/�� IV. PUBLIC HEARING: Pazkland Dedication Ordinance
Item from the Comprehensive lanning Committee
(Allan Torstenson, 651/266-6579)
Allan Torstenson gave the staff repor[ and explained the main provisions of the draft ordinance.
Commissioner Gordon asked if a developer would need to get approval of the City Council to
use ffie cash in lieu oprion. Torstenson answered that it is at the discreuon of the City Council.
�
Chair Alton asked for clarification about when this ordinance would apply. Torstenson �
answered that it applies when a plat is required: when a subdivision of properry creates 5 or
more lots, when a subdivision is of previously u�latted land, or when a subdivision requires
improvements of streets or other municipal services.
Mr. Bob Bierscheid, Director of Saint Paul Pazks and Recreation, discussed the need for a
pazkland dedicarion ordinance. Parks and open space aze important to the physical, mental, and
social health of the community as well as individuals, and help to maintains properiy value within
the community. Saint Paul popularion is grocving again so there is need for additional pazk space.
It's good to get the open space as part of development because iYs more expensive later.
Mr. Phil Cazlson, Senior Planner with Dahgren, Shardlow, and Uban, stated that Saint Paul
and Minneapolis developed excellent park systems while they were first developing, and do not
have pazk dedication ordinances. More recenfly, most'I`win Cities suburbs have pazk
dedicarion ordinances to help them acquiie and develop pazkland. Now, with more intense
redevelopment in the central cities, there is interest in having pazk dedicarion requirements to
help provide pazks and open space to serve new deveIopment there, too. He said the pazkland
dedication formula is drafted to be fair and reasonable, with the requirement rising with the size
and density of the project and the value of land, and with a 12% cap on the azea of land to be
dedicated and a$3000/unit cap on the cash in lieu amount.
Chair Alton read the rules of procedure for the public hearing and announced that notice of the
public hearing was published in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press on July 21, 2006, and mailed to the
citywide Early Norification system list.
The following people spoke:
Ms. Patricia Laznmers, Greater Frogtown CDC, 689 N. Dale, Saint Paul, MN 55103. They are
an eleven yeaz old non profit affordable housing developer working in the Frogtown azea.
While they understand the importance of parks, they wouid have difficuity with the Pazkland
Dedication Ordinance. All of their projects aze designed azound ffansit, aze in azeas that aze
already built up, and involve expensive land acquisition. It is difficult enough to acquire land
to put their projects on, and having to acquire addirional land for pazk space would make most
of their projects impossible. All of their projects require City subsidy, so having to provide
cash for acquisition and/or development of pazkland would also make some of the projects
impossible, or they would need to get additional Ciry subsidy. She is asked that ihere be an
exemption to the ordinance for affordable housing developments so they can continue to provide
affordable housing in neighborhoods where people need it.
2. Ms. Peggy Lynch, Executive D'uector of Friends of the Pazks and Trails of Saint Paul and
Ramsey County, 1621 Beechwood Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55116. Ms. Lynch stated the
Friends support the Pazkland Dedication Ordinance and feel it is necessary to keep Saint Paul a
wonderful place to live, work and play.
•
3. Ms. Karen Reed, 481 S. Wabasha,, Saint Paul, Mn 55102. Ms Reed is with the
Neighborhood Development Alliance on the West Side, a non profit co**+*�+� development
corpontion. Their affordable housing projects already require heavy public subsidy. While
they understand the need for pazks, this would be another fee that would have to be paid with
more public subsidy. •
• 4. Ms. Carrie Wasley, Pazks Commission Chair, ll50 Cushing Circle, Saint Paul, MN 55108.
The Parks Commission had several hearings on the Pazkland Dedicarion Ordinance, and several
changes were made in response to testimony. The commission watched this dceument evolve
and at the final hearing before the Pazks Commission there was a unanimous vote in support.
5. Chuck Repke, Executive Director of North East Neighborhoods Development Corporauon,
1212 Prosperiry Avenue, Saint Paul, Mn 55106. Mr. Repke spoke against the proposed
ordinance. He said that the 12% of a plat for pazks is the block in ihe middle of a 9 square
block development, about the minimum necessary for a usable park for active recrearion. Parks
doesn't want to own and maintain smaller parceis. But he can't think of 5 residential
development projects in St. Paul in the last 20 years that are that large. So this ordinance will
provide more cash for pazks, not more parkiand. Saint Paul has a substantially lower
population now than it had in the 1950s, and generally doesn't need more parkland. Rather, we
have a parks budget issue, and that is what this ordinance is designed to address. In tlte
suburbs pazkland dedication requirements aze used to get parkland where it is available as part
of larger plats and thaYs the intent of the state enabling legisiation, but thaYs generally not how
this ordinance would be used in St. Paul. Since townhouses are the kind of smali infill housing
redevelopment projecu in St. Paui that require platting, he described the parkland dedication
ordinance as a townhouse tax.
6. John Grzybek, Climb the Wind Institute, 1330 Saint Paul Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55116. Mr.
Grzybek was a member of the task force for the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. He stated he
• was very impressed by the work of the Parks and Recreation Department, the consultant, and
the give and take ihat went into drafting this ordinance. The formulas for land and/or cash
dedication in the ordinance aze designed to be fair to those affected. The need for parks has
been forgotten in some recent housing developments. He said he is sensiuve to affordable
housing needs, and this brings the needs of those families for parks to ffie forefront.
Mr. Matt Auron, Saint Paul Area of Commerce, 401 N. Robert Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101.
Mr. Auron said they are opposed to this ordinance for five reasons: 1) the case has not been
adequately made that Saint Paul, which has more pazkland than similaz cities, needs addirional
parkland, and there is a problem in maintaining even our existing pazks in times of budget
challenges; 2) the City's T'N3 zoning already contains a requirement for parkland dedicarions for
lazger developments; 3) the proposed ordinance will increase the cost of smaller infill projects,
particulazly affordable and low income housing; 4) parks are only one piece of a larger puzzle of
good housing development, and the ordinance would put Saint Paul in a completive disadvantage;
and 5) the ordinance adds another layer of review and uncertainty into the development process.
The Chamber is concemed with the overall message of the parkland dedicarion ordinance will
send to the development community that is Saint Paul is too expensive and too complex to do
business in, and he suggested finding a more positive way to provide for and encourage park
development rather than mandating pazk dedication or an additional fee.
8. Loren Brueggmann, Vice President of Development for Sherman Associates, Inc. Mr.
Brueggmaun said he unders[ands park dedication fees and the need for pazks, but he is
concerned about the effect of this proposed ordinance on housing affordability. He explained
ihe costs and difficulry of developing affordable housing using examples they have worked on in
� St. Paul. Other cities typically waive park dedication fees for affordable housing, and that
helps. He asked that there be an exemption for low income, affordable housing added to the •
draft ordinance.
Chair Alton announced this hearing will be continued through the PZanning Commission
meeting on August I Z, 2006, for any additional oraL or written tesiimony.
V. Zoning Committee
NEW BUSINESS
# 06-101-526 Nei¢hborhood Develoument Alliance — Condirional Use Permit for 2 unit
cluster development. 235 Belvidere St E between Harvard and Oakdale.
(Merr Clapp-Smith, 651/26G-6547)
M01TON: CommissionerMorton moved the Zoning Committee's recommendatios to approve
the conditional use permit with conditions. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
# 06-103-980 Macalester ColleQe — Condirional Use Permit for expansion of college
boundary to include 1653 Lincoln Avenue. 1653 Lincoln Avenue between Macalester &
Cambridge. (Merritt CZapp-Smith, 651/266-6547)
MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved the Zoning Committee's recommendation to approve
the conditional use permit with a condition. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote
Resolution initiatin� zonine studv re�arding expiration of Conditional Use Pezmits •
MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved the Zoning Committee's recommendation to approve
the resolution to initiate a zoning study regarding expiraiion of conditional use permits. The
mation carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Commissioner Morton stated the Zoning Committee meeting on August 3, 2006, has been
cancelled.
VI. Comprehensive Planning Committee
Chair Morton on behalf of Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen annoimced the schedule for fut�se
meetings, August 8, August 15, and on August 25, 2006, the different categories in the
Comprehensive Plan will be identified and there will be a resolution.
VII. Neighborhood and Cnrrent Planning Committee
Commissioner Nelson, on behalf of Commissioner McCall, announced the Fitzgerald Pazk
Precinct Plan Summazy was reviewed and the issues from the public hearing were discussed.
Additional language has been added to the text of the plan to address a legal issue raised at the
hearing. The Neighborhood and Current Planning Commission recommends adoption by the City
Council of the Fitzgerald Pazk Precinct Plan Summary, as amended.
�
�
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Bonlevard West
Minutes Augast 11, 2006
•
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paut was held Friday, August 11, 2006,
at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of Ciry Aall.
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners
Absent:
Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Lu, McCall, Morton, Porter, Smitten
and; and Messrs. Aligada, Alton, Bellus, Commers, Goodlow, Johnson, Kong,
Kramer, and Mejia.
Mmes. *Faricy, and *Trevino, and Messrs. *Cudahy, '�Dandrea, *Gordon, *Nelson.
*Excused
Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Anne Hunt, Mayors Office, Allan
Torstenson, Pahicia James, Lucy Thompson, Penny Sunison, Chrisrina Danico,
Sazah Zom (intern), and Kate Fleming, Department of Planning and Economic
Development staff.
Approval oF minutes Jnly 28, 2006.
I.
MOTION: Commissioner %ramer moved approval of the minutes of July 28, 2006.
Commissioner McCall seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Chair's Announcements
Chair Alton announced City Council acted on Mississippi River Critical Area Task Force
report and it will come to the Planning Commission in the near fixture.
Planning Administrator's Announcements
Mr. Soderholm reported on planning-related City Council business.
II.
III.
; ��V. PUBLIC HEARING:
Item from the Comprehensive Planning Committee
(Allan Torstenson, 651/266-6579)
Parkland Dedication Ordinance
�
Allan Torstenson gave a brief report.
•
Chair Alton read the rules of procedure for the public hearing and announced that notice of the
public hearing was published in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger on July 21, 2006 and was mailed to
the citywide Early Norificarion System list of recipients and other interested parties.
The following people spoke:
Ms. Anna Wasescha, 1312 Dayton Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55104. Ms. Wasescha said she is
in favor of the Parkland Dedicauon Ordinance and is an advocate of g�een space in the city.
Pazks aze important for building social cohesion in diverse communities. Social scientists
have shown clear benefits from having pazks and geen space close to where people live.
Parks aze an investment in our youth.
2. Ms. Judith Morem, 255 E. Kellogg Blvd. #303, Saint Paul, MN 55101. Ms. Morem is an
avid gardener who lives in the Lowertown Lofts Coop and maintains a terrace garden along
4'" Street and their parldng lot. She is concerned because she sees less and less geen space in
Lowertown. She said we need more greenspace in downtown and asked the Planning
Commission to support this ordinance.
3. Mr. Mike Kimble, Minneapolis Pazk and Recrearion Boazd, 2117 W. River Road,
Minneapolis, MN 55411. Mr. Kimble referred to a letter from the Minneapolis Pazk Board in
support of the ordinance and said they aze also pursuing a park dedicarion ordinance.
Larry Soderholm asked Mr. Kimble if their ordinance would apply to subdivision of land or
to all new housing units.
�
Mr. Kimble answered that their intention is to apply it to all new housing, but they need to
have their attomey look at the enabling legislarion and that may be a snag.
Chair Alton asked if they will require a fee for affordable housing units. •
Mr. Kimble stated that they will look at each project on an individual basis, but that he thinkc
the fee should apply to affordable housing because they deserve access to parks, too.
Mr. Soderholm asked how they will handie the requirement for nexus betcveen the fee
imposed and the need created by the proposed development, and how will they rie the park
improvements to the particular new housing development.
Mr. Kimble stated they aze looldng at that issue now. Some oprions aze to use the fee for
pazk improvements in that particulaz neighborhood, park commission dis�ict (there aze six),
or within a six block radius of the development (wallang distance). They aze looldng at
various factors, and doing research to see what the averages are for people per park and
households per pazk, but at this time there is not a specific answer.
Chair Alton asked how often they expect to get land dedicated as opposed to a fee in lieu of
land_
Mr. Kimble said he eapects mostly land dedication for housing projects in former industrial
areas, but a lot will be a fee in lieu of land.
•
2
� Commission Smitten asked about sites where the land dedication may be quite sma11,
if their fee will relate to land value, how the fee collected would be allocated to the
particulaz area of the development, and timeline for use of fhe fee.
Mr. Kimble stated all fees collected in the area of nexus need to be accounTed for
sepazately. The fund would grow over tnne and be used once they get to a point
there is enou�h for park acquisition or development. They are looking at a fee of
about $3000 per unit, but that wiIl vary somewhat by development. They aze in a
process of studyin� this at this time.
MOT'ION: Commissioner Aligada moved to close the public hearing and refer the maKer back
to the Comprehensive Planning Committe� The motion carried unanimously on a voice voTe.
V. Zoning Committee
No cases
Commissioner Morton announced the Zoning Committee agenda for August 17, 2006
VI. Comprehensive Planning Comauttee
Capitol/Downtown Central Conidor Task Force - Planning Commission resolution
� establishing the Capitol/Downtown Central Conidoz Task Force.
(Lucy 77aompson, 651/266-6578}
MOTION: Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen moved on behalf of the cammittee adopHan of
resolution establishing the Cap#oUDowntown Central Corridor Task Forc� wilh an
amendment to add Jerry Hersman as a member of tke task force (ke has been appointed by
Chafir Alton). The molion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Commissioner Smitten gave a brief report on task force work to date. The next meeting will be
August I5, 2006. Meetings wilI be held on the first and third Tuesday of the month, with a bus
tour scheduled for September 5, 2006.
Lucy Thompson gave a brief report on the focus gronp sessions conducted by Urban Strategies,
Inc., the Ciry's consultant preparing tke Central Corridor Vision and DevelopmenY Strategy.
Forum on Economic Issnes:
(Penny Simison, 651/26G-6554)
Penny Simison gave a brief report.
- Dr. Bruce Corrie, Professor of Econoznics, Concordia University
- Kyle Uphoff, Regional Analysis and Outreach Manager, DEED
- Toby Madden, Regional Economist, Minneapolis Federal Reserve $ank
.
' Denotes projects �vith HRA financing including direct funds, land price write-dowq and TIF
Land values for 2006 plats are County Assessor's 2006 estimated market values
Land values for 2002-2005 plats are County Assessor's 2005 estimated maike[ vaiues
Sarah Lom t0/l0/O6
� Denotes projects w�th HRA financing including direct funds, land pnce �vrite-down, and TIF
Land values for 2006 piats are County Assessor's 2006 estimated market values
Land values for 2002-2005 pla[s are County Assessor 5 2005 estimated market values
Saiah Zorn !0/I6/06
* Denotes projects with HRA financmg includmg direct funds, Iand pnce wrire-down, and TIP
Land values Por 2006 plats are County Assessor's 2006 estimated market values
Land values for 2002-2005 pla[s are County Assesso�'s 2005 es[imated market values
Sarah Zmn 10/16/06
/Parks a ��
`
August 1, 2006
s,. ea�� �a�,' TO: Members ofthe St. Paul Planning Commission
R�.msey co�nn��•
FROM: Peggy Lynch �_��/,Ly o���
a'J
2ora ruvrtrvExsAxY
i9sszoos
162I Beechwood Ave.
St Paul. MN 55116
651b98-4543
Fax - 65l fi9&5761
www.friendsottheparks.org
nmaenc
And1ea Venw
Via Prcsident
ivPchacl PricLard
]eame Wrigum
Treuurtt
James R Bricher
a���
Duke Addicks
cnar s�r
�orrrcy c,nooy�
Madc Davis
T'udy ITmham
Thomas T. Dwig6t
Neil Frmey
w�r� r�ank
uvc xauscr
arilya Lwdberg
Robert Nethercut
Mark M. Nolan
s�tt x�n�y
e�� x���
M�na so�n�ay
c�m;a wnaitt
ntRCior Emcriau
n�;a t,�uy
Truman W.Porter
Ez �cio
Bob Bieruheid
Dan Cdlins
n�taarc Goas
Grcg Mack
"Certy Noonan
Fsauuve Dircctor
and Sccretary
Peggy Lynch
The Park Dedication Ordinance is necessary in order to ensure that the City of St. Paul
remains a good place to work and live. Our neighboring cities have pazk dedication
ordinances and iYs time for St. Paul to adopt one.
Below aze some examples of developments in the last ten years, which could have enhanced
the quality of life in our city if this ordinance had been in place
* Gateway Development. This is a very dense residential development located beriveen
West 7` Street and Shepard Road and just west ofthe Sibley Manor housing units. Sibley
Manor provides low-income housing to many immigrants and their families including many
children. Sibley Manor has long been recognized as a pazk poor neighborhood. Now there
are two housing developments together without adequate pazks. Both aze bounded by
Shepazd Road and West 7 Street-- two difficult streets to cross as pedestrians.
* Emerald Gardens. This development is located on West University Ave. and Emerald St_
While the St. Anthony District Council believed that some open space was going to be
provided for these units, there was none. This is very dense housing, with Prospect Pazk in
Minneapolis the closest open space area for the residents.
x Upper Landing Development. The City of St. Paul invested over $50 million in this
development because of the filling of the floodplain. The developers of this property donated
less than'/z acre for a tot lot on the very west side of this development. The public sector,
Metropolitan Council, provided funds for the Samuel Morgan Regional Trail and the State of
Minnesota provided funds for the Upper Landing Park. Many of these housing units sell for
close to $1 million, but neither the developers nor the residents purchasing these units
provided any money or land for park amenities.
At the Commission meeting on July 28, some people expressed concems aheut fia?2n�;ng
parks when developing losv-income housing. The Friends aze sympathetic to the problems
associated with the development of low-income housing. However, pazks, recreation areas
and open spaces enl�ance the desirability of neighborhoods and aze especially importaut in
areas where families have fewer opportunities to go to other places for recreation.
We hope you will consider ow concerns expressed above and support the Pazk Dedication
Ordinance.
•
=��
.:Jti.�-`_ttRb �ii.tr"6S f:ii iNl.-'.'f �a`: ;/?$i�
:,:i=::S.l. �:P�fl
c:�.., i�itCP,i' > �..� ....iIIS _.`Si li�."i'.":
�'.'fCCE z.'I' 1','i:.0 !:'. i.:4'?Il_ `JOUiC �_=:C [U t":'Qit, l2 `, [i2ii l�OL .�C:e iiGl �
::)RSi:..��. .....:'{�ti� ' .C�it72 '=c;k:i)i: +rti., ifi:', t;St'Ii�'Sii� �.'?:i:_,ci77i:C_
<l'i't..ii (Fiu�l'�P.:'ki:..i� ;)i;'v°ii.c...Cii i11;3Ce 1.:II1 ,�°.:;L' �djCil J4"1 :f P.'. .:'.1ij
.,v��C .i?° CC-(7ii:.iCi3 ..."]:1 ::'.i�{ idtiaL'....�. i?t:i2i:?.'... .N �11f`,'i�li _, i�I`..... �:°�� -ii:C
'.t7ai �<)Itt II?[(':..u. di?7:. ui'.L� ,"Yli:;E:'"... l�i' :'t€I1Ti F• _ �,n �r;aC:d':
� i�^Sti.i� C�.ilt tSt.
F 871i: i's3i3.. i T'�?'" : ti.ii3i��. [�c O;' �CC �'IOG [i:. :Ii:UCut:^iC L.,.»;"13
�*Slit< [.:cl#ii� Yl' .-'lEia`.�L 411 .�ii.�i t.�i. CiYizi xiil .^,CO;.��3LCti !€'= J�4.:^.: �2itEe
` 1 )!!:' ; ;r r �i::"� (!? �i:
:n_;;!�l' L:�iC.', ;ii� • nnp,(:, -+. } c:ln>liti i.._ iIi c. _ i�1C � i:i
.:i:�:P: CIIC.-, . ��i� �U�....2t:°. ;;t_.i�._.): t'L:S�_.:�ic' 2.eili)iii., io-:�SLhjz.:�:'
!iLCC.
�
\J' C'4"_Ei :S?t;�C I*i1(?f'i(Rs:C:;. 3?i�`w:li;_, ll :.::li 1i::::1:41iL�:2iiCL` i+C4'�i� j
...':2}2?I'iii l: i :i3'::X?11�.......� .w,(:1 ui :..»Si <)':C 3.i?�t vi'S2?!xzili ?; �.
�iL.' }iti.7Z itiAS < '�f;!'> ;.C:�::: t!U:t ...; i�'h:Cii ;,>C:ti�iL t i `l,�! �} ::?1� O�:" i'- :1F:i: •
?.,L`iilte D'sT:JL:P(��P U_3�i', �ii;_. UCi);8 : Ci'.n.`. :`:AS tS1'U £:IUICi-�uu;ij}
+i n�. �-.', 7G7C� .Lt}:+ O:tL' C^R'uJS?iEi?'<:�F:2�. ;i i'iitt 3??737:C .`17C J'. �£i:t.
�J;-it(..T3 .�_ .
'�r:`*?i`�C:� (':....��.:;C Ci� i):;: :\i." t{itn' Pi', .i-C' i�i)':i'.3?fi??v.' =13t':; :I"?;:
Ci �:�3CiC'�.: `' L'i'E',S i' �?'t}" �S :1=( �il1l) ii't',. f): .::i,` ;.;:�f� :i 11i:3` Tili:S',� ;S:C it�
4Y:: 7 ,i':7.
�il:: �iTit?::i3'Y ti.i:3:L'^�� �.i;iR'L.'.E: :�:s. E'.8i :tiCJ �8:;.^.',� iQ c.: :Il"' �:;R }"�i>�',C
pie> fi `.+!tiiL'�=. ::i.'�ti;i: Oc.l."ti .�t* t:0;;�!�S�`. F)�I3C i,�+� �4i{j }Z)i SSiZHiC; ii`-211•1t �'"i�
:. ,'::��7-i3i?i;�=. SS{)f? :::i lliw: :-:ii:??izt'::z�i.� '��:1 �a(:� L:1� I�c' i')Y !'?Cf��"
...:�21�: .:1�.€:sii: a: _;i:td. .?.. i??i)f21 : .w �S ( jt)i1 3 7�J . 23CC.,.
t�'ii�iU'1t i�:C C81;..�."?c' �.SRu':;t? f�2u'�:LSi2G:;P �filti: iC..' t^ �:'.:+� i 1*li�.,lt!
�a �3�t.�p'?I).
t,. ?=.t x tt:_ ii.,..Ct? z,E ...c i c: .- i L._ ,. ':'�c:.. .il'^ L'�17C:2iiliir.':?li iJC L:Zvi; f�2 Si'i':itt:
iti'��� U: 7�i":lit'..;i� v?2.:�ii C i:w� ii 3: iS'_iS iF7 �::',.. �t'�:iF;:. u' Ji. �i.ti7:
. i' . .
3. :i :l.".",.. �:,��.4'"! ^� tiii;+_.L-i�i':Ttli': L�4Y.�;1!irti::`�;?.i�}.l){� Cl'.i :.�t:t.
,; � ' i
�ara>!cn .�� -. �__� _.� itn te�; i3opc `v,: �=b�0'3.__� _ ;1t'r,��StJ.�p,�,j�`t{) _ �
.,aits = _ ..';}0
Affn��e Hors�zy 3 Doee:.^ixm25 DesziaFv:e�^ Em o,:aer.t R: icb ,:a3�z3rzg Yoa:2 Dene`,sB'nen� Nt:roar Sesares
F;��e"-nronCemL4!�:g• ";35=.: ';�� �; .. .. �<2�cs.ti4 �'zti:•� 2'^-b"ctiiOB.,...,,...-�_.�_.,. .�...:��D.:n^.cr�•;`�:SCY,9.r�:��g
�
� =ir.r.er. �:r;a_::i1C:St.a.:_.!i'ee:.pOg -:=.:58 i'?F-
;}. _ . 4 .VC!i�'• .,';� .. . :U.� ::1[`ii.V C.lV..,tilr � "�'.�.t1�.) j:L!' _,..�.
�.:;d: �. :c. . ..�i:: H"• .�.. '.;b•q `— _ :�.i34.`.,,;ii?i't= �6
_ �.�.c —
�..it; - _ r"�n�,�
i_i:_v�...... _ •.<<_._ �;. ?�:u; `ee. _i;ns° ?6=._gY : i"'.v .==,.�sS'
,,. :�:.eti�-�icz;::,:;.t;..`�;:t.,t;rlet�:..zi:, <it�,,,.ii?z;*�._^rle ,r;:?o��.._.�i)ii.f�i�
y ar ucit ;� ;. ,., � �c�e:i �5.�(iG �{} -� . �_... .
i.,.ncen ac_ca�e ;.,'i! \ct:. �-Io_'� ,., . ;t: = �S.{)(1{) ic � i�ed .., '.�'.iOf)i
L_;,^,.te^ ��...a;�e u�it:� St. ;�a::! Sec:n{�On'p?f�=.6f)D (cei�,�e�� a:
.; ; i i i- •^ -��.?iK-
J[. UIIl'::�5 i�di 1Bt >t:'llilltlC.:i( 1ifSt ^_3311CC'. bC�i:l. �tAi� -'�2C ��OTB La:?St� tii iiiJ
uC:dii)S1.'22f:.�.. :11i :":lOt: CRiiC�.';i ;C� �?'Qj 2:? Ci:i j'Yt5_t'OUi?i:--i?Ll: iIIi:iei-
F:l:`..t3ti :7(lliS tli?:t'::{�\ itOL15i l'a7;::�;.J'..5.1:�(�J�'.":71 >ii?�_",_C R.:11e(� �'�iiLiiB>.
Tlx� \atic;�?:tl tit::l[ -iio;�sin�� ('c>_ E7�i{ ��ti=-7 :ttc: tt;e :1t�:.!�_c \.;:a,?�cr tzf
Cr(;i't4'OI-:iy?C ���tl��{TP,3i j C.' �Oil�t',h():ie :C3C �Ii;��C '�ilitiel' [ti);t:s:i :.^S�
i.t.';2t[tP.C::IJ 1\';Ci; S C. :^::OiC t33;:.5 i!'(l�� =��i Cf`Ct::l7llv.i.`,Tl;:
" S t SLI: -1.1e;?t � V CS've?lw e'S; f) h'i
: !"CS7iCT�: i;.-<J
"��'[�'{(, C:IL'vii:2lt+iiS v'2 Ll'<i?c !1'OP.3 (iT? 1.J. � i',^�U• 13U(e3ti S.-1 �:2:;Ii.;i2ii
� `�'�nII3�Ca� �l3Yi'CY zi3r ��)t)�
(': �S':��.'.tY;1,__ :C�<€i ;ii="tLi:ti�_'.73i2, : s :
c;.tti1�= ;.%".:'i".�." ' ; '� '"
Si ba�u aps�i,� ;F.c;e e�tir�a�e., to 'i:e esv�mnl� derc,lt m�a�s:
-� ilFSii SiF;t?��'.tie'I3f� (�C4C�C)€)1T9C(tt" .r5ck�= s i ii13�t1.�'
+i7 ltE:tt 31IU1[F-?Ett3721}' i'1i'.1'Ci;�(3.^.1&'l7i ::: ��) -�.' ��?:i.'1TC,1 t� r+t?1C`i it:C IiSl:ti,
r�u4;v31�� T � ti�_i;� tt
��''C i�::ii£i'i: i}lt C2i:;.._ :7f dfii>1't�tSyijC Ili}L'tiiryt� iti Si. p2!I� Wil(�:it .?i �1�1^CC bl'
hp:h 2tii flC?;LS2iIl�Ttt tCC u01i-:C}'7d.:titti' dit CXC.°,U`.10I7 bi"x'�37i-�rt��SOG2c'v': Li.�
Ui li;t: [{'� .i?Z i::)iiStP.<-'. 3Yi0iii...^,:i'. ", i �':',3t�SL' 1((}�%t p� ?',zti'. Fi�.il ;z?tC1'iSi2
(u'h�Ch�� t�P,i(� Or ti tiG??e,ctilpl_
Th�t_l: v;�t, f�or ticr.�r,on,tdc;aticn o` tlx,u ,»;<rti.
S,t��eei��i�, ` �- r
/'`�-�.e„�.�'>�7`; � ���� .� �._.�
f I42t'�araSlc��ri�ii:;:
1'ite P_�esivant t�° E�ousing anci De.�cio�;nent
�
District 1 Comm
����������
2090 Coaaay 84eet. Room 126
Saint Pant, �llf 55119
wica 651.501.6345 tas 651.501.63A6
J� zs, 2006
Saint Paul Planning Commission
Attn: A11an Torstenson
25 West Fourth Stree, Suite 1400
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Deaz Commissioners,
Couacil
2107 � Rmd, SunRay SLoppine Ceater
8aint Pant, MF 55119
wice: 651.T02.6TT0 fas 651.714.8229
The District 1 Community Council Board of Ilirectors voted unanimously to support the proposed
Park dedication ordinance_ District 1 residents place a high value on access to open space, realizing
that it increases surroimding property values, provides space for residents to exercise and relax,
thereby imparang health benefits to them, and that it reduces air and water pollubion in our city. We
believe that, as the population in the city increases with new development, it is important to provide
additional open spaces to relieve the press�ue on our eaxisting parks. We fear that if such an ordinance
is not in place, there is no at��nce of the continued advantages oiu c�srent parks provide to us all.
We also note that o�u surrounding sub�ubs have enacted such ordinances to increase the livability of
their commzmities.
In Disbrict 1, we are blessed with beautiful parks and abundaat open space for all o� residents. These
resources are a pazt of what makes living in District 1 so special. We would like to see o�s feIlow
citizens of St Paul, both now and in the futiue, have access to such city treasiues and their
advantages.
We strongly encourage you to act in support of the proposed ordinance as one means to make o� city
a wonderfiil place to live, now and in the yeazs to come.
Thank you for yo�s consideration of this matter.
Sincerely, ���"� J \
/ r2'"� -- /
Betsy Leach
For the District 1 Community Council Board
�
�
�
ni�ia 1 co��ty comd � 2ovo con..sy sc � xoom 126 � sc reo�, Auv s51v
vace: b5150L6345 6� 65150L6396 e-mal: DispidlCounal�aoLcom
, Allan Torstenson - Parkland Ordinance � � � � �' � Page 1
• From: Nina Axelson <nina@sapcc.org>
To: <allan.torstenson@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 8/8l2006 11:40:49 AM
Subject: Parkland Ordinance
AIIan,
The Environment Committee from District 12 passed a resolution in
support of the parkland dedication ordinance on July 26th. This
resolution will be discussed at the D12 Board meeting on August 10th. I
realize that the planning commission is considering this issue on the
11th so I was hoping we might communicate our decision sometime between
our board meeting and the planning commission. If it would be
acceptable, I could send our letter of support via e-mail Thursday
evening. If this is pushing your time lim+tations, please inform the
planning commission that the St. Anthony Park Community Council's
Environment Committee supports the Parkland Dedication Ordinance while
advocating for the strongest possible community input into the park
dedication process and with a desire that additional consideration be
placed on protection of natural areas.
Please let me know how to proceed.
Thanks, �
Nina
�
�
DIVISIO2� OF PARKS r�ND RECREATION
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Mayor Christopher B. Coleman
i00 Ciry Hall Ann�
25 West Fourth Sveet
Sain. Paul, Mimiieson 55102
www.ci.stpzul.�.us/depts(pazks
Telephone: 651-266{400
Facsimile:651-292-7405
TTY: 651-2665378
Bob Bierscheid, CPRP
Director
"Saint Paul Parks and Recreation- Creating Community Through People, Parks and Proa ams"
August 3, 2006
� 'i�.T ._FST��. 1
Chair, Planning Commission
1400 City Hall annex
25 West fourth Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
Dear Mr. Alton:
The Parkland Dedication Ordinance is a very Dood tool for assuring the citizens of St. Paul that
pazkland and open space will be available for future generations to enjoy. St. Paul citizens value their
current level of park facili6es and this ordinance will help insure that we maintain the same proportion
of parkland to households as our population continues to increase.
• Several comments and quesrions were brought to you during the Public Hearing on 7uly 28 in regards
to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance and we would like to take this opporhuzity to address them:
• The potential negative financial impacts to affordable housing developers was the primary
voice of opposition to the ordinance at the hearing. We believe that the Parkland Dedication
Ordinance is the best way to assure that those with the most need for neighborhood
recreational and open space close to home will have it provided.
Parkland dedication ordinances vary si�ificantly city by city throughout the country. Some
cities offer no exemptions, some do, and some allow the city-financed affordable housing
developments to obtain a voucher that allows these fees to be collected from a
redevelopment agency. Although the current ordinance before you offers no exemprion for
the reason stated above, we believe that a mechanism to insure that both housing and open
space should be explored.
Fees vs. Land: Many ciries throughout the U.S. with similaz or �eater population than St.
Paul do have a Pazkland Dedication Ordinance and it has been effecfive as a means to
acquire land. It is St. Paul Pazk and Recreation's intention to acquire land over fees when
ever possible. If land acquisition is not an oprion for the development, the fees can be
collected until enough funds haue accumulated to either acquire a pazcel thaS will meet the
needs of the new residents or make prescribed ixnprovements to nearby accessible pazks.
r1
�_J
� Our neighboring City of Minneapolis is also moving forward and fully intends to have a
Parkland Dedication Ordnance such as ours in the very near future. (see attached letter)
����� �p�U.:G
' CiPRd . �'��a�� ���
` ;; °� "�r�"'�= AA-ADA-EEO Employer = ���
`� .,, ,., �
CAPRA Accreditalion \vicnai Gold �9ecial ��+arti
Attached is a sununary of Pazk Dedication Ordinance from urban cities. Although they each
have special characteristics taiIored to their city and state, they all share the common focus
to insure that sufficient open space is provided their citizens for now and in the future. �
Also attached is a suwmary of Minnesota cities and their ordinances.
If there are additional questions, please do not hesitaxe to contact myself or 7ody Martinez. We
appreciate very much your consideration of this important issue.
Sincerely,
� �/ I/�'—s,_� �
t �
Bob Bierscheid, CPRP
Duector,
•
�
2
ATTACf�vIvIENT 1 -StTMMARY OF MAJOR CITY PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCES
(Source: Trust for Public Land, June 2006)
Albuquerque, New Mexico
• I. Pro2zam Name. Inception Date and Scove:
• Name: The Pazk Dedication and Development Ordinance
•
•
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Inception date: 1976
• As a condition of approval of platting, annexation, site development plans,
zoning changes, or building permits, the developer is required to dedicate land or pay a park
development fee or both. If the City agrees to accept cash in lieu of land dedication the
amount of money is based on the appraised square foot value of the development site. (At
present, the exaction per house in the developing part of the city is 170 sq. ft. of land plus a
$78 fee; in the redeveloping part of the city, there is no land requirement and only the $78
fee. Apartments are chazged at half the rate of houses.) Land and/or fees are piaced in escrow
to be used to provide a developed neighborhood pazk for the residents of the development.
(The ordinance is only used for neighborhood parks; community and regional parks aze
funded solely by State a ants and general obligation bonds.) If adequate neighborhood pazk
space is already met, fees aze used to purchase land or provide recreation facilities for a
district pazk which serves the residents of the development. The city is conducting a study of
a new impact fee program for both parks and open space, but it has not been decided whether
the current Pazk Dedication and Development Ordinance would be included or kept sepazate.
Total Number of Acres Acquired Throueh Exaction: Not Available
Tota1 Income Generated Throu¢h the Fee-In-Lieu Pro�rani: Not Available
Total Number of New Dwelling Units or Residents Added to the Citv: Not Available
Number of Acres Exnected: Not available (rario is about 2 acres for every 515 dwelling units.
Average Price ner Acre in the Citv: $50,000 -$175,000
Contacts and Comments: Chrisrina Sandoval, Senior Planner, Departrnent of Municipal
Development (505) 768-3808, crosandoval@cabq.gov; Matt Schmader, Open Space Division,
Depariment of Parks and Recreation (505) 452-5214, mschmader c(�cabq.QOV.
Atlanta, Georgia
I. Pro�ram Name, Incention Date and Sco�e:
• Name: Developer Impact Fee Act
• Inception Date: July 1, 1993
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
• Developers are not required to donate land but aze exacted a fee at the rate of $246-$410 per
single-faznily dwelling unit; $171-285 per multi-family dwelling unit; and $161-$247 per
1,000 sq. ft. of office constrvction, depending on the neighborhood. Fees are also assessed on
hotel rooms, schools, churches, commercial and industrial faciliries. Fees aze collected at the
time of issuance of the building permits and the money must be spent in the quadrant of the
city where the development occurs. The money can be used for acquisition and pazk
development only, not conshuction of any recreational facilities.
Total Number of Acres Acquired Through Exaction: Not Available
Total Income Generated Through the Fee-In-Lieu Program: Uncertain; estimated at $350,000 to
$450,000 per yeaz.
Total Number of New Dwelline Units or Residents Added to the Citv: Not Availabie
Number of Acres Expected: Not Available
Avera e Price ner Acre in the Citv: Not Available
Contacts and Comments: John Heath, Bureau of Planning (404) 330-6781
jheath(�a,aflantaaa.eov; Ms. Terrilyn Rolle, Greenspace Program Coordinator, Department of
Planning (404) 330-6787, trolle@atlantaga.gov; Mr. Bronaugh Bridges, Financial Officer (404)
330-6732, bbridges@atlantaga.gov; Chuck Adair, Bureau of Buildings (404) 330-6153,
cadair@atlantaga. gov;
Austin, Texas
I. Program Name. Inception Date and Scone:
• Name: Pazkland Dedication Ordinance
Inception Date: July, 1985
The Parkland Dedication Ordinance calls for 5 acres per 1000 new
residents and applies only to new residential subdivisions. Fees can be used
for acquisition or capital improvements, but land must be acquired within a
2-mile radius of the subdivision that generated the fees. The acquisition must
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
be no less than 5 acres.
Total Number of Acres Acquired Through Exaction: 867 acres.
Total Income Generated Throu�h the Fee-In-Lieu Prog�: $9,400,000.
Total Number of New Dwelling Units or Residents Added to the Citv:
Approximately 224,000 persons in 14 years
Number of Acres Expected: 1,120 acres over 14 yeats (based on 5 acres per 1,000 new
residents)
Averaee Price per Acre in the Citv: Recent land acquisitions have averaged about $13,000 per
acre for rural land. No inner-city pazkland acquisition has occurred recently.
Contacts and Comments: Butch Smith, Senior Planner, Austin Pazks and Recreation
Department. (512) 974-6763, butch.smithna ci.austin.tx.us.
Chicago, IIlinois
I. Proe;ram Name. Inception Date and Scone:
• Name: Open Space Impact Fee
• Inception Date: April, 1998.
• The Impact Fee is collected for residential development and rehabilitation, but only if it
results in ffie creation of additional dwelling units. The money is collected by the Buildings
Department and the funds aze allocated by the Department of Planning with advice from a
comittee (made up of the City, the Pazk District, the Forest Preserve District, Chicago Public
Schools and Neighborspace). There are 77 community azeas and the fee can be spent only in
the community area in which the building is constructed. If fees are not spent within '7 years
of collection they aze to be returned. The money can be spent to acquire or develop new open
space and to develop open space acquired after 1998; it cannot be used to "cure e�sting pazk
deficiencies" such'as fixing a dangerous playground. Fees aze mandated at the appro�mate
rate of $3.60 per square foot and thus range from $313 per smail dwelling unit up to $1,253
per lazge dwelling unit. The fee for each "affordable housing" unit is $100. Land in lieu of
fees is preferred in planned developments.
II. Total Number of Acres Acquired throueh Exaction: Not Known
III. Totai Income Generated Throu�h the Fee-In-Lieu Pro�ram: $25,135,384 from 1998 through
mid-2004, an average of about $4.2 million per yeaz.
IV. Totai Number of New Residents Added to the Citv: 56,145 residents (estimate based on
addition of 112,290 residents from 1990-2000); number of dwelling units not lmown.
V. Number of Acres Exnected: 111 acres (based on 87 square feet per new resident, if all new
residents are housed in new units)
VI. Avera¢e Price per Acre in the Citv: $528,000 (not accivate, but mandated by the ordinance).
VII. Contacts and Comments: Kaxhy Dickhut, Assistant Commissioner-Department of Planning and
Development 121 N. LaSalle St., Room 1003, Chicago, II, 60602. (312) 744-1074,
kdickhut@cityofchicago.org; Meg Gustafson,(312) 744-0524, mgustafson@cityofchicago.org
�
�
•
•
�
�
Fort Worth, Texas
I. Proeram Name. Inceotion Date and Scone:
. Name: Neighborhood and Community Park Dedication Polacy
. Inception Date: May, 2000
• Pazkland dedication requirements, in some form, have existed in Fort
Worth since 1977. The Neighborhood Pazk Dedicarion Policy (adopted in
1996) required dedication of 2.5 acres per 1,000 new residents, plus fee
payment of $30,000 per new park acre, for neighborhood parkland only. In
2000 a new Nei;hborhood and Community Park Dedication Policy was
created that added a provision for 3.75 acres of neighborhood parkland per
1,000 new residents a facility development fee and a fee for community
pazkland acquisition. In February, 2004, the Parks and Community Services
Department (PACSD) created a Central City Pazks Planning District (PPD)
that has a separate fee structure of $500 per unit (and no land exacrion) that
an be used for land acquisirion, pazk facility development or grant matching.
II. Total Number of Acres Acquired Throu�h Exaction: 176 (Neighborhood Pazk
Dedication Policy, 1996 to May 2000: 176 acres [with 94 more acres pending
formal acceptance]; Neighborhood and Community Pazk Dedication Policy,
May 2000 to present: 0 acres [with 89 acres pending])
III. Total Income Generated Throuah the Fee-In-Lieu Proeram: $5.9 million (about $5.6 million
remains unspent)
IV. Total Number ofNew Dwelline Units or Residents Added to the Citv: approximately 77,000
persons in 7 yeazs (population growth is an average of 11,000 per yeaz)
V. Number of Acres Exnected: 316 (110 from 1996-2000, based on 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons;
plus 206 from 2001-2004, based on 6.25 acres per 1,000 persons)
VI. Averaee Price per Acre in the Citv: $12,000 per acre in edge growth azeas to
$1 miliion downtown; the normal range in residential azeas is $25,ODQ-$4Q,�Q� per acre
VII. Contacts and Comments: David Creek, Acting Planning Manager, Park Planning and Resource
Management, Pazks and Community Services Department, (817) 871-5745,
Dauid.Creek@fortworthgov.org; Joe Janucik, Senior Pianner, Parks and Community Services
Department (817) 871-5706, joe.janucik(a)�fortworthgov.org.
Long Beach, California
I. Program Name, Inception Date and Scope:
• Name: Pazk Impact Fee
II.
III.
IV.
V
Inception Date: January 31, 1989
The fee, which only applies to residential development, can be used for land
acquisition or the development of new facilities on existing parkland; it cannot
be used for maintenance or rehabilitation of existing facilities. There aze no
geogaphic or zoning restrictions on where funds can be spent. However, the city prioririzes
those azeas where new housing development is occurring. There is no credit for removing a
dwelling unit (i.e., if 4 units aze removed and replaced with 12 units, the fee is based on 12
units; if a home is replaced with a lazger home, the fee is still required.) Fees are assessed and
collected by the Planning and Building Department and range from $2,680 for a single-
family dwelling unit to $1,015 for an artist studio. The ordinance ca11s for 38.72 sq. ft. of
park space for each new dwelling unit.
Total Number of Acres Acauired Throueh Exaction: 4
Tota1 Income Generated 'Through the Fee-In-Lieu Pro�: $9,607,444
Total Number of New Dwelline Units or Residents Added to the Citv: 4,500
new dwelling units between 1989 and 2003. (The remaining population growth in the city was
absorbed by more crowding in existing housing.)
Number of Acres Expected: 12
VI.
VII.
Averaee Price per Acre in the Citv: Approximately $975,000 per acre (ranging from $500,000
per acre for unimproved industriai land to $2.5 million per acre for unpmved residential
properry)
Contacts and Comments: Dennis Eschen, Manager, Planning and Development Bureau, •
Department of Pazks Recreation and Marine, (562) 570-3130, dennis eschen ,lon2beach.eov
Los Angeles, California
I. Program Name. Inceqtion Date and Sco�e:
• Name: Quimby Act; detailed information not available
II. Total Number of Acres Acquired Throu�h Exaction: Not Available
III. Total Income Generated Through the Fee-In-Lieu Progr. am: Not Available
IV. Total Number of New Dwellin� Units or Residents Added to the Citv: Not Available
V. Number of Acres Ea Not Avaitable
VI. Average Price oer Acre in the Citv: Not Available �
VII. Contacts and Comments: Camille Didier, Department of Recreation and Parks, 213-928-9132,
cdidier@zap.laciry.org
Miami, Florida
I. Pro�ram Name, Inception Date and Sco�e:
• Name: Developer Impact Fee
• Inception Date: 1987
II.
III.
�.
V.
VI.
VII.
• The rate ranges from a low of $157 per 1,000 square feet of new development (residential
downtown) to $218 per 1,000 square feet (residentiai in ouflying neighborhoods) to a high of
$404 per 1,000 square feet (commercial downtown). The fee can be used only for capital
purposes, not operations. It must also be used in the general vicinity of its collection (i.e.,
downtown, Coconut Grove, etc.). The money must be spent within 6 years.
Total Number of Acres Acauired Throueh Exaction: Not AvaiIable
Tota1 Income Generated Throuth the Fee-Tn-Lieu Pro�am $1.77 miliion
Tota1 Number of New Dwelline Units or Residents Added to the Citv: Not Available
Number of Acres Expected: Not Available
Avera�e Price per Acre in the Citv: Not Available
Contacts and Comments: Maria Perez, Department of Pazks and Recreation, (305) 416-1314,
mmperez@ci.miami.fl,us; Pilar Saenz, Budget Depar�ent, 444 S W 2nd Ave., Sth Floor,
Miami, FL 33130; (305) 416-1463, pilazsb@ci.mianu.fl.us
Portland, Oregon
I. Pronzzam Name. Incention Date and Sco�e:
• Name: System Development Chazge (SDC)
InceptionDate: October 1, 1998.
The nte struchue for July l, 2003 to June 30, 2004 (it increases every yeaz by the inflation
rate or by 6 percent, whichever is less) is as follows: Single Fanuly -$1,630, Duplex -
$1,630 x 2=$3,260, Multi-Family (each unit) -$1,051, Manufactured Homes $1,108,
Accessory Dwelling Unit -$815, Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing -$629. The SDC
chazge is based on facilities costs per capita and is calculated based on the a formula for the
number of persons per dwelling unit based on 1990 census data. The mandated number of
persons aze: Single Family — 2.59 persons Multi-Family (each unit) —1.67 persons,
Manufactured Housing —1.76 persons, Exemptions aze available if development does not
include new dweIling units; if the project is a hotel, motel, dormitory, dependent caze, shelter
or group home; or if the developer is a not-for-profit organization sponsoring low income
housing. The fee is levied on residential and some commercial consiruction if it includes
residential development. Revenue is tracked by 7 sub-azeas and expenditures are targeted to
the fastest growing sub-areas. The fee is assessed at the time the building pernut is issued.
�
�
�
, II.
III.
�.
V.
VI.
VII>
�
•
VIII.
The program is being considered for expansion to non-residential development for specific
pazk and development types. Credits are available if the project serves one or more of the
City housing goais or if properiy or facilities aze transferred to the Department of Pazks and
Recreation.
Total Number of Acres Acquired Through Exaction: 90.86 acres (1998-2002). Note: The DC
program has resulted in an excess of pazkland acquisition because Portland used anticipated
revenues to issue $6 million in bonds which were used to buy land. These bonds aze being paid
offthrough future SDC income.
Total Income Generated Throu¢h the Fee-In-Lieu Proeram: $6,246,847 (1998-2002)
Total Number ofNew Dwellina Units or Residents Added to the Citv: 4,275 units (1998-2002),
or 8,550 persons (there are roughly 2 residents per unit)
Number of Acres Exnected: 39 acres
Avera�e Price per Acre in the Citv: Approximately $220,000
17.13.060 Partial and Full Egemnrions.
(Amended by Ordinance Nos. 176511 and 179008, effective July l, 2005.) The uses listed and
described in this Section sha11 be exempt, either partially or fully, from payment of the Pazks
and Recreation SDC. Any Applicant seeking an exemption under this Section shall specifically
request that exemption no later than the time of the City's completion of the final inspection.
Where New Development consists of only part of one or more of the uses described in this
section, only thabthose poxtion(s) of the development which qualify under this section are
eligible for an exemption. The balance of the New Development which does not qualify for any
exemption under this section shall be subject to the fuil SDC. Should the Applicant dispute any
decision by the City regazding an exemprion request, the Applicant must apply for an
Alternative Exemption calcularion under Section 17.13.080. The Applicant has the burden of
proving entidement to any exemption so requested.
A. New Development which does not contain Dwelling Units is fully exempt.
B. Hotel and motel units, shelters, group homes, dependent caze facilities, and dormitories aze
fully exempt.
C. Temporary uses aze fully exempt so long as the use or structure proposed in the New
Development will be used for not more than 180 days in a single calendaz yeaz.
D. Low Income Housing which meets the following requirements shall be fully exempt for the
Pazks and Recreation SDC:
1. If rental housing is developed by a Non-Profit organization or the Housing Authority
of Poztland, the rental rates are affordable to households earning 60% or less of the Area
Median Income as annually deternuned by the U.S. Deparhnent of Housing and Urban
Development for the Portiand Metropolitan Area.
2. If rental housing is developed by a For-Profit organization, the rental rates are
affordable to households eaming 60% or less of the Area Median Income as annually
determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Portland
Metropolitan Area.
3. If owner occupied housing is developed by a Non-Profit organization or the Housing
Authority of Portiand, the prices are affordable to households earning 100% or less of
the Area Median Income as annually determined by the U.S. Departrnent of Housing
and Urban Development for the Portland Metropolitan Area.
4. If owner occupied housing is developed by a For-Profit organization, the prices aze
affordable to households earning 100% or less of the Area Median Income as annually
determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Portland
Metropolitan Area.
5. For purposes of this section, affordability sha11 be defined by the Administrator and be
consistent with other City of Portland fee waiver programs.
Contacts and Comments: Glenn Raschke, Program Administrator, Pazks Planning and
Development, (503) 823-5105, graschke@ci.portland.or.us; Riley Whitcomb, Director of
System Development Chazges, (503) 823-6148, nkrilevna,ci.portland.or.us.
San Antonio, Tesas
I.
II.
III.
�.
V.
VI.
VII.
Proaram Name. Inception Date and Scope:
• Name: Unified Development Code
• Inception Date: May, 2001
• Fees under the Unified Development Code ([JDC) aze imposed only on residential
development. Fees may be spent on acquisition or improvements and must be spent within
two miles of the subdivision that generated the funds. The ordinance calls for 1 acre for every
114 residential units. "San Antonio does not exempt anyone nnless their project is has
Vested Rights, otherwise l�own as grandfathered The reasoning is that everyone, in
every area is in need of park/open space and recreational opportnnities. To make
projects egempt wonld be to deny them that basic need, and we would fail them by
allowing e%emptions."
Total Number of Acres Acquired Throu�h Exaction: None
Total Income Generated Tbrough the Fee-In-Lieu Prog�am: $925,000
Total Number of New Dwelling Units or Residents Added to the Citv_ 25,882 (2001-1003),
although an unknown number were permitted before the UDC program was created and were
grandfathered out of the requirement.
Nunnber of Acres Exvected: Approximately 227
Average Price oer Acre in the Citv: No recent pazk land purchases. Recent city acquisition of
environmentally sensitive land in the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone was $6,000 per acre.
Contacts and Comments: Chris Yanez, San Antonio Department of Pazks and Recreation,
(210) 207-4091, lyanez@sanantonio.gov
�
�
San Diego, California
I. Program Name, Inception Date and Scope:
• Name: Pazk Fee Ordinance
Inception Date: 1987
II.
III.
�.
V.
VI.
VII.
• A Facilities Benefit Assessment (FBA} provides funds for public facilities projects wluch
service a designated azea. Within already urbanized communities which are neaz buildout,
developer exactions aze collected to finance a portion of identified public facilities and to
maintain existing levels of service for that community. The ordinance requires appmacimately
20 acres per 1,000 residents (1.0-3.9 acres of population-based facilities, 15-17 acres of
resource-based pazks, 1.1-2.0 acres of open space, sports fields, plazas and landscaped azeas).
There is also Special Parks Fund within two underserved communities, Mid-City and North
Pazk, which is funded by a Developer Impact Fee of $4,525 for single family residential
development and $3,394 for each unit of a multi-family residential development. The City of
San Diego does not exempt affordable housmg projects from the General Plan
guidelines for population-based parks and recreational facilities.
Totat Number of Acres Acauired Throu¢h Exaction: Not Available
Total Income Generated Thmugh the Fee-In-Lieu Proaram: Not Available
Total Number of New Dwelline Units or Residents Added to the Citv: 38,757 (1998 thmugh
2003), consisting of 14,120 single-family units and 24,637 uniu in multi-family structures)
Nvmber of Acres Exnected: Not Available
Averaee Price ner Acre in the Citv: About $350,000 per acre for raw land in undeveloped
communities and $500,000-$2 million per acre within urbanized communities.
Contacts and Comments: Charlene Gabriel, Facilities Financing Manager, Planning Department
(619) 533-3187, cgabriel@sandiego.gov; Pam Bemasconi, Supervising Project Manager,
Planning Department (619) 533-3677; Deborah Sharp, Project Officer,
Park and Recreation Department (619) 525-8261, dsharpe(u�sandieeo.gov; Ann Hix, Deputy
Director, Open Space Division, Pazk and Recreation Department, (619) 685-1360,
ahix@sandiego.gov.
.
San Jose, California
�
I. Program Name. Inception Date and Scope:
• Names: Pazkland Dedication Ordinance and Pazkland Impact Ordinance
II.
� III.
�.
�
V.
VI.
VII.
Inception dates: 1988 and 1992.
The Pazkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO), adopted in 1988, applies to residenrial
subdivisions of 5 or more lots. The Pazkland Impact Ordinance (PIO), adopted in 1992,
applies to residential development not requiring a subdivision map. They both require the
dedicarion of land or payment of in-lieu fees or a combination of both whenever there is a net
increase in residential units. The rate of dedication is 3 acres per 1,000 persons. (An
exemption for construction of low-income housing was suspended in 1998 and is expected to
sunset in 2006; a downtown exemption ended on January 1, 2003.) The Parks, Recreation
and Neighborhood Services Department (PRNS) prefers acreage donations of no less than
one acre. Development projects of less than 51 units are required only to pay the in-lieu fee.
In-lieu fees may be used
for the acquisition, development, construction or renovation of neighborhood or community
parks, or the neighborhocd/community-serving elements of regional parks. Often PRNS
allows for less than the maximum allowabie land dedicarion in return for "turnkey" projects —
fixlly improved park facilities built by the developer in accordance with city guidelines. Fees
must be allocated within 5 years or retumed. The nexus for spending fees on neighborhood
pazks is a radius of three-quar[ers of a mile; for community pazks it is 2 miles. San Jose does
currently exempt low and very [ow-income housing units from park fee payment
requirements. Moderate-irecome unifs and market rafe units are required to pay fees or
dedicate parkland as indicated ia our parkland ordinances. Affordability restrictions for
up to 30 years are typically placed on those units erempted from park fees.
Total Number of Acres Acauired Through Exaction: 124 (1989 through 2003)
Total Income Generated Throug�the Fee-In-Lieu Proeram: $47 million (1989 through 2003)
Total Number ofNew Dwelline Units or Residents Added to the Citv: 142,000 (1989
through 2003)
Nuxnber of Acres Expected: 426 (based on 3 acres per 1,000 residents)
Average Price per Acre in the Citv: $460,000 -$1.5 million
Contacts and Comments: Brad Brown, Pazk Planner, Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood
Services Dept. (408) 794-1319, Brad.Brown@sanjoseca.gov
�
� b�i tf�F�a Z to 8�3•06 fei�e� {'ro�,.. $f.G'a�± Fa.G;s aHC! t�ecreaf�oK
ATTAC�Il�IEl�� 2-SIJ_MMARY OF OTHER MLNI��ESOTA CITY PARK DEDICATION
ORDINANCES
(Source: Greg In�aham Ph (612) 377-2500, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc Fx (612) 377-1010
1510 Como Ave. SE, Minneapolis, N1N 55414)
u
�
10
�
0
_ �� �
_ �
°=_ < m�
>;'� o � °
e�g�
�°�= R `= o
e:' _ � mga o S o ° ° aU
�- a» o ` o
Y..e
9^'.8 - o m '� �
c° °' v ° �
_'�� � ° ° a o m
S^si �a n_ m p° ° � I
p w O I I
U v� Si �
�� L m a m ` F
_ Q 9 9 I
O �
R � O 0 W c 0 � R e � �
O O P O
C= o m p� m 0 O � m C 0 �- 0 6 m 1
V9 ymvm O Z 0 0 02 LOm Z C m (
�� Om � p �
O _ � m � L A � _ �
V - D L y
� _ �
m � o
m
6
a 2 '�'+ c ° c n � ° o z
f �
1
LL r � I
3 � � � S p � m O
N � �
� p W N � I
o9E no,
0 0
„ � m P ° � n � Q° $ m o ° o ° m °
0 6° �'» � I
= �n o 0 0 0 0 �
n+ s c ° o `° i �°o,� ° ° `°
LL
b O � Q O O O 0 O I
t� Q � m N n � � � tV
. q�
� � Y = a O � � � � m m
0 O m�'} � R 0�.
�- - a� mz�m = w m m- .n _ �e
a a- i� c mc � W om � c m �� ° mm 9 0 �v
i u� c= �m aa ` o o `mma 3 m'`o � ? ng `0 3 m� m i
3 a=`0 m � mmano� ��m u �ri p i
t6> o °E ° o � - �n= o o•-`o om cm 9a, o ma I
N o° __ `o m c ` c`o_ o m=m_ _= o a'mm� I
O c°� -°�i c�°.� =°m m - �mW o� m �m mr'
R ° - ^_ �`a' m ` �6°m $a u m m o `'� °0 LLo� I
V ° y ` m _ n o °mm o.c •ri c m'm= - m� ..�
'6 � ° `o m0 m m_m3 ° � � ` N n � `o� oi,^ I
Q _�= m p� �_`� o L ' a�
�
Y
L m � I
�
Q � O p 0
�J 6 m � C� m 'q m
p V E � _ m.c U �' c- m � � _
N <` m m` m' U t�i w O' u �.°. w ° u• i u`. - 'U i S
�
�
�
�
•
� � mo�
_ - ����
U3a � oo���
C`S L �'qOyb
a �d� O M�O�i
t!°E= ' °
.c_ - m N ° Q n o 0
08 o' w'v'" v �' rv �'
O�y L
Y �
mm �� o
N
�E�.1 i m p
o:E« v � W ° ¢ o
S� � � p h N� n� a.� �o
o�
U
��ii - � � - =m t� m `m$ u o
q c o c e � a o�W N � E a� ^ � m .
� C� �o mo A ` � - = `oo° °m- ° m�
w o� `oo mo o `o -� $ �`aro ° o'-` °'
_ `o m =�� a m �'o - n g - LL
� m� _�m� m m _�o � me m qa �` vo..�.3
� m m m m o ` m ° o '�° m ° a r� H .
u�e m m- m m n c �$ cg mm �$ q o
. m m - y -
E �`-° @m � m �` � $ m a � m S' - v=m�o `-�° mm a
- m � 3
� °° ° mo` ° mr 'a � ° m ° N' � a `o m om$ ti
' ..0 ' ` c .. ` o U� o o�� U a n
m�
a� m `o o Q ° o 2 M $ i g m
ow"'
E
LL = O) N� N O O CJ r�i. tR O O �
�' � O � I�J W ' M
[H `r W N �° N N _ O � y [h ro
O .n `o '
N 9
f � m �y � o� S w c 0
Z C 1` O
N �� N (O � O N� � w 0 W t7
W
�
II� = W h N O N O � O
� � N � N � � � O M RI
m
R LL �
C _° c m N"' m o "' ° o g ° a m
G C p t�O ��� N� N �- 2 CJ l0
� - y
d = _' =z °` _ ' ��$ �o a r=
�� o ° _ � - - ' n `m -.. c ,°- �
° m � m �� m m � ' w �(o � w m m °
d v -` ``o o w � 'mnio � m�° m= �
i ° ua a v itl �� ° a a vi�o �£ "� � o ma
y o`o 0 o� o 'o � E -_ ^^`o
C m �°. � _ _� �°. �°. �h `o m nfO �O°a
0 m � m° m ` m.2 � - n ' s m`o
-o
p c � m. - m m� � � » n,� o � a= m m e
� y ° ° n � _ '. n c ary� � _ _
- m- mmc o tm am
V ° m m mB w� m 'am _ m w w e o ='m _-` m
a�aaa am L a a _ ma�'+ ° oa�
d __ � 3 _ ' ' °^ c m `o a� a x
o � y oti
� `� ` ��i0 Zo �'y G
Y -
�
R A �
a = m ° � o m > E 'a c s °
O V �m O � m m v° t'm . � m` 2 D - p o
0 = - c_ 3 3 3 3 - � E _
N - �� E�Sf E � Z Z z 2 O a n`
�
� 9 m o c�� E o
m i � m ° �m3�wm3 �
_�z$ mm �"�E�t c
ae O g ;
ogg� m m
p^YV m n. _
` � � � $ $ ` � � YLL o Q p �
m$� m 4 � aV L N t�0 Ci w r
Y..3 �
p�s � m
���5 i m 0� O m 9
�a P
i^si E m c � r ° � v a � ? p E
o« N o
U �
�Y! ' `o m 6 5 °' = � a .e -
e o `o ° o` �e
_ ° ve W a � n ° a» -
m W p O 0 N 0 �p 0 O � �
� �- naam - �em av � m `m
_ � c' m o x m m m
ea z a`° -.co ° m c c� m 3
� o c _ ? _ � m � N
£ o o - o a ¢
o m 2 t m m
o L� '"as _
U> I°—�
0
a� g � m Z $ � °
f �
LL_ o ° ° m $
3 2 c ° i °.� '° ° 2
Ew
I' C S O O 2� b 0 $
f �
o � 0
S � m 0 _ O O
� O _
� t � � _
Q = P
O `
� $ O g O� O O � P O
6�2 � O m � � ' O m �
_ � d = ' � N
% p Q
R O 4 . N e 0 c� j(V N c � o
a o- e - °,a��a�E.cEL`o a� _ � o
q a m m a
c o � >> > o �� � a°=z m@ m W a ` o 3 ` m@ c
Ci o� 0 0 m� �--�'� ' �`, �° = ° n o� W
i' '� °' H v v a 'Og i no<o � `° m °= = m v =° ':
3 v g°m� `o m`o `o m°� �mm - m o ;' ac `
y � mm m�� ' " `mt• �°'3° o� b m= co a c+� _= �
_ 'mcm �_m i oc �� o. � �mNe o mm vm� a> = Z=a � -
« a'�° �a "3 �a ag Fm m
�a „ — aW °m _ � �=,°mm ; a �
V �m o_ 9 m m m £ � U-e n mm"�s o c m c ° m ° r �
�Of .� c cm °m - &qw``'� m` 3 � �o � _ � m3 �
� 4 - 0
� � � - cm=a�q= - a Q
i t 3
O. 'c m a i � s y z, _ z
w= �
0 U = s m m N i � H E ° a c c
N z z¢ z io (n m m r'n > > 3 3 3 3 �
o �
•
, ft'�iR�hIMFNi 3 to 8•3�06 Ietfe� {�ro� Sf. p Pu��.s aKd t�ecrect�o�
ATTACHMENT 3-LETTER FROM MINNEAPOLIS PARK BOARD ON THEIR P120POSED
PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE
ANB oTft�R SuPP�EM�NTRL Nj�}TER!{�L s�gn-jf�En �Y
S�ir�r PRV� ��►2KS F��t� OL�crZERrraN
�
�
ii
- ' .
Minneapolis
Park and Recreation
:�. �
Admin6rrntive OJfurs
z�nw��;��xoaa
Minneapolis, MN S541 I-22D
Phone: 612-230{i400
Fax: 6t2-230-6500
Operations Center
3800 Bryant Avenue South
Minneapotis, MN 55409-1000
Phone: 612-370-4900
Far 612-3704831
President
Jon C. Olson
u�n,��r
Tracy Nordstrom
Ca�nn:;ssioners
Mary Mertill Ande�son
walt I}dedzic
Bob Fine
c�o[ n_ x��
Tom Nordyke
s�ott vree�ana
Atmie Yamg
Superintende�it
Jon R Gurban
Secse�ary to the Board
� s���kow
11�I1��• •. . • J
EqLY]I �Fpc�uMY f 1DVde Of
le"sceantl Reaeafiorial5ervices
August 4, 2006
Mr. Bob Biersheid, T}irector
Pazks and Recreation Department
300 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
Dear Sirs and Commission Members:
Mr. Brian Alton, Chair
Planning Commission Members
Planning Commission
1400 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourkh Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
•
We would like to express our enthusiastic support for your pending pazk land
dedication fee ordinance. Our own Boazd has recently approved the enabling
Iegislation that clarifies our authority to enact a park dedication fee, and we are
wofldng with the City of Minneapolis to establish this vitally important
or3inance. This fee is needed to account for the deman�' for parks tha� wil:
accompany the current condominium boom in Minneapolis, as well as projected
population and househoid increases in the tens of thousands. We are projecting a
fee of azound $3000 in order to account for ever increasing land and conshuction
COStS.
White we are sympathetic with keeping costs reasonable on affordabte housing,
the people occupying those homes aze just the ones that will need to have close
proximity to high quality pazks and open space, and likely more than average
given the potentially lugh densities needed to keep their homes affordable. The
fee will only add a small percentage to the total cost, but the benefit will be huge.
In response to the concems about economic and other impacts, the benefits of
parks affect the entire spectnun of our lives. And parks aze a significant engine
of our economy in many respects. They offer posirive activities that reduce
health costs, attract small businesses that make the majority of new jobs, provide
consiruction pmjects for local coniractors, and help clean our air, land and water.
In conclusion, our beautiful Twin Cities offer a lugh quality of life in ALL
respects precisely because of their parks, waters and other natural ameniries, not
in spite of it. Please let us lrnow if we can be of any assistance in this initiative,
and best wishes in enacting your ordinance, The City of St. Paul and its residents
can only benefit from such an ordinance.
Suxcerely
Jon Gurban
Superintendent
•
R�Y�-d P��bP�mra�merv�e
�
�
300 FiRST AYE K IFI: "vib3333300 i0+t�fpN17Y PL�fi+UNG
SVRE 3;0 PA%: bR33T�5601 tA•,� OtaN:ANG
�a:�+kc1?0'�S.`.dN YdEE:DSJPLAH,C06t UREAN DESIGN
ii:b5-Sf99
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 14, 2006
T0:
FROM:
RE:
LAk�SiFPE 4RCH:TEi7URc
Y.AiKEtAESEARCY
Bob Bierscheid, St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department
Phil Cadsoq AICP, Dahlgren, Shardlow, znd Uban, Inc.
Park Dedication — Recommended Formula
lntroduction
The Parks and Recreation Department has undertaken developing a park dedication ordinance for the City of St Paul,
with assistance from a task force and our mnsulting fittn. We discussed various approaches to reqmnng dedication of
land or money from new residential develo4ments for park purposes. Most oties in the Metropolitan Area have park
dedication policies like this, and the courts have found that this rype of exaction is allowed by cities if it has a rational
basis.
Research
To begin, we researched the amount of park land of various kinds currentty within the Ciry of St. Paul.
• Overalt, a Irttle Iess than 12% of the ary's land is in packs, which translates io about 36 acres pec 1,060
households;
• Neighborhoods parks (local playgrounds, tot lou, and small ball fields) account for i.7% of the ciry's land —
about 5 acres for every t,00� households,
• Communiry parks (larger ball feld complexes and playgrounds) and other specialized parks account for 2.4%
of the ciry's land —about another 7 acres for every 1,000 households;
. Regional parks account for 7.7% of the oty's land — about 23 acres for every 1,000 househoids;
• The new park dedication formula might reasonably provide for neighborhood parks and communiry parks, but
not regional parks, which are provided by other agencies;
• To keep roughly the same proportion of neighborhood and communiry park land, the new formula would
prowde benveen 5 acres and 72 acres for per 7,000 households (or 0.005 aaes to 0.072 acres per unii).
We researched the basic formulas that other cities use, induding:
• A percentage of land dedication, rypically 10%, ranging from 5% to 20% or more for higher densiry projects;
• A cash-in-lieuof-land dedication based on the value of the land from the percentage formula above;
• A cash dedication per unit, rypically $500 to $2,000 or more;
. Formulas with variables to aaount for higher and tower densiry pro�ecu, since park needs are related to
number of people or households using them.
�� `L
7���
QSV
�
�v �C
���� �
���,
We Iooked ai various formulas based on a straight petcentage of Iand or based on acres per unit, and found:
• At lower densiLes — 5-20 units/acre — the formulas yieid resulu that seem reasonable mmpared to other
dties and 5[ PauPs current park land rauos;
• At very higher densities — 100-200 units/acre, like pro�ecu that have been developed downtown — the
formulas startto produce unreasonably high numbers;
. High densiry projects result in very high Iand dedication, 50% to 100% or more of the land, obviously
unreawnable;
. High densiry projectr result in very high cash dedicalion per unit, largely because the value of the land is so
high —$40 per square foot or more — resulting in cash dedication per unit of $8,000 or more per unit, also
unreasorvable.
To account for these very high density projects in the downtown area we looked to other large dties and their statistics
on park land. Since downtown St. Pau( is different from ihe lower densiry outer neighborhoods of St Paul, and much
different from the even lower densiry suburbs, we surmised that comparing downtown St. Paui to Maplewood, Eagan,
and Bumsville in terms of park area was pro6ably not fair—better to compare it to large, dense dties. We researched a
number of dties: surrounding subur6s, medium sized cities like Sioux Falis and St. Louis, and Iarge 6tes like New York,
Chicago, and Boston. From this comparison we found:
. The suburbs and medium sized dtes provided park land at ratios not unlike St Paul as a whole; �
. In five dense, large 6ry neighborhoods in Manhattan, Chiogo, and Boston the total park land varied from 4
aaes to 77 aaes/7,000 units, averaging about 7 aaes/1000 units vs. 5t. Paul's 36 ad7000 units werall.
This average is about 1/5 the amourrt of park land per unit that St. Paul has as a whole, but may be
reasonable for downtown St. Paul;
. These five areas vary from about 7°k to 20% land area in parks, averaging about 75% Iand area (St. Paul
has about 12% land area in parks overalq;
• We deduced that people in very dense settings are used to living in tight surtoundings and the same would
be true for park land — they are accustomed to less space per person than might he found in more spadous
subur6an settings. It would be reasonable therefore to cap the total percentage of park land at some lower
num6er, rather than require very dense projects to dedicate 50%-100% of their land, or a proportional
amount in cash.
Recommended Formula
Based on the above research we reviewed a number of different formulas, from 5 aaes/1,000 units to 72 aaes/7,000
uniu, and land percentages of 70°k to 40%, combined with various assumptions on residential density land value under
a given development projea. We wanted to keep low densiry, low value projects at a reasonahly low num6er while
requiring high densiry, high value projects to pay their fair share as well. Even with reasona6le and defensible numbers
in the formula, for some xenarios the cash dedi�bon might stilt be mo high and so it is recommended ihat there be a
dollar cap as well. This should be reviewed periodi�lly to take irtto accounT fumre inQeases in land value. The task
force recommended the following formula, agreeing that it provides a balanced and reasona6le approach to St Paul's
park land dedication:
�
Bob Bierscheid �y � St Pau( Aprii 14. 2006 2
•
0.008 acres/unit (8 aaes /7,000 units), with a maximum of 12% land dedication
• Cash dedicaion based on land amount form the above formula and land price, from the assessed value
• A cap of $3.000 per unit on cash dedication
• Park dedication applies to new lou or new uniu created as the result of a subdivision
The attached tables and graphs show the recommended formula and background information. The table starts with a
basic lot split — what wouid happen for someone creating a single minimum sized lot. The table Ihen lists projeRS at
various densities — 5 units/acre, 10 units/acre, 20 units/acre, etc We have assigned land values to the various
examples, corresponding more or less to land values we discussed at our meetings, researched by ary staff, from a low
value of about $5.00 per square foot to over $40.00 per square foot dow�town. We couid show marry d'rfferent
densities on different values of land, but there are too many variables to list all possibilities. The ones shown are a
reasonable take on various scenanos.
Attachments:
� Table t— Ciry of St Paul — Park Dedication Formula —12%183,000 Maximum
Graph i—Total Park Land Per 1,000 Residential Unrts, St. Paul and Selected Cities
6raph 2— Park Land as Percent of Total Ciry, St. Paul and Selec[ed Gties
Graph 3— Overall DensiTy— Residential Uniu Per Acre of Total Gry, St. Paul and Selec[ed CitieS
�
�� yL
7� �r
DSU
Bob Bierscheid, City of St, Paul April 14, 2006
�
�
C
K
R
�
L
W
U
O
O
K
C
m
J
e
N
W
7
�
LL
C
O
V
v
�
'�C
a
7
a
�o
�•-a
m ° `a
Q ��
FUo
m
a
9
C
t �
eoo m
0
__� o
= o
„
— �
�$� _
� C O
dq9 �
O V � @
q 0
U n _
V �N m
D Y � �
m � � �
0
u`
E�o<$�
�m�
m
°`°
m � � �
f'm
Fna-m
0�°a
y �6am u
4 m ? m o m
am
�a,�� E
:Rav
u � �3 E
aav -
pa§t E
�-., i' � c c
�nam m
¢ v - o
��� o
, ° o ° c r 'o
jEoom
e�ma�
�o�o
°
� S�
�� °°'
Zs-
u a �
� n ��
jco
T
�
�_
0
m
c � v
� �
e
�
u
�
•
�
N
._
�
ia
w
c
d y
� �
� U
�
L � � �
adyN
�a
�d=o
L R
Q 3
�a
_
w
��
Y
R
a
'
O
F
��
6
�
a��
s�
o
�
o�
a�
A�
m
a
o�
s�
o�
s�
P
y +
�o
S
O� , m
�`�s v
m
! � A GO� J 't'G �'�1
G�
o�
�
G
O6, �� ^ o
o. -(
yJ �
a,,
o�
G
J/ �TC•+
G
,A � 4 a J y
. G
7'�� �s' p
�`�P
��G
0
''a �S J � a �'G
��3
O�
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a�0 � t�0 � V c�'1 N O O
s;iun 000`L/saa�y
�
.-�
�
�
0
t
L
0
�
.L
m
m �
Z d
L w
O U
�
��
N V w�
V o
t w � �
R O y �
� w � �
O = �
•, 16 ❑
m �
�a
m
a�
�,
R
�
_
R
J
Y
R
a
1��� ��ol}o;ua�ad se pue��ed
X R
O�
� t
� �
l6
Z �
O
m
N
V
t
V
m
c
N
U
0
O
m
d
`o
c =
O y
o �^
m 3
�
m
�
a
�
m
� s
= U
.r�. �
N m
o�
m V
lQ
N
m
7
R
a
�
m
t)
�
i
0 0 0 0 0 0
ui o ui o iri o
N N � �
•
•
�
0
O
s
L
0
Q
t
�
��
Z
L
0
T
�+
U
R
O
F
w
O
d
M 6
L Q
� d
�a
.y
._
�
R
C
a�
�
.
Gf
�
w
N
C
�
R
L
m
�
O
d
�
U
�
� �
v o
N c
N �
�a �
t�6 �
�
lC
a
N
,�
Y�
o�
� t
3 �
d �
Z�
�
m
R
U
t
U
m
c
d
U
�
c
°
0
m
d
�
� C
o y
N �
O R
m 3
�
m
�
R
m
� U
C �
+.�. m
0 0
m V
N
N
m
R
a
�
y
U
• a��y �ad s��u� �e�;uapisab - I(�isuap
(�O � R M N O O
- � . 'L': 3., ' � � '' - �, �
; r ° �` ��* _ �' � ,-:<.;
, - � .."�,�,` . :�; `'- ..
��a. , �..�: �
,�'"'�_ � eu� .
_ . . . - f , . . _ .. �y
- ' �
f.- � ... � v J[z, .
. . � T . sai�. . •` �
,�,�_ _ � . , �i', �.
__., � ��.:, .... ,V� �
.. _� #
- a ��.�°„��" -•--1,
� �— _
' �..i_ �� ,.r. .
1 �
, �v �\C .'�'`' �i�. �i1 T ��' + _- � _' � "_ � �
{ '+ -f'! ,.�
�:�iC \C'^.I�'�i�� �. _ �"Y� . g ,: .
��_'� L\�•w �
gJ _- ' _
.. ... �� R { .+ _ - � .:.y �
4
�H� . �� ,t _`��$- us�e p�-��<s��oi
��1 _ •.
�� ... .... s� _ .
'a,.�r':
J ti ^ ��
��
��
� i
�N
k` '�� -. .,�_^'� p .i ^- �'(d�.
� aa .� � '.iV..+ - ��R
� �^ � _ ii <
y : a... - . F`.:
� { :�E4 . . ' ..
A
, �.
� �e Y ` Y w �`. � .
. ' � '
_'�C•P• � . .:
T -
Economic Development
Key Point #I
Key Point #2
Key Point #3
Key Point #4
Key �oint #5
i C . 'z > f ,> o . �i � o i _.,_ o � -- ,i, � �, .�u���ri��an PI unun_ 1 �.�o� iasiun
,.:
`JV .� �I�� nc sL� �
••• ... . _ -] J ,.v.t^ ., 1 /.don�' /.r ��n ( �uiumuniiii� � lln�.��,vi
Rea1 �Sro;bery va�ues are
�asitive(y af�ected.
More than 100 years ago. Frederick Law Olmsted conducted
a study of how parks help property values. From 1856 to
f 873 he tracked the value of property immediately adjacent
to Cen'Ual Park, in order to justify ihe $ I 3 million spertt on its
creation. He found that over the 17-year period there was a
$209 miliion increase in the value of the property impacted
by the park
As early as the 19th century the positive connedion between
parks and property values was being made. Olmsted's analysis
shows tt�e rea! dollar amount impad of parics. His study was
not a unique situation, however. Several studies conducted
over the last 20 years rezffirm his findings, in cities across the
courrtry. Below are more exampies of how proximity to a
park setting is connected to pmperty values.
Chattanooga,Tennessee: In the early 1980s this city was
facing rising unemploymerrt and crime, polluted air, and a dete-
riorating quality of Iife.To lure middle-dass residents back local
govemment, businesses, and community groups decided to
improve the quatity of life by cleaning the air, acquiring open
space, and creating parks and trails. As a resutt, pmperty values
rose more than $ I I million, an increase of 1275 percent
ANanta After Cerrtenniat Olympic Park was bui�, adjacerrt
condominium prices mse from $ I I 5 to $250 a square foot
As noted on the Certtennial Olympic Park websRe,
"Thousands of people who have made the move to down-
town Atlanta have chosen Centennial Olympic Park as their
frnnt yard:' www.centennialpark.com.
Amherst, Massachusetts: Guster housing with dedicated
open space was found to appreciate at an annual rate of 22
percent, compared to a comparable conventional subdivision's
rate of 19.5 percentThis translated in f 989 dollars to a
difference of $17,100.
/� t'eVERUES QP2 lf7Ci EGS2C;.
Another component of the Central Park study was an
assessmerrt of i�creased tax revenue as a resuit of the park
The annual excess of increase in tax from the $209 million in
property value was $4 million more than the increase in annu-
ai debt payments for the land and improvemerrt As a resuk of
building Cen�tr Park NewYork C'rty made a profit
Increased proper[y values and increased municipal revenues
go hand in hand. Property tax is one oftfie mos[ important
revenue streams for cities. By creating a positive climate for
increased property values,the ta;c rolls will benefit in tum.As
shown with Central Park p� � both pay forthemselv�
and generate extra revenue. In addition, tax revenues irom
increased retail activity and tourism-related e>cpenditures fur-
ther increase municipal monies.
PropertyTax Benefeu
Chattanooga Improvemerrts in Chattanooga resufted in an
inaease in annual combined c'r[y and county properry tax rev-
enues of $592,000 from i 988 to f 996, an increase of 99 per-•
cent (Lemer and Poole, 1999).
Boulder.The presence of a g� in a Boulder neighbor-
hood was fou�d to add approximately $500.000 i� property
tax revenue annually.
Sa1e: Tar Benefrts
Oaldand, CalfforniaThe presence of the East Bay Regional
Park District is estimated to stimulate about $254 million
annually in park-related purchases, of which $74 million is
spent in the local East Bay economy.
Shopping Districtx Surveys indicate that prices for prod-
ucts in districts with U2es were on average about I I percerrt
greaterthan in no-tree districtr;the qualiry of products were
rated 30 percent higher than in areas with no sidewalk
landscaping.
Tourism-Related Benefrts
Atlanta: Cerrtennial Olympic Park has an estimated I S
million visROrs each year, attending ll5 public everrts.
San Antonio,Texas: Riverwalk Park created for $425.000, is
lined with outdoor cafes, shops, bars, art galieries, and hotels,
and has overFaken fhe Alamo as the most popu�ar attrac[ion
for the city's $3.5-billion tourism industry.
�
2 of 4
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
KEY POINT #I: KEY POINT #2: �
r,�lue� C2%Il'EES GCE CtfTYGC2C Gt7d
C°£GfrG'Q.
"There is a new, dean growth industry in Amenca today—
The industry is retiremertt migration" (Foreward in Longino.
{995."n.
By the year 2050, according to the U.S. Census Bureau,
approximately I in every 4 Americans will be 65 years of age
or older, creating an aftluent group of retirees with financial
benefrts, induding Social Security, military benefrtr, and pension
plans. With an average life expectanq of between 75 and 83
years, this is a signficant population group, both in size and
afFluence.
They are also mobile, moving to various loca4ons across the
country—places as diverse as northem Wisconsin and
Michigan, the mountains of Cotorado and Montana and New
England. Members of this mobile retiree cohort have been
termed "GRAMPIES": (Growing [number oi] Retired Active
Monied People In Excellent Shape).
� MPIES want communrties that provide leisure and
ation amenities In a study by Miller et al. (1994), a retiree
sarnple was asked to review 14 features and indicate their
importance in the decision to move.The first three in rank
order were xenic beauty, recreational opportuniiies, and mild
climate.
Retirees bring expendable income into their communities. If
100 retired households come to a community in a year; each
with a retirement income of $40,000, their impact is similar to
that of a new business spending $4 million annually in the
community. (Crompton, p. 65).
They increase the t� base and are "positive" taxpayers, using
fewer services than they pay for through taxes. For example,
they pay taxes to school districts but do not send children
there.
Retirees transfer significant assets into Vocal irrvestment and
banking institutions, eacpanding the local deposit base that can
be used for commercial and industrial financing.
•
Knc�F✓fedge workers end tc(er� c�r�
�
G�'e(CrC2C1 �Q �fYE GrC Y✓vf K.
"...cities are charactenzed by a sense of place, beauty in the
natural environment, a mixed-use transportation system and a
24-hour Iifesty4e.These are the cha2cteristics that will attract
the creativity and 62inpower that undergird the new econo-
my." Steven Roulac, firturiskThe Roulac Group.
A significant change has oaurred in the American economy.
Industry today is composed of smokeless industries, high tech-
nology, and service-sedor businesses, collectively referred to
as the "New Economy." The workers in the New Economy are
selling their knowledge, as opposed to physical labor, as the
main source of wealth creation and economic growth. These
employees, referred to in studies as "knowledge workers" or
"talent," work in a"footloose" sector—companies are not tied
to a certain location in order to achieve a competitive advan-
tage.
What the companies are attached to is retai�ing their talent
and attracting mo2 talent As a resuft, seve2l studies have
been conducted to determine what factors are important to
talent when they are malang employment decisions.
A survey of 1,200 high technology workers in 1998 by KPMG
found that quality of life in a �ommunity increases the attrao-
tiveness of a job by 33 percent
Knowledge workers prefer places wRh a diverse range of out-
door recreational activities, from walking trails to rock dimb-
ing. PorNand, Seattle, Austin, Denver, and San Francisco are
among the top cycling cities; they also are among the leaders
in knowledge workers.
Workers attraded to an area are then positioned
to put money back into the Iocal economy through jobs,
housing, and taxes, which then contribute to parks.
3of4 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
�Y POINT #3: KEY POINT #4:
,'��`OPF3EI'sL'dEYS GfE G�eCGCLECI t0
�Li; C�iQS2 �IGr(le5.
"Parks, ponds, bike paths" "Nearly five acres of woodland
protected as a nature sanctuary�' "Niy take...my park...my
home"
All around the U.S. real estate brokers and homebuilders are
adwcating parks as one of the top residential selling points.
The desire to live near parks also translates irrto real dollars.
A 2001 survey by the National Assoaation of Reattors (NAR)
revealed that 57 percerr[ of voters would choose a home
close to parlcs and open space over one that was not
In addition, the NAR survey found that 50 percent of voters
would be willing to pay 10 percerrt more for a house located
near a park or protected open space.
The National Association of Home Builders found that 65
percent of home shoppers surveyed felt that parks would
seriously influence them to move to a community.
Acmrding to Economics Research Associates (ERA), a 1991
survey in Denver found that 48 perrent of residents would
pay more to live in a neighborhood near a park or greenway.
One of the most popular pianned communiry models today is
;olf-course residential development However, surveys have
shown that the majorit.y of people who live in golf course
communities don't play golf regularl�--as many as two-thirds,
according to ERA.They a2 atUacted to the dedicated open
space, the expansive views, and the guarantee that both ele-
ments will stay the same. By promoting, supporting, and revi-
tal¢ing urban parks, cRies can help attract a signficant portion
of the homebuying communiry.
Resources
ASSOdaGon of Foreign Investors in Real 61ate. December I 1.2000.'ien U.S.
Gti� Artwng 20 in ihe World Poaed to Reap Benefrts of New Econortry.°
Press Rdease:The Roulac Group.
CeMer for Urban Horticufture November 1998. °Trees in Business Distric�
Positive Effects on Consumer Behavior" Seattle. Wash.: University oF
Washu�gton.
Gompton, John L November 2001. Parks orid Economic Developmerrc PAS
Report Na SQ2 Chi�go:A7'A
florida, Richard. January 2000.'Competing in the Age o£falent Quality of
Place arid the New Ecorromy." Prepared for Ure RK Ma'ton Foundation.
Heinz C-ndowmertts, and Suttinable Pitt�burgh.
Foster, Mary November 6, 1999.'8etter Frorrtes ha.e gardms. par'�.' New
Orieons TimesPKayune.
Handley.John September 5, 7999.'Gotd Medat.° Qn`cagoTribune, Section I6,
Real Estate.
Harrrck �ec 20W. lnsde Gry Parks Wazhingtor', DG Urban Land Inst'rtute.
Lemer. Steve and Wiiliam Poole. 1999. The Ecor�omic Bene� of PorYa arid
Open Spccz Now Lartd Comervnrion Heips Cormmurriaes Grow ar,d Proixt rhe
Bottom Line.TheTnut for Public Land.
longino,GFJr.1995.RetlremzntMigmtioninAmtrica. hocsston:Ua�iion
Publications
Mad;ay, Ned. December 21. 200Q. °Pu[Gng a price on the va7ue of opei
space" Cortw Cosra iimes, Oaldand, Cal.
Miller, W et al. I994. Retirement InMigrotlon Swdy. M"sssippi State. MisL
$outhem Rual Development CeMer.
4of4
NaLOnal Park Service. 1995. Economic Impoca of Protecfir�g RNers,7�ai5, arid •
Greenwoy CnmdorsA Reswrce Book Washington, QC_ NPS RiversTrails arid
Conservetion Assismnce Fourth Edrton
Phllips, Patridc L n.d. ER,4 imie Poper. Reol Ei7ate Impa� of Urbon Porl¢ Los
Mgeles. Economics FEesearrh Assooates.
Urban Land Inslitute. 1994. C.ol(Course Developmerrc and Real Fcrrrr°
Washmgton, QC Urban tand InstiMa
For further infortnation on this paper, piease corrtaQ the author, Megan
Lewis, nicP, Assshnt Director ofThe Crty Parl6 Forum, 312-78G6363:
mlewis�a planning.org
Cover photo:5an Mtonio Riverwalk courtesy of Alexander Garvin
�
� � �
City Parks Forum Briefing Papers
This is one in a tontinuing series of briefing papers on how cities
an use parfa w address urban challe�es. We hope �e intormaaon
here helps you u cr�te great ur6an parks in your dry.
Wease visit our websice at wwwplannir+g.org/cpf w 7eam more
aboucThe Cicy Parks Forum. •
� Copyrigfit OO 2W2 byAmerican PfanningAssociation
122 S. Michigan Ave, Suice 16�, Chicago, IL 60603;
wwwplanning.otg'
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
KEY POINT #5: �
�J
�
O
�
I � 1
��
�
.
.;:-
.. .:
�
. .
�;
:,::...-..-:
-.
�"'I
�
�
�
r
;�,=.„-,.:,:;
�a
VV
�e—�
�
W
�
�i
�
•r
vl '
V
r�l
�
W -
?"`��
�
W
�
r V�<�
T
0
�
.�
Y�4
0 �
�eI
W
��
�
0
�
�
�
-�F-.�
�
�
�
�
@ '$��
U �
m p
N �
� �
�. �
ca
� ,
V
w �
N �
w
h �
b�
� �
(C
P. �
.� Y
� O
� O
a� ..,
N 'O
� �
'� R
�
� .� � �
O � � y
� � vi "w
� � � '�
> � �.
� o � �
�
� � � U
N .N .�
� � �
'�-� ,s.7 � �
v1
'� �' ��
U�
,q � R O
� o p'
� ���
�
� O � �
M � y^ �
Y �D � (C
x��'�
o '� o c�'a
3.�'S 3
O t.,+
N
� O
� O
.� �
w . � m
3 �
� O
V
� �
d'N
� �
° o
� C �
�i �
� y
w
,� O
ti �
' �
N �
27 �
'L7
d �
m °'
o�"n �
�
i
w ., � o � c
p � ' '�U s.�. :J O
�
'Z3
CJ CJ �
1 . Q � c tC� ,a � � c
� � � � � � �
'� � c3 CS C � q.J
� P"' G2' � `.-� t`A O+
� � TS � � S". o
i'3� � U O "",_,'
� d � � � @
4 3 �'. 3
m�5 ��m`-��
o `" ��"'�'�me�.�fi
aa�i � �"� o C a�•n o
0'C' � �o�'a.� a>
t]' Rf .Fi n� O� N t � � d f.'
ii V
��N N��.��S1y ��
N V3 Cp �� � F` � 4 d
o� �d �^ ��� °�3m� `�"G
�3{ca 3 �c
�.o o m 3° '�3 a� o t� �..,
am a poG.
h➢bD.s � �� yhti..�.'�.^+� N.s.
.� -� m R-�+' '7' aJ � . .� [ 'C1' > i1
�Yi O O U9F •C � N 4� t� F � N O
o�A.� 5.:�.C�tlwP.�nf
�} t�..��@o ��w���.
r+ � ��'v�o yp�
.� aJ � �! � � C � > R L� 'O
� d <tl O N� � Q� y
�P.A ��ia � � �''v' � m � � V' a3 r��i.
O O.. [��+ N N m� � C...
�{]� y N ��� d Fj N VI
(C y a � T ^ � U� p d��'-b ��
J N
b
p ,'�m �b o�n s. m i.*, m°�'' m
C t�i N��.�i '.ri N C o o� R
'C (6 O t/� '6 .� N.-� y � fr
W�.�n w
ttl-4� d y.'n'+'� �.�_, o L G
N [� ^-+ d :C3
WO'G NNI�-..m��V�.r�+
>�U oxn d.S cY.� 3
> �• m
A O � D '^ y E� m a�i yQ
�� a� a�n. 30
� y� �y b t0 U N?
h� �o, � d �o ��❑
d � p a b i o aw c + 4 y G w'
� f�. � �6� R i�. � �
O a�+ ����J Y�.^.i .-Hi O W O
�w �•�'�6 U � c [tl O d �p''�"'
"" a�+,1 E » O Pau N O
�//�J u O U V'�'� N 2J .0 � L6
� UY � � � N O
O t-i� 6 a y i�'a��j"J°>� 4A,
P U F W{'� N N 1: %Vl
c m > >a�i��jC�'� �. ¢�'i d� o *� d�
i�� �~ � .�] � O H R � SI A N w 4� O Q. N O O
y � .G
+^ �S �a"ia�onaPo.�C�,'3°^`° �3 'i°°Q
�L �+ m _.� �,
�� °�'�p���d '�cv�
��.����;"o°����� �o
:: a m 8 o w a a��° a `� i 3� a�'��' m d a s�`°��.., m
� V...�Q %�.. N � N p. N
w��mav _x
�� m p.+ sx m p, o�� p,... .� y a� m� o� 3
R
. �E"�� yC�' ai oq m
"m'�a'7 � a o�a mw �," `°�a � O'� 3 md Q ,�,m
.°.�>�c�o �ca �.5. > m
d �� O(0 N O G S� � � N Vl .0 N
V t0 U '3
�� ao.�`�'�
�^ �ta i: I" � F 2� pp t] d eUJ! N A GJ 'i
c6.� d'� � d U•" �[' �a V+i y O in'D
p d� A U w Jr ° o i a�'i� ��° m C a�
� fl' ^C�y+Aa»c 2f
y m "v�r;,a� r5a.,a`� o'c_`c���sa
m abi`°�GOapb ° ��oo'�' C' o�
t�i � ��d���+� 9 c�i�� �
Ll' yy'GCQ
a� ,�d �m G�o �m��„ m..�-�eom �
c� na��::°�5mi��m�F°��c+:
P n' � �� d� a', �'a �..`�'^.�
»�;
� �.
�� ��,
��¢ p� '
�i �',
S�'=y`� .
*�a:.t,a=.-
�mri.' S o...
',��.! Ol v�?
,y y+m-
y �..
fr� �.:
';o� �:.3
�:
:.."�;+n�°3c : ,
TWIN CITIES
���� �� �p�n s��.ee i� a��.rmed ;'��
�
Report: iVlany would pay for proximity
BY MEGGEN LINDSAY
Pianeer Press
Nearly two-tfiu•ds of 'iwviu
Cifies residents would pay
between 10 percent and 25 per-
cent more for a home wiUrin
watl�ng dislance of open space.
And the economic value of
such areas is higher than previ-
ously thought, accordmg to a
report released Thursday by the
nonprofit Embrace Open Space
�P�-
The report, "The Economic
�alue of Open Space," rein-
forces the idea that natiu•al lanfl
next to residential nezghbor-
hoods often increases property
and tax values. In ad@ition,
instead of subdivisions with
large lots, it may be that Irigher-
density developments with
shared open space — ]ike parks,
tra�7s an@ lakes — are more
valuable.
`°i'he report cronfirms wLat a
n�ber of people have mtiutive-
ly recrognized: There is a finan-
cial value to open space," said Al
S�nger, manager of Dakota
County's Farmland and Natm21
Area Program. "But sometimes
it'snot been as easy to quanti{y^
The report also incIuded the
results of an August public opin-
iott suivey of ltvin Citians by
NI'inneapoiis-based Decision
Resources Ltd
The smvey concluded that
70 percent of inetro residents
would support a $30-per-year
property tas hike f,o raise funds
for purchasing, restoring and
maintaining naGual areas in
their county .
t1 community thaYs alI open
spaee is not yet a commtmity.
It's a fazm or a forest. As com-
msmities grow, the question
becomes one of balance,° said
Paul Anton, an economist with
St Paul-based Wilder Research
who authored the study
"We wa¢t those tqpes of deci-
sions to be thought about m the
long teim Commnnities that
have a more complete tmder-
stand'mg of the 5sca1 implica-
tians ofopen space wi1I De better
equipped to set priorifies and
str�lze that balance," he said
Thinsda�s report, Presented
at a conference o# mimicipai and
regionaI pIanners, comes on the
heeLs of pmminent open space
referendtm�s In fast-g'owmg
Woalbury, wters Tuesday pver-
wh Pl� y approved a $9 m�1-
fion mitiative to pmserve open
space. In Fden Prauie, t6ree of
fovr park bond proposaLs passed.
The trend to save land aac3
add recreafion is grotving
across the region— particularly
in the outiying suburbs.
The Metropolitan Council
an@ the MeKnight Fouudatior.
held a regional pIanning cronfer-
ence in October where officiaL
from many smaller epmm�mi-
ties talked about the difficulties
of Iong-range land-use planning
without the reso�sces. SmaIler
cities often ean°t afford to hire
planners and only have time to
focvs on the cost of the property
and the tas dollars that won't be
coIlected if the ]and is left unde-
veloped, Anton said Instead, he
said, they need to look at future
benefits.
The report — wifli reai-]ife
examples — gives communities
aframework to make goo@ ]and-
use deosions, said Ann Seck-
man, a regional planner vcith
the Met Couna7. She likened it i
to a how-to guide for pianners. �
`�'his report is an impottant ''
and userfriencIlytool that we can
use to help local governments
answer questions about the value
of open space," she �;�
Meggen Lirzdsay can be reached
at mtirzdsay@pioneerpress.eom
or 65Z-228-5260. � �
�
�
The Econamic Value of Open Space
Implications for Land Use Decisions
October2005
•
Prepared by:
Paul A. Anton
Wilder Research
1295 Bandana Boulevazd North, Suite 210
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55108
651-647-4600
www.wilder.o 0
�
Contents
. ............................... �
Executrve summarv .............................
--.... -- � ................. ...................
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................3
Types open space .........................................................�---................................._..... 5
II Reseazch on the value of open suace ..........................................................................
Research methods .............................. .........--•--°...............7
.--°.... .
Narional research findin�s ......................................................................................... 10
Minnesota/Twin Cities Reseazch ............................................................................... 15
Summa�rv and lessons ................................................................................................ 27
III A framework for onen snace analvsis ....................°-............--°--....._.................---..
Land use decision-makin2 ......................................................................................... 28
A financial framework for value anal sis .................................................................. 34
Tools for annlvin¢ value analvsis ..............................................................................
Open snace nolicv options ....................................°.........---.........---.°°--....-°--...
IV. Sam le a lications of the framework ....................................................................
Example 1� Open snace in a com�rehensive �lan .......................................................
Examp 2� Reactin to a residential development ulan ............................................. 51
Example 3• Acauirin a small nazcel of previouslv undeveloved land ........................ 54
Summarv .............................................. ................................•--.................................. 57
Biblioezaphv ................................................................................................................. 58
" ,,�_ `-;,;_ �, ";` U�en �^ ��j'
�'t �,._ �, �_�-u" �`
�
�
�
.,.... -:`.' �
,..°�,3�.;�;;1 .; .._, i......
� Figures
1 Hedonic Qricin studies of the effect of open space proximitv on propertv values:
Twin Cities metro azea ..........................................................._.-°--....----•-°--........ 20
2. Estimated effect on pronertv value of a$ I 50.000 house from beine located
closerto an amenitv ............................................................................................... 22
3. Estimated effect on �rooertv value of a� 1�0.000 house from beintr located
closerto an amenitv ............................................................................................... 24
4. Minnesota cit,y and countv referenda to raise money for parks, trails, and other
o�en space ............................................................................................................. 26
5. A value analvsis framework for open space......._ ..................................................40
6_ Land use policv tools that can be useful in onen space plannina ............................ 47
7. Example I: The value of ereen space in a comnrehensive nlan .............................. 49
8. Examvle 2� Valuins areen space options in a residential subdivision ..................... 52
9. Exam_ple 3� The value of purchasing a small wooded parcel .................................. 55
�
• � ? vr ir t � �t � - r� a^ i :?r
X l�. �:.r; ttr.''=;e.., :t v}`F., . T
.";:'f.G,'t� ., .,_i'_lv���.
Acknowledgments
This study was commissioned by Embrace Open Space, a b oup of non-profit
organizations conducting a campaib to encourage Twin Cities residents to become more
involved in local land-use decisions.
Embrace Open Suace Campai�n Partners
Dakota County Fazmland and Natural Atea Program
Department of Natural Resources, State of Iv&nnesota
Friends ofthe Minnesota Valley
Friends of the Mississippi River
Great River Greening
The McKnight Foundation
The Metropolitan Council
Metropolitan Design Center, University ofMinnesota
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
Minnesota Land Trust
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
Pazks and Trails Council of Nfinnesota
Siesa Club, North Star Chapter
1000 Friends of Minnesota
The Tmst for Public Land
The author gratefulty acknow2edges the assistance of the members of working group that
oversaw the study, chief among them Cordelia Pierson, Ann Forsyth, Deb Detrick and
Jim Erkel. These individuals provided valuable input during tfie reseuch pfiase and
many helpful comments on successive drafts of the report. The final draft was also
improved by many valuable suggestions from three able outside reviewers, Ann
Beckman, Thomas Wegner, and John Gunyou. Finally, the report would not have been
possible without the able assistance of my Wilder Reseazch colleagues. Heather Johnson
and Deidre Hinz provided tenacious reseazch assistance and Louann Graham typed and
formatted the report to a standard the author had no chance of ackiieving on lus own. All
remaining errors and omissions remain the responsibility of the author.
-�. J _.,r �_`'?;,� �.,< f. C ��f
4ilk U �... 4r �I(tv�t Yl'v�-..�.
.::i�t:�s� ,.-. �.� /.J
�
\ J
�
��.< �'.
�
Executive summary
Minnesotans value open space and that value is reflected in higher
values for properties located in close proximity to open space ameniiies.
■ Twin Cities research confirms that many types of open spaces, from pazks and
nature preserves to greenways, weflands and lakes, have a positive effect on
neazby property values.
■ Moreover, the results of referenda conducted in Minnesota indicate that
Minnesotans value open spaces enough to raise taxes to pay for open space
acquisition and preservation
Local govemments should take that value into account in land use
decision-making, but are not always able to do so.
■ Decision-makers who understand the value of open space will be more likely
to take the time to assemble the tools needed to implement their open space
plans before priority lands are developed. They will pass ordinances and a
• land protection plan and will invest in a land protection fund.
■ It is often hard to fully reflect the value of open space in the financial analyses
underlying local land use decisions.
■ The pressure for development sometimes makes communities commit to
development before they implement comprehensive open space plans,
especially in areas at or beyond the urban fringe.
This paper puts forward a more complete framework for evaluating the
value of open space in land use decisions by adding several more
financial impacts:
■ the added property tases paid by neazby properties,
■ the avoided cost of public services generated by altemative development, and
■ the potential cost savings from better storm water management.
� . ., ;-'�,?'Gr:i€f: -.,, .,.; ., �;�,?.� �;�?,C,
y - : , ;,,. r �,�_ , ,.
-. .. ... .,. . , t,.,�. .,. ; fv ;:)
Applying this framework can lead to better-informed local open space �
decisions, as several included examples show:
■ A city making or updating its comprehensive plan may decide that it can
afford to plan or protect more open space when it considers the cost savings
on stoim water management and the t�es generated from the higher values of
homes located neaz open areas.
■ A city considering a proposed subdivision may offer the developer a density
bonus in exchange for the builder's ceding open space to the city, thus
protecting or creating open space at a much lower cost to the city because of
the reduced cost to acquire the land and the increased taxes to be paid by the
additional housing units.
■ A developed city that inirially considers the purchase of a small, surrounded
parcel of wooded land as too expensive may change its decision when it
considers the full financial implications of protecting it (and may be able to
protect it at lower cost through purchase of the development rights or
.conservation easements.)
Communities that have a more complete understanding of the fiscal
implications of open space will be better equipped to set priorities and
strike a balance between open space and other objectives that will lead �
to a higher quality of life for their residents now and in the years to
come.
. :. �elu3 JIi3,�, ;<i€l.i. .3. :1[€�} .��Jf_i F-; ,.....-. '�C..;f::; ., ..._ ...,.- �
� l. Introduction
■ The problem defined
■ Different types of open space
Almost everyone has a sense that there is value in open space. To some eatent, we all
feel that there is something "special" about certain open spaces. These spaces may range
from natural spaces such as forests, lakes, and weflands to designed spaces such as city
parks or even golf courses. We may value these spaces, in part, because we enjoy the
things we do there, hiking or boating, playing Frisbee or swinb ng a golf club.
Yet beyond their usefulness to us, these spaces often have additional, more abstract, value
that most of us do not bother to label or analyze. That value can be as simple as the
natural beauty (or built beauty) of a nature preserve or park or as complex as the varied
environmental and ecological roles that a forested wetland may play. Some of us just
enjoy nature; some of us can rattle off a long list of benefits that a forested wetland
conveys to human society and to the planet at large.
Different members of society may value different open spaces for different reasons,
reasons that they may or may not be able to put into words. Yet, whether we can put
� those values into words or not, one thing is common to a11 of us — we seldom, if ever, try
to put those values into dollazs and cents. In fact, some people might even take offense
that someone would try to reduce the ethereal or aesthetic value of a beautiful natural
area to such mundane terms.
Unfortunately, as metropolitan areas grow, and land is converted from natural or
agricultural land state to denser, more urban uses, govemment decision-makers are forced
to balance the abstract value of open space with the dollars-and-cents concepts of taac
revenues, development costs, and infrastructure spending. Even after the decision to
convert land has been made, cities and townships still find themselves having to balance
the abstract against the concrete in making land use policy decisions about the density of
development and provision of parks and natural areas.
Consequently, those who advocate for more open space rather than less are often at a
disadvantage making qualitative or abstract claims when compared to those who can
demonstrate the monetary advantages of developing open space. It is easy to sympatluze
with local governments that try to make the best decisions, but aze frequently in a
quandary as to how to balance development and conservarion, so difficult to compaze.
� Y t k �i rLiee �i� 13:i. {2r !31i�ci .� �'lr i i tiv.._..,,
. : J.t�� 5{ :: i��.ii
.{.Ui: . . . ... ...�� �it'.��
Therefore, in recent years there has been increasing interest in producing dollars-and-
cents estimates of at least a portion of the abstract value of open spaces. Such estimates,
while approximate and incomplete, can improve and sharpen the dialogue underlying
land use decisions by permitting some comparison of the values of open space and
developed land, and lead to decisions that are based on a more thorough understanding of
the trade-offs.
Economics offers some of the tools for making estimates of the value of open space and
is developing others that can be used to increase the scope and accuracy of those
estimates. This paper summarizes the resuIts of current reseazcfi and draws some
conclusions helpful for local land use decision-making. It is based on numerous research
papers and survey artictes but it is not intended to be as encyclopedic or detailed as an
academic literature seuch. Its puTpose is to provide non-technical readers with a cleaz
sense of what can be usefully incorporated into the practice of land use decision-making
from this developing field of economic research. Hopefully, both interested citizens and
government officials will find the results interesting and informative.
■ This paper begins with descriptions of the different types of open spaces being
considered.
■ The second section begins by explaining the various reseazch strategies used to
generate estimates of the value of open space and then discusses the results of
national studies grouped by the types of open spaces each analyzes. It then goes on to
focus on open space studies conducted in the Twin Cities azea and the resuIts of open
space referenda conducted in Nfinnesota before drawing some lessons for open space
analysis.
■ The third section describes the current structure of open space decision-making and
puts forwazd an operational model designed to incorporate the value of open space
into land use decision-maldng.
■ The final section includes three illustrative examples to show how use of this
framework can better inform open space decision-making in Minnesota.
., �Cz !`,,. '!i, t?� `i,�, �` :i;:� ' :x,2.,.:
,_..�.� . . ... ... .... ..�. � � �j.�`.r,
�
�
�
• 7'ypes of open spaee
The term "open space" has many meanings, and authors and a oups have sug�ested
several carefully phrased definitions with somewhat different elements or emphasis.
Rather than choose an e�sring definirion or add yet another, we will list the types of open
spaces to be considered in this study. Because this study is intended to inform land use
decisions by local govemments, the open space types on this list meet two criteria:
■ at least one study has estimated the value of the particular type of space; and
■ local governments in the Twin Ciries must make decisions affecting either these open
spaces or the land immediately adjacent to them.
At least some study e�sts for all the major types of open spaces within the purview of
local governments in the Twin Cities. The second criterion eliminates at least two types
of open spaces that have been studied but city councils and township boards in the Twin
Cities do not affect: national pazks and land with ocean views.
The types of open space fit broadly in two categories: land and water.
Land open spaces
� The "land open spaces" include both public and privately owned open space. Some is
used for active recreation, some is used passively, and some is devoted to non-recreational
uses. This study includes six types of "land open space."
Parks come in many types and sizes. Parks aze areas that aze dedicated to recreational
uses and are usually publicly owned. Pazks may include features devoted to acrive use
such as ball fields or swimming pools but may also include some opportuniries for
passive recreation such as walking or observing nature.
Goljcourses aze a unique form of pazk and have been studied separately. Some aze
publicly owned, but many are private. They may provide only limited public access, yet
they do provide an amenity in the forms of views to neighboring residents.
Greenways and parkways, for the purposes of this study, are linear areas of vegetation
along transportation corridors, watenvays, or other natural corridors. They may be either
preserved natural azeas or landscaped comdors. In the Twin Cities, some greenways
provide for movement of people through more developed, Iess natural azeas and include
bike paths and walkways. Parkways are typically greenways centered on roads.
�' " -.�.., „_;. ..
�v�.;'�t`Tl':i� ;:,€c.E� ;'� (ii;� ��,;F
... �,...,.'in�::
Greenbelts and preserves aze larger namrat azeas that have been set aside and protected .
from development through zoning and other measures. These are typically larger than
greenways and aze o8en chosen for some exceptional natural beauty or features that aze
deemed important to preserve.
Undeveloped Zand is not currenfly used for any pnrpose but is noY protected by any kind
of moratorium or law that will preserve its character and status in the future. It is a form
of open space, but should probably be considered as temporary unless some physical
features disqualify the land from any other future use.
Forests are, quite obviously, stands of trees. In urban areas, they aze usually found in one
of the three preceding types of open spaces, in pazkways or preserves, or in undeveloped
land typically at the urban fringe. Forests on either public or private land aze subject to
the possibiiiry of development unless explicifly protected.
Farmland is used for growing crops or grazing livestock. For the time being, it offers a
view to neiahbors, but like undeveloped land, may be converted to another use in the
future because its development value may exceed its agricultural value in developing
areas.
Water open spaces
Water-based open spaces also play an important role in land use planning at the local �
level. We consider three classifications here.
Lakes: open bodies of water, are features that have been either preserved or man-made.
Although they can support some water-based recreation, much of their value in urban
settings is in the views they provide. Usually lakes aze publicly owned and, hence,
protected from development, but developmettt issues azise on their shorelines.
Rivers and streams: also provide views for homeowners and sightseers.
Wetlands: are a more varied group that includes swamps, mazshes and other low-lying
azeas. Because the water table lies at or close to the surface of the land, shallow water
either continaoasly or from time to time covers the azea. Wetiands may atso be filled to
make way for development, though state law requires mitigation of most filling. Some
small privately-owned lakes might also be developed subject to wetlands regulations.
., �.::iE':,.;'it. �,�ci:..., `; 1(F"T �'�'e��� ,.,:. >'�.� :, . - ' li; , . •
. _ � z�., .:. ... _. . ., . . ,. . ..
� II. Research on the value of open space
■ Research methods
■ National research results
■ Twin Cities research results
■ Minnesota open space referendum results
■ Summary and lessons
Research methods
These types of open spaces provide a number of public and private benefits. A few of
those benefits, such as the value of crops raised on farmland, can be calculated by
considering transactions in private markets. Most of the benefits, such as scenic views,
habitat protection, or improved water quality are not by themselves traded in any
mazkets. Therefore, little direct infortnarion from which to construct esrimates of those
values exists, and economists must find indirect methods for valuing these non-market
benefits.
� Two principal methods have been used to esrimate values for different types of open
spaces: hedonic pricing models and stated preference models. Hedonic pricing models
infer the value of open space tluough analysis of housing purchase data. Stated preference
methods use public opinion survey data to establish the value people place on different
rypes of open space. We will provide a brief description of each method, inciuding its
strengths and limitations and then consider the results of past studies with respect to
different kinds of open spaces.
Hedonic pricing methods
Hedonic pricing models assume that differentiated products can be viewed as bundles of
chazacteristics, and that consumers who buy a particular product are really buying the
particulaz bundle of characteristics that meets their needs. These studies rely on e�ensive
data on the characteristics of homes sold, such as specific distance from a defined "open
space." Through cross comparisons of the prices that people aze willing to buy for
different bundles, we can infer the prices they are willing to pay for particular
chazacteristics, such as "open space."
� `"�`'' .,�`.,`r-iF.,,.<r.�-��,cr.;y-.
,4 �4, �_�.�.:, :, +.:�.,,t � .;
,«�'n���.;., _�, .,.: ,.,� i��`;:,
Estimating the value that people place on living across the street from a pazk requires a
compazison of the prices and other attributes of houses neaz the pazk and houses located
at some distance. The analysis elaborates on a common sense method. If we knew the
prices of two houses that were identical in every aspect except that one was located
across from a pazk and the other was a half mile away, we could esrimate the value to a
home owner of being near the pazk by taking the difference in the house prices.
Because normal housing markets provide few, if any, examples of homes that differ in
oniy one chazacteristic, more elaborate statistical analysis oftttousands ofhomes is
required to provide estimates of the imbedded values of many of the ariributes of the
houses in a particular area. In essence, these statistical models must "explain" most of
the vaziation in prices of houses by attributing the vaziation to different features of the
houses. Only in this way can the analyst have confidence that the estimate of the
proximity to open space is not acting as a proxy for otfier amibutes that were not included
in the analysis. Even so, the estimate remains just that; an estimate that provides a rough
indication of the preferences of homebuyers extracted from the pattem of housing prices.
Two points about hedonic estimation aze important to keep in mind. First, this estimation
measures only part of the poYenrial value of an open space to the surrounding community.
People who live beyond the distance at wluch the pazk has impact on pzoperty values,
often half a mile or less, still may value a pazk or open space. Second, a hedonic model
measures only the actual value of the active use of the open space, where "active use"
includes observing a pleasant view. People who do not actively use the space, but still
would want to have it preserved, enj oy "passive use," according to economists.
Economists point out a number of technical problems that may make the hedonic
estimates of value tess accurate or even misleading. The most important ofthese is what
is cailed the "omitted variables problem." If important factors affectina the price of
homes are not included in the statistical estimation, then the estimate oPthe value of
pro�mity to open space may be biased in a way that it hard to assess.
Stated preference methods
As the name suggests, stated preference methods attempt to estimate people's valuations
of open space by asking them to state their preferences. These methods involve using
data from public opinion surveys to ascertain the value that people in a given azea or city
place on a particular open azea. The fact that these methods do not use data from actual
mazket decisions made by consumers is both a weatmess and a potential strength.
1 The meaning of this term in economics differs from usage in the pazks and recreation literature where
"passive use" includes activities like enjoying a view or, possibly, strolling—but not running.
� ,. �-... n,.�, , < E � r�n , ;r�
i'., L::.;(�.,t �(€; i+t!'t,c `? , �'i v:1u _.
...,u�' �xC; �_. ,. ....-..��= i..`��:
�
�
\ I
• Not using actual market data is a weakness because surveys need to be designed carefully
to measure individual preferences accurately. The questions must be clearly stated so
that different people interpret the question in the same way. If the respondent believes he
or she will not actually be asked to pay the amount named, the respondent may overstate
the true value to him or her. Researchers have made considerable efforts to improve
survey methods to ensure more accurate results.
These methods are potentially stronger than hedonic pricing methods because asking
citizens about their preferences enables researchers to estimate both the acrive and
passive use components of value. Residents of an area who attach value to the open
space in question even though they do not use it are giving information about passive use,
which is beyond the scope of hedonic methods.
There aze at two main estimation approaches to be considered: contingent valuation
(C�, and contingent choice models. The contingent valuarion method basically involves
asking people what they would be willing to pay for a hypothetical open space amenity.
Contingent choice methods present citizens with a detailed list of choices, ask them
which they prefer, and then infer the values they place on different amenities by
analyzing the choices. CV studies are much more common. At present, there are a just
handful of the newer contingent choice studies and their results are hard to interpret.
Therefore, we will restrict our attention to contingent valuation studies.
� The CV approach has been widely studied, criticized and improved through research
inside and outside the economics profession. As a result, these methods are gaining
acceptance and are used for valuation in an increasingly wide array of circumstances,
including litigation involving destruction of natural areas, such as the Exxon-Valdez case.
While the basic strategy of asking people about their willingness to pay (WTP) for the
preservation of a certain open space is simple enough, the design and implementation of
such studies areatly affects the accuracy of the results. It is crucial that the quesrions
posed to survey respondents include careful descriptions and explanations of what they
are being asked to value. To minimize possible misunderstandings, survey instruments
are often tested on focus groups to correct possible informational problems.
It is also important to design questions to provide cues for people to think about how
much they are actually willing to pay. For example, someone might initially say, "I'd
pay $100," but might revise that amount downward if the person were reminded of his or
her actual financial situation by a follow-up question like, "Would you pay the $100 from
savings, spending reductions, or increased earnings?"
� .. :..... ... .. `.. _�� c�._,_. >:.i,. ,f.: .... .,, ..,_ .�
€ t :�1;;�= :€„i; �`� :g; ;Es *.,?��. <i;: ; i„
Of course, this latter situation hiahlights one of the central challenges of contingent
valuation analysis: the hypothetical questions posed on surveys may result in
overestimates of citizens' willingness to pay. As long as people know they are not
actually going to be asked to pay the particular amount named, people tend to name a
higher fia re. The best survey would be one in which the participants actually had to pay
the amount they name.
Such surveys e�st outside of the world of reseazch: referenda. When a city or county
holds a referendum asking voters whether they support the city or county raising taYes to
fund open space preservation, every voter I�ows that proper[y taxes will increase if the
referendum passes. Often a public information campaign preceding the vote addresses
how much the taaz increase rvill cost the owners of differendy valued properties.
Therefore, contingent valuation methods have improved by making them as much like
referenda as possible. Just as survey design affects the accuracy of public opinion
surveys, the ballot lana age significantly impacts referendum results.
A simple up or down vote on a particular project dces not allow ns to estimate either how
much more the supporters would be willing to pay or what value the "no" voters might
place on open space — no value, or something between zero and the amount requested in
the referendum. A hybrid of theoretical contingent valuation studies and acival referenda
results is a campaign poll that asks the specific question and then asks how much the
respondent is wilting to pay, instead of asking for approval of a specific nutnber.
However, the results of referenda provide interesring and useful infoimation about the
preferences of the voters Yhat can, in principle, be applied to improve valuations using
other methods. Therefore, in a later section specific to Minnesota, we will discuss both
the results of Minnesota studies of the value of open space and the results of recent open
space referenda in the Twin Cities area.
Now we will review both the hedonic pricing and contingent valuation studies already
completed.
National reseaYCh fzndings
Bea nning in the early 1970s, reseazchers completed many open space studies in different
places. We reviewed approximately 80 separate studies as background to this summary,
and new papers are being published every mouth. The studies vary in approach, in types
of open spaces, and in geographic azeas analyzed.
This section synthesizes the results of national reseazch on different types of open spaces.
Key findings and representative papers aze highlighted, but we do not attempt to
S'� �.;:j;`�#31:� ,'.',e' `�i 3�; e^^:^�:
�,uc..;_
�
�
.. ��rx�_�1 _,. �� , �_„�� .. i
'�, i:i
• comment on every paper. Readers wishing to follow up in b eater detail may refer to one
of the following literature reviews:
■"The Economic Value of Open Space: A Review and Synthesis," by Charles J
Fausotd and Robert J. Lilieholm. Lincoln Land Institute, Paper.WP96CF1, 1996.
■"The Proximate Principle," by John L. Crompton. National Recreation and Park
Associafion, 2004.
■"The Value of Open Space: Euidence from Studies of Nonmarket Behavior," by
Virginia McConnell and Mazgaret Wells. Resources for the Future, January, 2005.
Land amenities
Some studies, especially early studies, of the impact of open spaces on residential
property values have dealt with all open spaces in a single category. More recent]y,
studies either have focused on a specific type of open space or differentiated between the
effects of various kinds of open space. Here we present the implicarions of each of these
types of studies.
Parks
The areatest number of studies has dealt with the impacts of parks in urban and suburban
� areas. Appro�mately 30 hedonic studies haue esrimated the impact of parks on housing
values. Almost all studies of urban azeas indicate that parks have a positive and
sib ificant impact on the prices of homes located very near the park, but the magnitude of
the results vary widely. The results aze hard to compaze directly because some authors
seek only to demonstrate a significant effect and do not create models in forms that make
an actual dotlar amount easy to calculate. Results also vary with regard to different
attributes of parks. Here is our synthesis of what the studies show:
■ Natural parks and passive use parks tend to have more impact than active use pazks
that have more recrearional activity. For passive parks, the value is highest directly
across from the park, where one also has a view, and then decreases as distance to the
pazk increases. For more active parks, the pattem tends to be more complicated.
While proximity to the park still has a net positive value for homes in the
neighborhood, homes immediately adjacent to the park may show little impact (or
even a negative impact) while houses in the ne�tt block from the park show a larger
impact. This appears to be the case in satuations where the nuisance value of added
traffic and noise sets off the other positives of proximity to the park.
• . ., ��;;�t'^; ,,^ ', r ,' = . _^ ,, '�'�r: �°; :� =
: i.c
-:it=:Ci ;^i'.`;:::':: .... . ,..., lti�;;:
- i`,
■ Facing a natural or passive pazk has a positive impact but backing on either kind of
park has less value and can actually detract from value, presumably because of
privacy or safety concerns.
■ Al] else being equal, parks in urban areas and more densely-populaTed suburbs tend to
show greater impact on home prices than pazks in more sparsely-populated azeas. It is
tempting to jump to the conclusion that open space is "less special" in rural settings.
But other factors could explain that result, including the possibility that the particulaz
study area does not have a broad enough range of data to distinguish different effects
clearly or that the effects of variables left out of the model are masking the effect of
the parks.
■ Some evidence shows that lazger pazks have greater impacts than smaller parks.
With regazd to size of impact, those studies that are compazable show a wide range of
impacts. For passive use parks in urban azeas, the highest estimated impacts can amount
to as much as I S percent of home vatue, though estimates in the 3 to 8-percent range aze
more common. While many studies consider only properties within a certain range of a
park, the results of different studies seem to imply that the effect on prices becomes
negligible somewhere between 500 and 1000 meters from most pazks.
One author who focuses most heauily on pazks (Crompton, 2004) goes so faz as to offer
rules of thumb for attaching premiums to houses within 500 feet of parks based on
qualitative assessment ofthe park: IS percent ofvalue for pazks of "unusual excellence;
10 per cent for "above average" pazks; and 5 percent for "average" pazks. However, the
qualities of parks may not fit easily into the three classes that author defines.
Golf courses
Golf courses aze a special case. In general, they have a strong positive value on most
nearby houses, 2ypically those with a view. For example, Qnang Do and Grunitski
(1995) found that homes abutting a golf course sold for a premium of 7.6 per cent over
similaz homes. However, it appeazs that the effect falls off much more rapidly than with
other parks. A likely explanation for tlus is the common sense observation that the view
of the golf course is pleasant but living a block from the course does not convey much
value because one cannot walk to the course and use it as one would a nature preseive or
recreational park.
-��
. .. . ".'0€i?it; ���. _., .c �,� �:�?n :,.,"c.i,P.
�<':' �:_.r � ✓.. �. i . .... � 1lli:�
�
�
•
" !./
� Greenways and parkv✓ays
Greenways and parkways tend to have much smaller and less certain impacts on home
values than do pazks and other larger areas. A number of studies were undertaken in the
1990s as development of b eenways became popular in cities across the country. About
40 per cent of those studies showed significant posirive effects and the rest showed no
sia ificant effects. However, some of the greenways studied were configured in such a
way as to raise privacy concems, further complicating the analysis.
LittIe explicit research has been done on parkways (i.e., roadways lined with significant
green space), but what has been done also gives mixed results that seem to be hiahly
locarion dependent Neither a eenways nor parkways seem to have negarive effects but
beyond that it is hard to generalize. Several authors call for more research to sort out the
effect of diffezent amibutes of these types of land uses.
Greenbelts, preserves and forests
Greenbelts and nature preserves appear to have strong positive impacts on the properties
located near them. At least five hedonic studies of greenbelt impacts e�st. The earliest
is a Boulder, Colorado study (Corell et al, 1978), which showed an added value of about
8 percent of home value for homes located direcfly across from the greenbelt compazed to
� those I,000 feet away. Three other studies in Oregon and a tecent study in Seoul, Korea
provide similar confirmation of the value of greenbelts to neazby homes.
At least five studies focused solely o� formal forest preserves, and many more have
included natural forested azeas in the analysis of several classes of open spaces. Four of
the five specialized studies consider forest preserves in Europe and show strong price
impacts of proximity to forested areas. The lone American study (Thorsnes, 2002)
analyzed lot price data from three subdivisions in Grand Rapids, Michigan that border
permanently protected forests. It found premiums of 19 to 35 percent in the value of lots
bordering the preserves.
More evidence from generalized studies supports the view that natural forested areas add
value to neazby homes and that the addition is higher than other types of open spaces.
For example, a study of home prices of single-family home sales in Portland, Oregon in
the eazly 1990s (Lutzenhiser and Netusil, 2001) found that natural areas had the largest
effects, much lazger than urban parks. Natural parks could add as much as 20 percent to
the value of nearby homes, and the effect seemed to extend much farther from the pazk
than for other open spaces. Moreover, they also found that the larger parks had the
lazgest effects.
� . ' - ` ,.,�.. „
; i.' i( i)iE�li. ✓ �; lt�i�'i a ^r '
,.....J, ��_'_.._e ..,, � . ..-, i ��...
, `v j.:
Undeveloped land and farmland �
Farmland and other undeveloped lands have also been the subject of a number of studies.
In generaI, these studies have placed quite different values on the value of proximity to
agricultural land and other undeveloped property. For example, a study from Maryland
(Geoghegan et al, 2003) concluded that the value of open space proatimity was "highly
location dependent" Other studies have shown both positive and negative effects. A
North Carolina study (Smith et al., 2002) found that vacant land had a positive effect on
nearby land while agricultural Iand had a negative effect.
One complicating factor with these studies is that the vacant land and farmland in the
studies aze located, typically, at the fringes of urban areas. Hence they may be thought of
as temporary rather than permaneni land uses.
In a related finding, a very interesting contingent valuation study of a parcel of land in
Boulder, Colorado ($reffle et al, 1998) estimated the WTP of a community and found
that it was higher than the cost of purchasing the land from the developer. This
willingness squares well with other hedonic studies in that azea.
Water amenities
Water open spaces generally add to the value of nearby homes. They have not been
studied in great detail, perhaps because it so obvious that they confer value. �
Lakes
Several studies of the value of lakeshore to home values were conducted in the 1970s in
Florida and, as might be imagined, they showed very substantial effects, on the order of
20 to 30 per cent of the value of homes that had take views. A study in Texas in 1995
showed even larger effects. A study in Ramsey County, Minnesota (Doss and Taff,
1996) also showed additions to value of about 25 percent for houses with a lake view.
Rivers and streams
The value of rivers and streams on nearby properties has received evan less atteniion than
the study of lakes, probably for the same reason. Studies that have been done typically
do not break out rivers and streams but include them with lakes and measure the pricing
impact along urban shorelines. In one of the few studies that break out rivers sepazately
(West and Anderson, 2003), rivers prove to add slighUy more value than lakes in the
central cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul but distinctty less in suburbaa areas. Alrnost
certainly, this result should not be generalized.
.-, �.,._;':�fiii�� `;='?i�c �?` vi;:;`' � �._.� . ':.".:.,'�':'_,�,_,. ,. . -; l�.`,° •
.. Y .'
• Wetlands
We found three hedonic studies of the effect of urban wetlands on nearby home prices.
Two of these focused on Minnesota and one used data from Portland, Oregon. All
showed positive effects from pro�mity to wetlands. In �eneral, the sizes of the effects
were distinctly less than lakes and rivers, thou�h the equations of the models were not
estimated in such a way as to make comparisons easy. The implications of one
Minnesota study (Aoss and Taff, 1996) are discussed in detail in the next secrion.
Minnesota/Twin Cities ReseaYCh
Infonnation on the economic value of open spaces in Minnesota and the Twin Cities is
available from rivo sources: research and public referenda. A small number of hedonic
pricing studies have been done in recent years and metro area cities and counties have
held a number of public referenda on specific open space funding proposals.
Hedonic pricing studies
Recendy, a number of studies of the value of open space in the Twin Cities azea have
been conducted. One focused on urban open spaces, including parks, golf courses,
cemeteries and bodies of water. One focused on bicycle trails, but also estimated effects
for parks. A third dealt with the proximity to wetlands. The fourth considered natural
� areas and farmland. All applied some form of a hedonic pricing model.
Open spaces — West and Anderson, 2003
A 2003 study by Sarah West, an economics professor at Macalester College, and Soren
Anderson estimated the value of proximity to parks, golf courses, cemeteries, and lakes
or rivers in the central ciries and suburbs of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. They
analyzed sales price data on almost 25,000 single-family home transactions in 1997,
which was provided by the Regional Multiple Listing Services of Minnesota, Inc.
(RMLS). West and Anderson applied hedonic pricing models that showed values for
both proximity to amenities and for the size of some of those amenities (for example, the
acreage of area parks). [They estimated separate effects for regular pazks and "special"
parks, the latter group including national, regional, and state parks; arboretums, nature
centers, and wildlife refuges.]
Their research showed that proximity to parks had a strong positive effect on home
values in the centrai cities, but a much weaker and less certain effect in suburban areas.
Z See Soren T. Anderson and Sazah E. West, The Value of Open Space Proximiry and Size: Ciry versus
Suburbs, Macalester College, 2003.
• l _u:ti':;:`7':i[, it?�i.i, ., ii?l.n �Jti„C;=.
>; :�i.� ;�"'_ .. �.... ., . . ,. 3 %�s�,.
Special parks produce even greater effecYS than reguiaz parks, and lakes and xivers aze
especially effective in adding value. Cemeteries did not have significant effects in either
the city or in the suburbs, while golf courses had some positive effect on housing prices
in the suburbs but not inside the core cities.
While their staristical analysis supports the hypothesis that open space amenities have an
impact on property values, the form of their equarions makes extracting estimates of the
actual size of those effects difficult To get some idea of the size of the effect, it is
possibte to plug values into their equaRons to estimate the ckange in value for a given
home located neaz each amenity or at some distance. To facilitate comparison of the
different studies using data from the Twin Cities area, we have done consistent
calcularions of the effect of pro�mity implied by the equations in the different studies.
The results are reported in Figure 2later in this paper.
Bicycle trails (and parks) — Krizek, Mogush and Levinson, 2004
In a 2004 study,' Kevin Krizek of the Hnmphrey Insfitute at the Univezsity of Minnesota
and his coauthors used hedonic methods to estimate the value of proximity to three
different kinds of bicycle trails in the central cities and in the surrounding suburbs. The
study analyzed sales price data from the RMI.S on 35,000 homes sold in the Twin Cities
during 2001. The statistical modeIs also included estimates of the effect of proximity to
two kinds of parks as explanatory variables in the equafions they estimated. So, even
though the paper's primary objective was to estimate the effect of bicycle trails, the study
also yields estimates of the effect of pazks that can be compazed with those obtained by
West and Anderson using similaz data.
The paper measured the pricing effects of three lands of bicycle trails:
■"on-street lanes" located on streets and demarcated only by painted striping,
■"roadside frails" located next to streeu but separated by curbs or mild landscaping, and
■ "non-roadside trails."
The statistical analysis of bicycIe trails showed that:
■ on-street trails had no significant effect on property values in the city and had a
negative effect in the suburbs;
3 $ecause the hedonic pricing equations were estimated log/log form, it is not possible to read off a
coefficient that estimates the dollu value of being close to the pazk or lake.
` See Kevin 7. Krizek, Paul Mogtuh and David Levinson, The Value of Bicycle Trail Pro7cimity on
Home Purchases, Universiry of NTinnesota, 2004.
. : �.= k ,`^�I.l; n_ .J��.''",� S ;'C� .-
r�
L.J
�
:..�. .,.".�=:i�u'. •
• ■ roadside trails had a ne�ative effect in both the city and the suburbs; and
■ proximity to non-roadside trails had a posirive effect on home prices in the central
ciries but a negarive effect in suburban areas.
As mentioned above, the equarions also yield esrimates of the effect of two kinds of pazks
on residential property values. The analysis differenriates between acrive open spaces
like ball fields and swimming pools and passive open spaces that provide views and a
more natural setting. The estimates showed that passive spaces had strong positive
effects in both the central city and the suburbs, with the city effect being the stronger.
Active spaces had a smaller but posirive effect in the city. However, proximity to active
spaces in the suburbs had a small but statistically significant negative effect on home
prices.
As with the West and Anderson paper, the form of the staristical equations in this paper
does not lend itself to an easy interpretation that yields esUmates of the value of close
proximity to specific amenities. Therefore, calculations of the implied proximity effects
from this study aze included in Fiaure 2 later in this paper.
Wetlands in Ramsey County—Doss and Taff, 1996
In a study published in 1996, Cheryl Doss and Steve Taff of the University of
� Minnesota's Department of Applied Economics developed hedonic pricing models of the
effect of the proximity of wetlands on home values in Ramsey County. Their study
analyzed the 1990 assessed values of 32,417 single-family residences that were located
within 1,000 yards of some form of wetland, roughly 31 per cent of all of the homes in
the county.
Doss and Taft distinguished between four different types of wetlands:
■ Forested wetlands include wooded swamps and bogs typically located along streams
and rivers.
■ Scrub-shrub wetlands have waterlogged soil and a mixture of shrubs and some trees.
■ Emergent-vegetarion wetlands may have some shallow open water and vegetarion
that includes a asses, cattails and wild rice.
■ Open-water wetlands include shallow ponds and reservoirs usually fringed by
vegetation.
' See Cheryl Doss and Steve Taff, The Influence of WeUand Type and Wet land Proximity on
Residential Property Values, Joumal of Agdculture and Resource Economics, Ju1y 1996.
° Steve Taff co-authored at least two other papers on similaz topics that we do not report separately here.
� '� - � L,'��' n �,= f�q,�n E,r
[': Cisa;E�i3i!!:i. > i.,� = i;,l.,.r .-_C;x,.:
L'!. i..:. ttl:.,.::r:: �. ., , . _,. �:ofa�
:)?'.� 1 :
All four of these types of wetlands were shown to have a positive effect on the value of
nearby property. Scrub-shrub wetlands had the largest effect, followed by open-water
wetlands, forested wetland, and emergent-vegetation azeas.
Their estimated equation also included variables for the distance from a lake and the
presence of a lake view. Not surprisingly, proximity to a lake had a greater effect on a
home's value than did any of the weflands being studied. A lake view added almost
$46,000 (in 1990 dollazs) to the value of residential property, according to their analysis.
The results of the regression equarion estimated by Doss and Taff cannot be directly
compazed to the two studies considered above because of difference in the functional
form of the equafion. However, it is possible to plug common values into their equation
to generate estimates of the price effect of moving a given home nearer to an amenity.
Results of those calculations aze listed in Figure 3.
Natural areas and farmland in Dakota County — Lake and Easter, 2002
In a study completed in 2002,� Mary Beth Lake, now at Nfichigan State University, and
K. William Easter of the Department of Applied Economics at the University of
Minnesota used a hedonic pricin� model to explore the impact of different types of open
space amenities provided by prairie ecosystems. They analyzed the prices of over 1,400
houses that sold in Dakota County between October 2000 and September 2001.
Lake and Easter estimated a sequence of models, each step in the sequence including a
finer breakdown of the open space types in their sample.
■ The Simple model included only a single open space variable. It showed that open
space had a significant positive effect on housing prices.
■ The Intermediate model used two open space vaziables, one for naturai spaces and the
other for farmland. The esrimated equation showed that proximity to natural spaces
had a posirive effect on home vatue but that proximity to farmland had a statisrically
sia ificant negative effect on nearby property values.
■ The Complex Model used a breakdown of natural open spaces into five different
categories and distinguished between farmland that was deemed to have a lugh
priority for being preserved and other farmland. The results from this equation were
mixed. Public lands and forests were deemed to have a positive impact on home
values; prairies and fazmland (priority or not) were deemed to have a negative impact;
� See Mary Beth Lake and K. William Easter, fiedonic Proximity to Natucal Areas and Fannland in
Dakota CounTy, IvLnnesota, University of IvLnnesota, 2002.
. ., i (;, t : �ii,i; ��' : �'�'i �u�,.,,.:
i
�
€:,:, ,.,,_ - - •
.. -.,' � f°. ..1. _ , �... . �_'. �...,..
• water and wetlands had an insia ificant effect on values. These last results (for lakes
and wetlands) are very different from the findings of Doss and Taff cited above.
Lake and Easter went on to esrimate their Complex Model separaring their sample into
two pieces: the urban areas, and the urban fringe areas. These two equations showed
different effects for some variables. For a number or reasons, it appears as though the
data set for Dakota County did not contain enough variarion to make it possible to
discriminate accurately between the effects of the different subclasses of open space that
were included in the Complex Model.
Therefore, in making calculations based on Lake and Easter's equations to compaze with
the results of the other studies cited here, we have used only the Simple and Intermediate
Models and included the results in Figure 3 below.
Comparison of Hedonic results
Attributes of the studies
The four hedonic studies of the effect of proximity to open space on property values in
the Twin Cities used different data for different areas and different fime periods.
■ West and Anderson used MLS price data from 1997 for the entire Metro azea;
� ■ Krizek, Mogush and Levinson used Mi,S data from 2001 for the entire Metro azea;
■ Lake and Easter studied priced data from Dakota County for 2001; and
■ Doss and Taff 1990 studied assessed values for house in Ramsey County located
within I,000 yazds of the amenities they studied.
The four studies focused on the effect of proximity to different kinds of ameniries.
■ West and Anderson analyzed the effects of two kinds of parks as well as lakes, rivers,
golf courses, and cemeteries;
■ Krizek et al. also estimated the effects of two kinds of parks, defined somewhat
differently from the West and Anderson study, but focused mainly on three types of
bicycle trials;
■ Lake and Easter compazed the effects of proximity to natural azeas and fazmland; and
■ Doss and Taff estimated the effects of lakes and four different kinds of wetlands and
made a separate estimate of the value of a lake view.
� _ : .: �,i'i �t.i[.,� .. i �;�;;1 i:,,��,:' ..r';i.'��. ,S . . .,, . ,.:: �a?.:i
,«, 3�
Thus, taken together, the four studies provide informarion on the estimated effects of
many different kinds of ameniries but provide few common estimates that can be
compared across studies. Figure 1 summarizes some of the key attributes of the four
studies.
1. Hedonic pricing studies of the effect of open space proximity on property
values: Twin Cities metro area
Authorsmfle � Data � Coverage
West and
Artderson
"The Value of
Open Space
Proximity and
Size: City versus
Suburbs"
Krizek, Mogush,
and Levinson
"The Value of
Bicycle Trail
Prozimity on Home
Purchases"
Doss and Taff
"Thelnfluence of
Wetland Type and
WeUand Praximity
on Residential
Properiy Va(ues'
Lake and Easter
"Hedonic Valuation
of Proximity to
Natural Areas and
Farmland in
Dakota County,
Minnesota"
Dependent I Open space I Form of
variabie variabfes equatio�
1997 � Twin Cities � MLS sales
Metro data
Ciiy vs.
Suburbs
I 2001 Twin Cities � MLS sales
Metro data
City vs.
Suburbs
1990 Ramsey Assessed
Couniy value
(within 1000
yards of
amenity)
2001 Dakota Sale price
County (from Dakota
total and County)
urban vs.
ruraU urban
fringe
� .: �.....�'v�ni�, t '.�Ci=L., �� . �..� �,.G.�.=
i`-.:
Regular parks � Iog/iog
Special parks
Lakes
Golf Courses
Cemeteries
Rlvers
On street bike
paths
Non-roadside
bike paths
Roadside bike
paths
Active parks
Passive parks
Lake view
Lake distance
Wetlands:
Forested
Scrub shrub
Emergenf
vegetation
Open water
Natural areas
Farmland
log/log — bike
paths
semi-log —
parks
LeveULevels
Lake view
dummy
quadratic
distance
•
•
fog/log
..��-��_�... >>.�_�;�,: i
• Comparison oF results: Direction and size of effects
The form of the equations estimated in the different studies makes it difficult to make
direct comparisons of the size of the effects that they found. To facilitate comparison, we
used the equations from each study to generate estimates of the value of a standazd home
at different distances from the amenities studied. To analyze the effect of close proximity
to an amenity, we compared the value of the home at 500 yards away to its value if it
were placed 20 yazds away. Then to compaze how quickly the effect wore off, we
compared the effect of moving each house from 500 yards away to 1,000 yards away.
Figure 2 below includes the effects calculated for the West and Anderson and Krizek,
Moa sh, and Levinson studies. Figure 3 includes the results for the Lake and Easter
study and the Doss and Taff paper.
West and Anderson (see Figure 2) find sia ificant effects for lakes, rivers, and golf
courses In their sample, golf course and lakes have significantly larger effects in the
suburbs than in the cities, but proximity to the river has a much greater effect in the cities.
These contrasts are probably the result of specific factors in the Twin Cities area. Some
suburban golf courses have been developed jointly with higher-valued surrounding
housing developments and thus could show a greater effect than city courses that are
surrounded by relatively more modest houses generally. River view lots in the cities may
� generally contain homes that aze relatively more highly valued than the city homes at a
distance to the river, while suburban developments near rivers may be less unique. The
shores of many city lakes have public access, while some suburban lakes have private
shorelines, thus raising the value of lakefront properties relative to their neighbors.
The estimates made in the Krizek study (see Fib re 2) show much smaller effects for
parks in the cities than those in West and Anderson, $4,811 for passive parks and only
$1,730 for active parks. In the suburbs, passive parks have only a$2,044 effect, while
active pazks have a negative effect of $4,241 on home value. This negative effect could
result from the nuisance value of the increased tr� c neaz active parks. While a11 of the
results are statistically significant, it is possible that replacing the partitioning between
city and suburbs with other explanatory variables, such as the population density of
different areas, might affect the contrast between city and suburb as it has in the
additional unpublished work by West.
$ A home that would have been valued at $I50,000 if placed at the mean distance of all homes in each
sample was used for the ana(ysis. All of the other explanatory variables were set at their mean vatues
for each sample.
� Interpretation of the lakeshore data is especially difficu(t. There is some evidence that public access
means the enhanced value cazries further into the neighborhood sunounding the lake, while private
lakeshore results in a sharper decline in property values as distance from the lake increases.
� . .. :.,... .,. �.. ; ,, :r c., ��_
�i'�; h;c,�.. �� # �,t;e:,�
k`.:r..,�.. "' t „ ^.t.
�I.
....a........i'1 �. �.._-�V...
2. Estimated effect on property value* of a$150,000 house from being
located closer to an amenity
West and Anderson Krizek, Mogush, and Levinson
Change in 500 yards to 20 1000 yards to 500 yards fo 20 1000 yards to 500
Distanceto yards 500 yards yards yards
Amenitv Citv Suburbs Citv Suburbs Citv Suburbs Citv Suburbs
Parks
Regular
parks
Special
parks
Active
parks
Passive
parks
Other
spaces
Lakes
Golf
courses
Cemeterie
s
Rivers
Bicycle
paths
On street
paths
Non-
roadside
paths
Roadside
paths
�8,050 5142
$24,673 �9Q0
$15,707 $39,194
$1,646 57,300
NA NA
520,967 $8,8i8
I $1,686 $31
� $4,859 $193
$1,730 -54,241
54.811 �2.044
� 51,818 v�4,548
I $4,853 $2,100
� �3,208 $7,370
' $352 $1,528
NA NA
$4,189 $1,836
-$9,845 -$1,558
$3,765 -51,803
-510,137 -$4,698
-y400 -�338
$797 -$1,803
-$2,281 -�1,030
�
�
The study by Lake and Easter (Figure 3) shows that pro�miry to open space adds to
residentia] properiy values in Dakota County_ Their Simple Model estimates an effect of
$3,8ll for moving the standard home within 20 meters of any open space. When they
sepazate open spaces into two cateaories, proximity to natural azeas adds $6,194 while
proximity to farmland subtracts $4,631 from the value of the standazd home.
Lake and Easter also estimated a more complex model, whose results are not reported
here. That model attempted to distinguish between the effects of a number of different
; ..,,. ;�i?, ��...,�, _. :�,� ...,.,_ ,.
. ,.,.-� : _,. v � _:` _, . . ._ = i> ,. �
_. ;2
�
u
spaces. In that model, proximity to farmland continued to have a negative effect while
the results for the effects of different natural areas suggest that there was not enough
variation in the sample data to estimate separate effects accurately. More research and a
broader data set wiil be necessary to make disrinctions between some of the variables in
the more complex model from their paper.
Finally, the Doss and Taff study (Fia re 3) shows positive and s amuficant effects from
proximiTy to Iakes and wetlands in Ramsey County. They estimate that a lake view adds
�45,949 to the value of a standard house. Their equation implies an addiriona] effect of
moving from 500 yards to 20 yards away from a lake that amounts to $7,423. This lake
effect is somewhat higher than the effect of suburban lakes found by West and Anderson
and distinctly higher than the effect of city lakes in their study.
Moving closer to different kinds of weflands also has positive effects for the four classes
of wetlands — effects ranging from a high of $6,892 for scrub-shrub weflands to a low of
$1,077 for forested wetlands. Open water wetlands are neazer the high end of the range
while emergent vegetation wetlands have almost exactly same effect as the forested
variety.
The four studies are broadly consistent in showing positive impacts from proximity to
different types of open spaces and roughly comparable magnitudes for similar types of
amenities. However, with the exception of the estimate of the value of a lake view in
Doss and Taffl s study, none of the models were designed to provide point estimates of
the actual increment to the value of homes in close proximity. Thus, using the distance
parameters from those equations as we have done here is not necessarily an accurate
estimate of those effects.
This poinz that adapting the equations from the models to estimate actuat dollaz impacts
across a broad azea may not produce meaningful results is supported by comparing the
implied effects of moving the standazd house from 1,000 meters distance to an amenity to
500 meters distance. In general, the implied effects on home value are lower than the
effects of moving from 500 yazds to 20 yazds but the size of the effects seems to be
significantly lazger than seems reasonable. Tn the case of the Krizek et al. and Doss and
Taff studies, it is easy to see that the effects are strongly influenced by the functional
form of the equarion estimated. Only the effects in Lake and Easter tail off in a way that
accords with the common-sense notion that the pro�miry effect should be weaker on
properties located further from open space.
� T6e Doss and Taff model actually shows for emergent vegetation wetlands that moving from 1,000 to
500 yazds has a much higher impact than moving from 500 yazds to 20 yards away. This is completely
an artifact of the type of quadratic distance function used and the curvarure generated by their
particular sample
i���:-..,E���.�f...« ���z3'�..���,-
... u� -__.. � .. . : ;��,.
3. Estimated effect on property value* of a$150,000 house from Being
located closer to an amenity
Change in Distance to
Open Spaces
Natural Spaces
Farmland
Lake View
Lake (distance)
Wetlands
Forested
Scrub shrub
Emergent vegetation
Open water
Lake and Easter
Dakota County
500 yards to 20 1000 yards to 500
yards yards
Simple Infer Simple inter
Model Modef Model Model
$3,817 S809
�6,194
-�y4,631
Doss and Taff
Ramsey Counfy
500 7,000
yards to yards to
20 vards 500 vard:
� ,
J
�1,301 �
-$756 I
( �45,949 NA
( 57,423 $4,598
�
I $1,077 51.421
I $6,892 �1,935
I $1,t85 $15,756
I $4,333 �1,765
In summary, while these four papers support the notion that pro�mity to open spaces has
positive effects on home prices in the Twin Cities, they provide little practical guidance
as to what the actual sizes of those effects are. They were not designed for that puipose.
Referenda
In recent yeazs, several cities and counties have asked voters to approve tax increases to
fund park development and open space protection. Since 1988, 18 referenda on open
space acquisition have been held in cities and counties in ivfinnesota. Fib re 4 beIow
summarizes the results of those votes.
In general, Minnesotans have been supportive of raising funds for parks and open space.
Thirteen of the 18 referenda approved funding, while two (Eden Prairie in 1989 and
Washington County in 2000) were narrowly defeated. Ofthe five proposals that did not
pass, three emphasized recreational facilities investments over open space: Eden Prairie
(2004), Elk River, and Eagan. Seventeen of the 18 elections asked voters to approve the
issuance of bonds to finance open space and recreational amenities and one asked
approval of a local sales ta�c whose proceeds would be dedicated to open space use.
. ., �t, �:' �i�:"?jC' ���'"r:I;,., �` i `.:u,.�.:
•
'%:�,>._' ��=v�__.. ,._ . _.' %�:.. �
� Most of the city proposals asked voters to approve funds for some combination of park
land acquisition and development, recreational trails, and, in a few cases, municipal
recreational facilities_ Qne bond issue also included funds for a library. The two counry
proposals were focused exclusively on preserving open spaces. The Washina on County
initiarive was an attempt to acquire land and/or development rights to preserve a
conrinuous comdor of a een space running the length of the county. In Dakota County in
2002, voters approved the Farmland and Natural Areas Progam, a$20 million dollar
initiarive to preserve farmland and other natural areas through the donation or sale of
permanent easements from willing landowners. In most of these elections, voters cleazly
understood passa�e of the referendum would raise their taxes to fund open space pro}ects.
Overall, Minnesota voters approved 13 local referenda that generated a total of over $70
million for open space projects. It is important to recognize that these open space
proposals were supported not only by residents living in close proximity to the open
spaces but also by residents whose property values would not be affected by protecting
those spaces. This broad community support shows the value that many people place on
preserving open spaces.
Minnesota.voters also showed overwhelming support for environmental protection and
natural resources in a statewide election in 1998. At that time, Minnesotans considezed a
constitutional amendment to dedicate a portion of the state's revenues from the
• Minnesota Lottery to the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund
from 1998 through the year 2024. The amendment passed with a 77 percent positive
vote, ensuring that over $20 million per year would flow into the trust fund for the next
two and a half decades.
All in a11, the record from open space referenda in Minnesota reinfarces the notion that
many Minnesotans value parks and open space and are willing pay out of their own
pockets to ensure that land continues to be used for these purposes.
� . ,. �:;:;t":!�€iC'�'<�ii,�; ._` ��� .. „�,. _
.. � �';��.n: . �. „".._; i�.:-:}
4. Minnesota city and county referenda to raise money for parks, trails, and
other open space
Shoreview I 11/S/1988 I Bond for parks, recreation
Eden Prairie I 5/25/1989 I Bond for lantl acquisition
Eden Prairie I 5/24/1994 � Bond for fand and forests
Woodbury 6/4/1994 Bond for parks, recreation
Plymouth 5Y23/1985 I Bond for open space, trails
Maple Grove � 6/20/1995 � Bond for open space, parks _
Eagan I 9/10/1996 I Bond for open space, parks
Prior Lake Zl25/1997 Bonds for library, parks,
traiis
Charthassen 6/74l1937 Bondsforopen space,
I recreation, parks, trails
Woodbury 6/2/1998 Bond for open space, parks,
recreation
EIk River 11/3/1995 Bond for parks, trails, land
acquisition, aquatic center
Washington 11/7/2000 Bond issue to acquire and
Counry manage conservation
easements to establish a
corridor of green space
Blaine 11/7/2000 I Bond issue for land
_ acquisition
Minnetonka 9/11/2001 Bondforparksrenewaland
open space preservation
Dakota 11/5/2002 Bond to protect farmland,
County open space, water, and
natural areas.
Wayzata 11/42003 I Bond for acquisition of forest
lands
Eden Prairie 5/1'Il2004 Bond for acquisition and
I improvement of land and
facili5es for public recreation
Saint Cloud 11/2/2004 � 17-year, one-half percent
sales tax increase to fund
regional parks and trails
Source: TrustforPubfrcLandLandVoteDatabase
,..�.; ��,`�.`�'�i[?j' ,iiii.�: :' ����n, CvG'`�...
Conservation
Funds a{
Stake
�—
j $1,000,000
I $3,000,000
I $1,950,000
�1,200,000
� �2,235,000
�5,000,000
$3,800,000
I $7,800,000
�4,900,OOD
$5,000,000
$10Q000
$13,025,000
$3,500,000
$15,000,000
j 520,000,000
I $3,135,000
, §1,000,000
$10,000,000
Pass/Fail
Pass
Fait
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Fail
Pass
Pass
Pass
Fail
Faii
Pass
Pass ,
Pass
i
Pass
� Fail
I Pass
°/a
64%
49%
S5%
52%
85%
65%
38%
52%
62%
74%
45%
48%
54%
52%
57%
52%
43%
71%
r� L
.
- ;�� r�^3 -' �.1�,�: �
x,...... , . - �-_;. „. . ._
r , i.j
• Summary and lessons
Our review of hedonic pricing studies in the Twin Cities, in the conte�t of the broader
national research, strongly supports two conclusions:
■ First, Minnesotans value open space and that value is reflected in higher values for
properties located in zelatively close pro�mity to open space amenities.
■ Second, the size of the effect of open space on properry values, and hence on property
taxes, is lazge enough to have significant financial implications for ciries, townships,
and counties that make land use decisions.
The results from referenda in the Twin Cities area support a third conclusion:
■ Even citizens who live beyond areas where property values are raised by a particular
open space may value that space enough to have their own taxes raised to preserve it.
Thus, in making land use decisions that strike a balance between development and open
space, it is important that govemments pay explicit attention to the economic value of
open space. It is possible that doing so may increase the allocation of land to open space
in one of three ways:
■ The additional future tax revenues generated by residential properties near an open
� space may be su�cient to pay the debt service on funds borrowed to acquire and/or
develop a pazk. In some specific cases, the amenity may pay for itself.
■ A more common situation is that the additional future tax revenues will offset a
portion of the apparent costs of preserving and maintaining a particular open space
amenity. Thus, proper consideration of the true net cost of the space may result in a
different decision.
■ Third, even when the net cost of a particulaz open space is beyond the current
financial capacity, citizens may express their willingness to bear that net cost by
voting in favor of a tax increase to protect open space.
In order to make the best possibie land use decisions, it is important that local
govemments analyze the full fiscal and economic implications of alternarive development
strategies. This requires that decisions be based on a comprehensive framework that
permits consideration of all relevant quanrifiable values. While communities and
situations differ, a common framework for ensuring that a11 factors are considered and
balanced would be of use to informed planners, developers, conservaTionists, local
officials and citizens as they address land use decisions. In succeeding sections of this
report, we provide such a framework and then give examples to demonstrate its
application to different types of local decisions.
• t ., — ,. �`'?,`� 't,� , ... 'nc.t Y' , .! , ?.:,. -u ; - ..s. , e. .., . .=`1 J:,:`s..;
_ �:� .,3.. il.� i3u., .ia.-
III. A framework for open space analysis
■ Land use decision-making
■ A framework for local open space value analysis
■ Making the framework operational
■ Open space policy options
Land use decision-making
While it is cleaz that residents of the Twin Cities area attach value to open spaces of
different kinds, there is no generally accepted framework that local governments can
apply to ensure that the economic value of open space to the public is included in land
use policy decisions in a systematic fashion. Since aII Iocat Iand use decisions aze made
in the conte�ct of the mazket for developable land, we will begitt with a description of the
forces affecting land mazkets neaz the Twin Cities and the different types of decisions
faced by different local govemments. Then we wilI propose a value framework that
integrates the tradirional fiscal analysis that many, though not all, local govemments
perform with additional measures of the value of open space based on research quoted
eazlier in this report. To complete this section of the study, we shall list and explain some
quantitative tools specifically designed to help Minnesota communities make this
framework operational for local decision-making.
Economic pressures affecEing devetopmenf
The Twin Cities and the surrounding area are growing. The Metropolitan Council
estimates that the seven counries that it oversees added atmost 13Q000 new residents and
almost 60,000 new households between 2000 and 2004. And estimates produced by the
Minnesota Office of bemograplucs confirm that development pressure extends well
beyond those seven counties.
This growth, moreover, is expected to continue. The latest planning projections from the
Metropolitan Council anticipate adding azound 386,000 residents in the seven-county
area for the enrire current decade and another 612,000 from 2010 to 2Q30. That translates
to 181,000 new households by 2010 and another 294,000 over the following 20 yeazs.
State projections for the counries ringing those seven only add to the growth.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the demand for undeveloped land has increased in the
Twin Cities and surrounding counties, thereby pushing up the price of acreage that is
._�� �� t�
�_`� _,,,'�: ,??i� .,:[�v� �. <,�3" �u, __
.. U� ` ���.,_ �., .,; . _,_ _ ii;;�;:,
�
•
i
�
u
suitable for development. Developers buy land not only for near-term development but
also to ensure themselves of control of the land for future development as the population
conrinues to expand.
Superimposed on the general trend toward higher prices of land throughout the azea, the
�rowing congestion of Twin Ciries roadways complicates the picture further. As
commuting Umes increase, the market attaches an ever-a eater premium to the value of
land located nearer to the core of the Twin Ciries and its value rises even faster_ This
congestion also increases the pressure for redeveloping land in the central ciries and
inner-ring suburbs at a eater densities.
Finally, the increasing presence of national builders in the Twin Cities market has
produced additional upwazd pressure on area land prices. Well-capitalized firms that
build on a national scale consider the Twin Cities to be an attractive market for cunent
and future building and are interested in assuring themselves of adequate land to sustain
their building activity in this market for years to come_ Therefore, they are willing not
only to bid higher prices but also have an interest in acquiring large pazcels of land. This
forces locally-based developers to look for ever-lazger parcels themselves.
The pressure for development and the concomitant rise in land prices have at least three
impartant implications for local governments that are called upon to make decisions that
affect the amount and types of open spaces within their boundaries.
■ Delay in acquiring priority open space is eapensive. A city or county that wishes
to acquire open space for some public purpose, either for park development or as
natural space, must pay more, sometimes much more, than it may have expected to
pay just a few years ago. A 1oca1 govemment with a complete and well-articulated
plan for acquiring parkland and natural azeas may find its plans compromised by the
rising price of that land. As a result, a city may have to forego or scale back some
parts of its open space plan if it does not act quickly to acquire priority open space.
■ Time to make and implement open space plans is shortened. As private
developers move to lock up more and more land for future development, cities have
less time to form their plans and often must commit to purchases earlier in the land
use planning process or risk losing control of desirable parcels. As a result, a city
may not get an open space plan in place in time to bid for land that would be most
amacrive for public use, or it may not be able to muster the financial resources to
purchase that land at the time it is put up for sale. In some cases, developers build
pazks and trails themselves or preserve natural areas via clustered development.
While these actions do add to open space in the community, they may not be as
effective as possible if they are not part of an overall community plan.
� i'., �.;, i :�`��l^ =;?�t,c ..� i%���? ��UGc
3 .':`..is l��"::, �.. � ...i /bf.(l,
■ Some communities have to face more complicated land use policy decisions. As
developers move farther from the urban core, purchasing and developing larger
parcels of land, cities and townships that are basically rura] in chazacter suddenly find
themselves facing land use decisions that are new and challenging. If the ciry lacks
the planning resources or experience to consider the open space aspects adequately, it
may approve development proposals that, upon later reflection, do not provide for
sufficient public open space. More generally, that city or township may approve a
development ptan without a fall understandin� of the ultimate �nancial conseqnences
for the city after the influx of new residents raises demand for an array of new or
expan@ed public services, includina pazks and other open spaces.
Decisions at different tevels of government
Decisions affecting land use and, hence, the availability of open space aze made at several
different levels of govemment.
■ State — At the state Ievel, the Department of Natural Resources devetops and
administers state pazks, water access, forests, nature preserves and wild-life
management azeas. The state also rea lates wetlands and certain criticai areas. The
state owns undeveloped land and its plans for some of that land may change. As a
result of recent budget pressures, the state has been selling off some pazcels that it
regards as surplus.
■ County — Counties develop and administer their own systems of county parks and set
certain broad land use policy parameters within their boundazies. They also make
land use decisions in azeas not inctuded inside cities in the county but typically stay
out of land use decisions in the cities themselves. Counhes may enact more or less
detailed breen space plans and then implement them, coordinating with affected
municipalities.
■ City — Cities set zoning and development policies within their boundaries and ensure
that buildings meet local standazds and harmonize with overall plans for land use
inside the city. Most comprehensive local plans include allowances for open spaces,
both for recreational uses and as scenic amenities.
■ Township — Townships are an alternarive form of organization to cities. They also
make land use decisions within their boundasies, but, typicaliy, provide a smaller
azray of services than cities. Townships usually do not have fut2-time planning staff
and often have only minimal plans for provision and protection of open spaces. In
many, if not most, townships, the county takes on p2anuing responsibility.
�.,.,� ��,.:� _,`�.� �. °.� �?': "[ �.,�`:
;'r7%„'=i �:�� s�':.. ., , . �-; %v',
�
�
•
u
�
■ Watershed District — Watershed districts are units of govemment organized across
city and county boundaries to help deal with water management issues. They partner
with other local entities in water planning, flood control, and wetlands protecrion and
management. Hence, they are involved in decisions that affect open spaces.
■ Metrapolitan Council — The Metropolitan Council has broad authoriries and
responsibilities that impact land use and infrastructure decisions in the seven-county
Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area. Ciries and counties work with the Council
to set comprehensive land use plans, including the acquisition and development of
pazks and trails, and the Council develops rea onal pazk policies and provides partial
funding for rea onal park acquisition and development. In addition, the Council has a
big impact on development through its investments in the regional wastewater system
and its transportation policies. The Met Council has recently published its 2030
Regional Development Framework that sets goals, policies, and benchmazks for the
region.
Decisions in different geographic areas
Ciries and townships in and azound the Twin C3ties face different types of land use
decisions, many of which have repercussions for open space. The types of decisions vary
wiTh the location of the community and its place in the development cycle.
Fully developed areas
In fully developed azeas, changes in land values and interest in different types of housing
can generate a host of different land use decisions. The community was developed under
certain past mazket conditions, and changes in conditions often require a response. Here
aze some examples of land use decisions that may have an open space dimension.
■ Redevelopment of a residentiai area. The redevelopment of an existing residential
area, usually either as higher-density residential or as a mixed-use development, can
include an open space component. Somerimes the provision of open space for the
community is a key element of the overall plan, as in the Humboldt Greenway
development in Minneapolis, where 212 single-family houses and other structures
were acquired and replaced with a new greenway and an equal number of new
housing units. (Incidentally, when the entire build-out of new housing units is
completed, the proj ect will haue generated a net increase in the local tax base in
excess of growth in other parts of the city.) But even where development proceeds on
a smaller scale, there often is an opportunity to provide addifiona] open space,
especially when the redevelopment includes higher residential density in its housing
component.
• � ., ......i •� � 3 .� { �r
i tl:��:��. �.:3il..ii � � a n
�.'._u.i v...:'i /��...
■ Redevelopment of a commercia! area. Distressed corrtmercial areas in a develoged �
community often present an oppor[unity to address the cfianging needs and
preferences of the community, including expanding or improving open space. The
Phalen Comdor Initiative on St. Paul's East Side is a good example. It involved a
100-acre azea that included the mixed-use redevelopment of two old industrial/
railroad corridors and the restoration of a wetland that had been filled in to develop a
shopping center. But again, even on a smaller scale, providing added open space as
part of redevelopment often makes sense.
■ Development or acquisition of a previously undeveloped parcel. For a variety of
reasons, a pazcel of land may have been "skipped" in the first wave of development in
an azea and then remains undeveloped as the community matures. However, at a later
date, perhaps when a private owner wishes to sell, the city must decide whether to
acquire the land and preserve it or allow private development there. In addition to a
private fundraising of over $1N� citizens of Wayzata passed a$3M bond initiative to
protect the Cenacle Big Woods, a 23-acre wooded parcel surrounded by commercial
development.
Developing areas at the urban fringe
In the areas at the urban fringe, development is a continuous process as previous2y
undeveloped land is zoned and converted to other uses. Hence, many, if not all, of the �
land use decisions that locat governments face involve open space considerations. Here
are some examples.
■ Comprehensive planning and zoning. At the general policy level, cities must
decide in broad terms how much Iand witl be devoted to different uses — commercial,
residential, parks, natural spaces. These policy decisions balance the needs to provide
housing for new residents, permit commercial development to supply needed
services, and meet the recreational needs of the growing residential population.
■ Implementing parks and open space plans. At a more operational level, cities must
choose which lands to acquire and develop as pazks, walking trails, orbike paths.
They must also decide which lands to preserve as natural spaces protected from
development and choose strategies to ensure that outcome. Finally to implement
these plans, localities must pass ordinances to preserve certain azeas and allocate the
funds to buy and deaelop properties or, in some cases, to buy the development rights
to certain land. Some�mes this may involve a local referendum to ask voter approval
for tax increases to generate the funds. Municipalities can also obtain land or cash in
lieu of land from developers to provide open space and pazk ameniries. In recent
yeazs, most municipal pazkland has been acquired in this manner. (See next
paragraph.)
. ., _ .,., .i'',-i:c, i:3i �:, �, . -!�?: � Cr. ..,_ >,, u�' `�c'`r;'td: _�. .,. . _ 2 >.t�. �
•
■ Approving specific private development proposals. In the process of approving
private developers' plans and granting permits, local govemments make decisions
that affect the amounts and types of different kinds of open spaces in their
communities. Cities can employ a variety of regulations and incentives to ensure that
adequate open space is provided inside or near large developments and that important
natural resources are protected. For example, a developer might be b ven permission
to build more units per acre if a certain amount of open space is preserved within the
development. Altematively, the developer might be char�ed fees that would be used
to acquire parkland and open space somewhere nearby.
Freestanding growth centers and raral areas
Freestanding growth centers and rural townships located beyond the edge of conriguous
urban development face their own set of decisions and planning challenges. The pressure
for development and the interest in large lower-cost pazcels mean that some smaller
communities are being asked to make complicated land use decisions before they have
well-articulated comprehensive land use plans or detailed parks and open space
strategies. In some cases, development may be moving outwazd faster than the planning
expertise to manage that a owth. An example:
�
■ Approving a large-scale residentia! subdivision. A city council or township board
may be asked to approve a proposal to develop 500 new single-family housing units
inside the community's boundaries. The local board has little experience in
negotiating the specifics of such a proposal. As a result, the board may lack a
complete understanding of its options to ensure that adequate open space is provided
for. As development proceeds, it becomes clear that the new residents expect a
certain level of open space amenities, but, if these were not included in the original
agreement, it may be too late to get concessions from the developer. And providing
those open space ameniries may be beyond the financial capacity of the community,
at least without raising taxes dramatically. Even worse, some natural resource such
as a wefland or forest may be lost to development and only later do community
leaders come to realize the value of preserving that resource for public use and the
community's cost in replacing its natural functions, including storm water retention
and water quality protection.
■ Approving low-density, large-lot development. Even before the pressure of lazge,
urban-style development reaches these areas, govemments may be called upon to
approve smaller-scale housing proposals with lazge lot sizes. For example, a builder
may ask approval to develop from two to ten units on lot sizes ranging from five to
ten acres in size. While such a plan may appear to make economic sense at that time
in light of current housing demand and the city budget, approving the plan might
�
., i t;:;l'C>i['.:,, ,:=1:,.. ., `�=k)^ c�. .,..
�_. �.,. :�,_',.. .,. .,. . ,,, :. �.,.
seriously affect the city's land use options in the future. Initial development at this
density could make it more costly to redevelop at higher densities as the city b ows
and also restrict the city's ability to assemble desirable open space parcels as its land
use planning becomes more formalized.
A financial ft^amewoYk foY va7ue analysis
In making land use decisions of the types listed in the preceding section, local
govemment officials take the immediate financial implications of their decision into
account. In considering a redevelopment plan, a developed city will consider the cost of
acquiring properties and assembling land. In deciding whether to protect a smaIl natural
space that has been passed over in the first stages of development, a city will weigh the
cast of acquiring the pazcel and/or the cost of purchasing the development rights to the
property. In negotiatin� with a developer, a city or township will focus on the
infrastructure costs tied to or generated by a proposed development. Even in a broad
comprehensive planning, a city may Iook at the overaIl tax capacity and infrasiructure
costs implied by the plan.
Yet most, if not a1I, of these decisions have additional financial impiications for their
communities beyond the direct costs that are foremost in decision-makers' minds. These
additional implicarions are often hard to anticipate and difficult to quantify. As a result,
decisions ue often based on partial information about the financial consequences of the
choices being considered rather than a complete analysis of the immediate and long-term
financia( effects of land use altematives.
This lack of comprehensive financial analysis makes it difficult to factor the full value of
open space into the decision calculus of locai land use decisions. As faz as we can tell, no
standard, widely-used financial framework is applied by different local govemments to
the varied types of land use decisions discussed above. So, in general, it is not possible to
simply estimate the value of an open space and add that value as a line item in an existing
spreadsheet of other financial tool. Therefore, we will examine the different components
of the value of open space and put forwazd a framework in which the financial
implications of different types of open space decisions can be analyzed.
The public financial impact of open space
We will consider a Iist of the different components of the value of open space and
examine the public financial implications of each to arrive at a framework in wluch the
total financial impact of open space decisions can be analyzed.
n�
. -, =.,.,I ir �t`:;;:! i;J!�';
•
�
[._.. .,-...�.?�`:t �
• Preservation or creation of open space
The first and most obvious financial impact of the decision to preserve open space is the
public cosi of acquiring the land itself An altemative to actual acquisition of title to the
land is to acquire the development rights from the private owner. In either case, the
community must expend public funds to compensate the private owner of the property. If
the land is already in public hands, then this element is, of course, the money foregone by
not selling the land for private use. In some cases, especially when there is no immediate
private interest in developing a particular parcel, this item may be the only element
considered in the financial analysis of the open space decision. It should be noted that
there are also ongoing management costs associated with maintaining public open space
even if it is not converted to active recreational use. Habitat restoration and site securiry
are among these potential costs.
Additions to the value of nearby property
As detailed in the research surveyed earlier in this study, open space is an amenity that
often adds value to the properties located neazby. This actual change in mazket value is,
in most cases, a private benefit that accrues to the owners of that properry. However, if
that properry is taxable, there is a concrete benefit to the public in the form of higher
property t� receipts from those properties. This effect of open space should be part of
all analyses of open space decisions. At the comprehensive plan level, including this
� effect of open space is a recognition of the increased tas base that can be generated on the
land not designated for open space, whether as park land, bike trails, or natural azeas. At
a more micro level, the present value of the added future tases should be netted against
the cost of acquiring a pazcel to provide a more complete financial picture. And, when a
developed city is considering allowing development on an open space pazcel surrounded
by previous development, it should recognize that the properiy taxes collected from
surrounding properties will either decline or grow more slowly than if the open space
were preserved.
Avoided net costs of alternative development
In attempting to capture the full financiai implicarions of an open space decision, a
community should estimate the full financial impact of the alternative development that
would occur on the land. This is easier to do when the city is considering a concrete,
specific proposal than when it must assume what the altemative development is likely to
be However, in either case, a full financial analysis should consider three elements:
■ the avoided cost of the public infrastructure improvements needed for the altemative
development;
� . .� � �:J� } ,'�C;i:, : � ita �i i .i;^": :` ::'i.;.'.' ,.., . ,. „, ..,_; �.i...,
■ the stream of future property taxes foregone if the land is not developed; and
■ the avoided (net)cost of the added future public services that would have been needed
if the developmeni had occurred.
The cost of public infrastructure and the stream of future property taxes are routinely
considered in evaluating development proposals and aze usually evaluated in a eat detail.
In fact, many communities have used the stream of future tas revenues from a proposed
development as the source of funds to help pay for the public infrastructure investmenY
through the mechanism of tax-increment financing {or TIF).
However, the net cost of pubiic services engendered by the deveiopment is not aiways
addressed in detail and can vary highly from one project to the next and from one city to
the next. In particular, this item is listed as "net cosY' because it includes not only
expenditures for such items as law enforcement, street maintenance, and sewer/water
systems but also a lazge number of revenue items, taaces and fees of different kinds.
Very detailed anatyses have highlighted the wide variations amona different communities
on per capita spending on different services, so an analysis of the net cost of public
services can be very complex. In recent years, a number of computerized tooIs have been
produced that can be of help to communities in doing this analysis. We wiil discuss a
number of such tools that have been designed specifically for use in Minnesota
communities later in this report.
Recreational use of land
If a particular pazcel of open space is not simply preserved but is to be used for
recreational puiposes, there aze additionaI factors that need to be included in the full
£inancial analysis:
■ the one-time cost of capital improvement to prepare the land for recreational use, and
■ the operaring costs of the recreational facilities (neY of any anticipated fees).
The benefits of the recreational use of land accrue, as do additions to property values, to
the private individuals who make use of the recreational facilities. Those benefits aze
cleazly important in the policy decision faced by the community, perhaps through its
pazks depariment. They do not, however, affect the finances of the community except to
the e�ent that fees ue chazged for the use of particular facilities.
. .. ��.,. v�i:.� �.t2i:�.,:., n `;'�F1-'n �`!.(��.,
,..,,,',=�::z.,_ .,. .. : ,=; i;;r;.
�
�
�
� Storm water and flood management
If a particular open space project can make a contribution to the mana�ement of storm
water runoff, the lowered cost of water management should also be reflected in a
thorou�h analysis of the project. Undeveloped land can ofren absorb more water than
land with residential or commercial development. Wetlands can make a significant
contribution to stonn watez management and that contriburion needs to be recognized in
the financial implications for the local community. And sometimes the geology of a
certain area can enable a lazge �reen space to absorb significant amounts of water durin�
floods and yet be available for recrearion as dry land during normal times.
So, a complete analysis of the preservation of a wetland, the creation of a storm water
holding pond, or some large green space projects needs to include the saved cost from not
having to provide pipes and other so-called "grey infrastructure" for alternative flood
management. On a lazger scale, greenways and countywide green comdors can also have
a substantia] impact on water management. Most of the financial impact is on capital
cost of construcring water management systems, but there can also be an ongoing
management cost component and both should be included in assessing the full financial
impact of an open space proj ect.
Water quality protection
• Protecting water quality is a significant and growing issue nationwide and in Minnesota.
Recently, expansion of a wastewater treatment system was barred because the system
would increase phosphorous in the already phosphorous-rich Lake Pepin watershed.
More generally, protecring lands to maintain water quality can have an even greater
financial benefit than previously appreciated. When a proposed land use will affect water
quality in a way that will require remediation, the costs of that remediation should be
included in a statement of the full financial impact of the development.
A fult financial framework
The different elements discussed above can be melded into a full financial framework
that should serve as the basis for analyzing the total net cost of an open space project.
Figure 5 below shows how the different factors fit together in one financial analysis.
The figure summarizes all of the financial factors considered above in two columns, the
one-time or capital costs of the project and the ongoing annual impact of the project on
local budgets. This framework should prove helpful in analyzing both pure open space
initiatives, such as a proposal to purchase and preserve a small woodland azea, and larger
development projects and policies that impact the amount of open space in a community.
� _ .; '"��� -�n. , 's , . ' � �
3,i, :t ,i�=?. ' :.i, i? .?:�3( �u�C�Pi;
t:, .'C^.';�E:'. ., . . ,, f;', . ._-? 7 :.`,.,
;;'_c ��;
The figure also illustrates how using this framework can expand the information available to
local decision-makers in a way that could well affect the choices they make. For exaznple,
■ In considering whether to buy and preserve a natural area, local govemment wi11
consider other factors beside the direct cost of acquiring the parcel. Taldng account
of the value of that amenity to adjacent properties means that the stream of added
future properiy taxes may serve as a partial offset to that direct cost.
■ In considerina whether to include storm waYer holding ponds in a development plan, a
city will include not only the value of the ponds as amenities to neazby develnpment
but also the potential saving in water management and water quality. These added
factors could change the decision that would be made if only direct cost were
considered.
■ In deciding on the open space component of a lazge scale development or in forming a
comprehensive community plan, cities often focus on the immediate costs of acquiring
or protecring any open space, the immediate cost of pubIic infrashucture to support
development, and the future slseam of property taxes to be generated. However,
adding in the amenity value of open space as re4ected in higker values and higher
taxes and taldng a detailed look at the cost of future public services may modify the
city's policy choice. It may turn out that, at the mazgin, aliowing for additional
residenrial development on a particular parcel may, in facY, generate a cash drain on a
city rather than a net addition to local revenues. If so, the city may change policy in a
number of ways. For example, it might include more open space in its land use plan or
change development fees and taac policies to address the full financial implications of
development.
- ,-�, � �==a;�..� �n
. ., :€'�'i�li;;'=,�;,� �;� a a,� ., i;,.�.. :....���.
�J
�
t<;;=r;>. , _ .... ... ... ...�, ���� �
�
•
5. A value anatysis framework for open space
Components of
economic vaiue Public financial impact
Preservationlcreation of
o en s ace
Addifion to value of
nearby property
Avoided costs of
a4temative develapment
Recreational use of land
Storm water and flood
management
Water quality protection
Other Factors:
Additional recreational
use and enhancement
of value of existing park
and open space areas
Preservation value
Wildlife habitat and
movement
Improved air quality
Other environmental
impacts
Totals
- one-time cost of acquiring or
protecting open space
+ avoided cost of public
infrastructure
- Cost of improvements for
recreationaluse
+ Lowered capital cost of
alternative water management
Not estimated
7otal one-time capital cost (-) or
capital investment savings (+)
Annual Impact
- management costs
+ increased property taxes from
nearby units (or avoided reduction
in future taxes)
- lost property taues from foregone
development
+ avoided net cost of public
services
- net operating and maintenance
costs
+ lowered water management costs
+ lowered water treatment costs
Not estimated
Total annuaf cost (-) or savings
(+)
In a subsequent section, we will go on to show how this framework can be made
operational, specifically how the different boxes in Figure 5 can be filled in with actual
numbers for financial analysis. But first we should consider those elements of the value
of open spaces that are not translated into monetary terms in Figure 5.
Addressing additional componenEs of vaiue
While the framework put fonuard above does expand the values of open space that can be
included in the analysis of particulaz proposals, it does not purport to capture all of the
components of the value of open space in quantitative terms. There are several additional
components of value that should be considered though it is hazd to assign concrete dollar
values to them.
� i`.;. �i'.:.i'�;ri ='3�s,C . �'`�;;° .,�?r�
1`::`::;;.`:<3.,.,.,. ,..._;i;;�;`�.
-,>,�
Additional recreational use and scenic value
The recreational or scenic value of a particular open space is only partially reflected in
the framework put forwazd above. Residents of a city or people from outside the city
may patronize a recreational area or enj oy the views, yet their preferences are only picked
up in this framework to the extent that some sort of admission fees are charged for a
particulaz type of recreational facility. It can then be infened that anyone paying such
fees values that azea and the services it provides by an amount greater than the fee.
However, since fees are seldom charged for access to public open spaces, the values that
residents and non-residents place on the use of those spaces aze not fvlly reflected in
Fia re 5.
Adding to an e�sting pazk or open space or extending a trail can also enhance the value
of existing open space, and can contribute to an increase in the property values further
away from the addition or extension.
Preservation value
Beyond actual recreational use or viewing of certain azeas, people attach value to
preserving significant azeas for a number of reasons. These would include maintaining
them for future generations to enjoy and keeping them intact for scientifrc study. As
mentioned earlier, it is possible to investigate and estimate this value to a broad ranae of
people through survey techniques and tlus is done increasingly, especially in litigarion
that seeks to assess environmental damage. The elaborate indirect methodologies
involved in those cases are, in generai, not practical for assessing individual projects of
the type being considered here and, hence, this item has not been assigned dollar values
in this framework.
Wildlife habitat and movement
Another benefit of natural spaces and some pazks is that they provide significant habitat
for wildiife of various kinds. It is becoming increasingty difficult to maintain sufficient
habitat for birds and other animals as development proceeds. Moreover, azeas that offer
sianificant habitat can often be much more effective if they aze connected by a eenways
that allow movement between areas without the need Yo traverse developed (aad often
dangezous) azeas.
This should be an important element in forming open space plans over lazge azeas,
citywide or couniywide pIans. An individual project shouId attempt to coordinate with
and complement these generat plans. But we know of no practical, market-based way to
estimate flus component and include it in the financial analysis framework presented
here.
, ,; _ ..�;I` �CY[3,^, `';-'�'�, ; �� i �: :^ �: �.�:
,.:'fua,' 2"c.;... .., ,. . �.' f�.�.�:
�
•
�
�
�
Air qaatity improvement
Open spaces, green spaces in particular, can improve air quality in their immediate
vicinity. It is possible to calculate the impact of reducing or increasing pollutants as a
result of a given development project. This is done most often in evaluaring industrial
development or transportation projects, especially in urban settings. In theory, it would
be possible to estimate and include improvement in air quality as an element in analyzing
a particular open space project. And, at the broader levels of planning, it is extremely
important for society to maintain adequate open space to support air quality. In putting
forwazd an operational framework for analysis, we have chosen to not to include it
because the marginal contribution of a parcel of open space to nearby air quality when
compazed to, say, residential development is hard to measure. However, if in a specific
instance, a community is considering an alternative land use that would involve
significant emissions of solids and other pollutants, avoiding that pollution should clearly
be included as a plus for the open space altemative. Recently in Louisiana, for example,
funding from the private sector helped protect a wildlife and wefland area based on its
ability to sequester carbon and protect air quality.
More generally, the difficulty of estimating the values of these factors in dollar terms
should not preclude their being considered by land use decision-makers. However, since
it is, in most cases, not possible to make use of mazket data to form estimates, we have
not included these elements in Fio re 5 above.
In summary, all of these non-measured elements should be considered in an open space
decision. We do not put forwazd an ex ante method for estimating their value, but, in
some cases, there is a way to infer their value ex post. In cases where a particular open
space plan is put fonvard for a referendum, voters can (and hopefully do) take these
factors into account in casting their votes. In a sense, the more complete financial
framework above can be used to provide an estimate of the "net cosY' and a referendum
can be the vehicle for the publids expressing whether they think the "net benefits"
outweigh those costs. These factors are part of the list of benefits that voters evaluate in
making their decision whether or not to support the referendum. Thus, in a very rough
sense, referendum results can provide some indication of the value of these factors, at
least to the voters in that community.
� ' .: _.,..' ; C5`�:i, .`,� �'i �'i i .�,..'�,'
_,....... ,'.,.,,�..,. .,. . 3:-d!J_�1
Tools foY applying value analysis
In order to apply this framework, it is necessary to have a method for filling in the boxes
in Fiwre 5, the table that summarizes the complete public finance impact of an open
space proposal. We will consider the line items for the different value components and
how they should be estimated.
Preservation of open space — This item is just the one-time cost of purchasing land in
fee simple or the cost of purchasing the development rights to the land. This is the direct
cost usually considered, often without further financial analysis.
Recreational use of Iand — If land is to be used for recreational purposes, then the fiscal
impact of that use has two components; the one-time capital cost of any improvements
made to the land and the annual net operating and maintenance costs of the recreational
facilities. The capital costs will include access roads, buildings, and other infrastructure.
In addition, an annual budget should be prepared and the anricipated operation and
maintenance costs should be netted against any proposed recreational fees that aze to be
collected. The parks department or other public officials with responsibility for the
proposed facility would prepaze these items.
Storm water and flood management — This element of fiscal impact must be calculated
by comparing the costs of storm water management incorporating the proposed open
space use with the costs that would be incurred if water had to be managed without using
the natural absorption provided by the open space. These amounts will vary widely
depending on the size and character of the open space and the underlying geology of the
azea being studied. The local watershed district can be an effective partner in developing
this estimate. If the provision of open space reduces the need for, and hence the cost of,
restoring water quality, that savings should also be included.
Addition to value of.nearby property — Estimating this element (and the associated
increase in tax receipts) makes use of the results of locai and national reseazch on the
effect of open spaces on property values. There aze a number of steps to go through:
■ First, count the number of houses within 500 feet of the proposed or ea�isting green
space or amenity. If there are no existing houses, use an estimate of the number that
will be built in that azea.
■ Then, add up (or proj ect) the total value of those housing units.
■ Third, apply some appropriate premium to the total market value of the houses. At
the current time, the research available on the Twin Ciries market does not give a
,,. .'.;��; ."i?�;; ., ' �';� �,v��;°
..:'ri:`�. ..�..,....., ,..-. _. ° �:; s,
�
�
�
;=�
• clear signal as to the size of this premium. Until further research sharpens our view,
we recommend using a conservative figure of 7 percent.
■ Fourth, apply the appropriate tax rate for the jurisdiction being analyzed.
This process should give a serviceable estimate of the added ta3� revenue to be generated
from nearby properties.
Avoided cost of alternative development — Estimating the total public costs of
development is a complicated process that goes by the name of fiscal impact analysis.
Because it is so complicated, there have been numerous attempts to produce tools that
can aid local govemments in conducring such analyses. These computer programs or
spreadsheets take inputs that include the particulazs of proposed development, detailed
information about the taac structure and finances of a locality and specific infozmation
about the range, eatent, and quality of public services to produce estimates of the actual
impact of adding a new development (and its residents) to a city. This is especially tricky
since a small increase in development may lead to a large civic �penditure if the
addition pushes the community's service need past its cunent capacity, necessitating a
sizable capital expenditure.
Because tax reo lations and civic attributes vary so much across states, it would be very
hard to adapt a model that had been designed for another state. We are aware of at least
� three such tools that were desianed specifically for use in Minnesota communities. Here
is a brief description of each.
Fiscal impact tools for Minnesota communities
1) Ryan and Taff Workbook — In 1996, two economists at the University of Minnesota,
Bazry Ryan and Steve Taff, produced a workbook that remains the most user-friendly
framework for cities who wish to begin to conduct fisca] impact analyses." Their paper
includes a series of easy-to-follow and easy-to-use worksheets that cue the user to enter
the necessary input numbers and then lead tlte user through the opera$ons to produce
fiscal impact estimates. While their framework was designed with smaller Minnesota
communities in mind, on the assumption that they will often lack the stafF resources to
produce fiscal analyses from sclatch, their framework is quite usable for any community
as a first step.
° See Ryan, Barry and Steve Taff; "Estimating Fiscal Impacts of Residential Developments in Smaller
Communities, " Mtnnesota Extension Secvice, December, 1996.
• , ., : .,., J�{iit: .ei!;..1 is Ct�`,� i��i: ;� ..ilii�t?y ...... ... ..... .. �.%., .
2) Development Impact Assessment Modei: a Technicat Resource (DIAMaTR) - This
model is an extremely complete computer-based model developed for the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture by consultant James Duncan and Associates. It has moduIes
that allow separate analyses of the fiscal impact of a given development on counties,
cities, tov✓nships, water and sewer utilities and local schools. Somewhat like the Ryan
and Taff workbook, it is aimed primarily at rural or freestanding communities but would
be a usable framework as a starting point for other cities.
The model is available on loan from the Department of Agriculture for use by any city.
Agriculture staffers aze available to assist users. To date there has been little use of the
model by cities but the model is being reproa ammed to be more user-friendly and the
Department is exploring ways to bring the model to more cities that could benefit from
using it. Interested communities should contact the Department of Agriculture for further
detaiIs including the possibility of consultarion witk professional staff on usiag the model
to analyze local development options.
3) Federal Reserve System Fiscal Impact Tool (FIT) — This fiscal impact tool was
deveIoped by the Community Affairs Department of the Federal Reserve System to be a
resource to local communities. It is actually a series of models customized for the state in
each Federal Reserve district. It includes files of a lot of data on Iocal communities, so a
user in a small or medium-sized city in Minnesota would request the Minnesota model
and find that much of the information that would need to be input to DIAMaTR or the
Ryan and Taff Worksheet has been preloaded and stored in the computer file. The model
is available for free download or on diskette from the Federal Raserve Boazd in
Washir.b on.
Open space policy options
The framework discussed above is designed to heIp a community evaluate a specific open
space project or altemative development in a systematic way and, thereby, to make more
fully informed land use decisions regazding open space. Hopefully, a community that
uses such a framework will make decisions that weigh all the relevant factors and, hence,
stand the test of time.
However, applying this framework on a case-by-case basis does not ensure that a
community will make the most effective and advantageous open space decisions. Even
applying this framework at a general planning level is not sufficient to ensure that a
community's open space decisions will be the best for its future and its quality of life.
. � �z^` .r �u i .,.-�;� i;:;cit:°
�
�
`a'ri;u�°��_„_._.. ,,.._'�`i'.,� �
�
In addition to a framework for analysis, two additional things are needed:
■ a detailed open space plan that sets both broad parameters and specific �oals, and
identifies specific implementation stratea es; and
�
■ knowledge of the broad array of options available to cities to implement their open
space plans.
The framework put forward here can be most effective when used in a community where
these hvo additional elements aze present. This study is not designed as a primer on how
to plan or how to manage development. But there are aspects of open space planning
that, in our view, should be paid attention to in order to ensure that the use of this
framework leads to tnily effective public open space policy decisions.
Strategy formation
Most cities and some townships have a land use plan and all of these plans have an open
space component to them. However, with regard to open space strategy, not all of them
have taken two steps that could improve policymaking. The two steps are:
■ conducting a Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment (NRI/A), and
■ prioritizing open space goals in the land use plan.
A Natural Resource Inventory is a thorough listing of natural resources in a city or county
that incoiporates existing disparate information and adds new information to form a
complete picture of land and natural features inside an area. A Natural Resource
Assessment is an evaluation of the relalive importance of the natural resources identified
in the inventory. The Minnesota Departrnent of Natural Resources provides guidance on
how to conduct an NRI/A and a checklist and instructions are located on the DNR
website. In the past, there have been some matching financial grants available to help
communities pay for these inventories.
Once an NRUA has been conducted, it is important for the community, both govemment
officials and residents to use the information to form or modify land use plans. The
NRI/A can lead to partnerships in funding and manaa ng priority conservation lands. If,
as is typically the case, the communiTy finds that it does not alone have the financial
resources to acquire or protect all of the open spaces that are deemed desirable, priorities
can be set to assure that the most important areas or features are addressed, and
partnerships can be created to protect areas of greater than local importance. Even if the
community cannot afford the cost of an NRI/A at the cturent fime, it is still important to
� � .. � �` .,. >.. , , ` r n `�3 .,¢� ` �
ii i�'i,"skni.r .:'rFi..i.ii a> t3�.Fv.f i`
-. �:..,' ii�_...e ..�. ., , . ... � l � ,..
set prioriries with regard to the open spaces in the community and to produce a plan at
whatever level of detail is feasible.
There are at least three possible ways in which undertaking these steps can improve open
space policymaking. First, going through the NRI/A and translating the results into
detailed plans can act as an impetus for communities, alone or in partnership, to take
action to initiate the implementation of elements of the open space plan proactively,
rather than waiting later in the cycle of development. As a result of the community
discussions involved in setting land use plans, govemment officials and residents may be
better able to agree that certain actions need to be taken sooner rather than later.
Second, having set its priorities in advance, a community is better able to make effective,
timely responses to private development plans. For example, knowing that a developer's
proposed plan affects a plannad future a eenway will enable a city to make a timely
response to the plan and negotiate any changes that might be necessary to preserve, or
even complement, the city's open space plan.
Third, completing an inventory and assessment positions a community to partner with
land conservation agencies and nongrofit organizations, and to compete for private and
public funds for conservation. This work shows that the community is prioritizing, and
thinking ahead pays off— literally and fia ratively.
Implementation tools
Once an open space plan has been formed, the effective implementation of that plan
depends, increasingly, on a community's employing the full set of policy tools available
to it. Whether acting proactively through open space initiatives, using its powers of
pazkland dedication, or reacting to a private development proposal, the community can
achieve the most satisfactory results by utilizing all of its options.
Figure 6 includes some of the most common policy tools that aze utilized by Ivfinnesota
communities to achieve open space objectives. The list is by no means exhaustive and is
excerpted from a much longer list of land use policies included in a report prepazed for
the Metropolitan Council in 2000. That report listed over 60 different types of
initiatives, regulations, incentives, and financial policies and designated 14 of them as
being "primarily" designed to further conservation or open space objectives. This list is
drawn from the 14 cited in that study, but new approaches are being constanfly invented
and refined as development plays out in the Twin Cities azea.
See Freilich, Leitner, & Cazlisle, "Tools & Techniques: Smart Grow[h in the Twin CiUes,° Much 31,
2000.
`_�..� F ':'�`,�,[l.a�,''� iir:�;t CuU.'•.`.,�
�`!".5::. ,'^�,�_.,_ _.. ,: ._r'=_�;..�
�
•
•
�
•
6. Land use policy tools that can be useful in open space planning
Tool
Fee Simpfe Acquisition
Purchase of Development
Rights
Density Bonuses and Incentive
Zoning
Clustered zoning
Transfer of development rights
Environmentally sensitive lands
ordinances
Critical areas regulations
Impact fees
Permanerrt p of iand
Acquisition of easements or other interests in the property in
order to control and/or restrict future development
Granting a developer the privilege to build at higher densities
or exemption from other zoning restriclions in exchange for
providing open space amenities not otherwise required by
local regulations
Reducing lot sizes in ceRain areas in order to preserve
environmentally sensitive areas or open space
Permiiting landowners to transfer development rights from an
area that is to be protected as open space to another area
more suitabie for development or increased intensity
Regulations that require new development to avoid wetlands
or other sensitive areas
Restrictions on development that threatens natural systems
that pertorm functions of greater than local significance, i.e.
the effects extend beyond the single municipality
Charges imposed on new development in order to provide fo�
pubiic facilities (including parks, for example) necessitated by
new development
Source: Adapted from Fra7ich, LeBner & CarGsle, "Tools & Techniques: SmartGrowth in the Tmdn Cities°
The hallmark of many of the successful new policies is that they enable cities to provide
open space without the need to acquire all lands in fee simple, an approach that is, almost
always, prohibitively costly. Identifying which lands must be acquired and others that
can be protected with other tools is essential for a successful land conservation plan.
Private and public partners will then be able to provide assistance more efficiently. Since
there is a growing understanding that open spaces are amenities that convey value on
neazby property, communities and developers find increased opporhznities to craft "win-
win" situations in which the provision of open space benefits the community at large
while enabling the developer to make expanded profits, as well.
� ; `_-..,<. u,;?�;�".t: � r ,.,->
(�: �c3�.,� `?� ii>'�vjj �,.;�,,�_
a. ;.�._,'S'�:iF°3,^„ ��.��;)t�.,,�
IV. Sample applications of the framework
The purpose of the value framework put forward here is to give local decision-makers a
broader perspective on the full financial implications of open space choices that they
face. In order to illustrate how the use of this framework can change decisions or, at
least, facilitate consideration of a wider set of options, we examine three examples drawn
from the types of open space decisions that communities cunently face in the Twin Cities
area and beyond. These examples incorporate assumprions about local ta�;es, property
values, water management costs, and levels of public services that aze in line with those
of similar communities located in or near the Twin Cities. Of course, actual conditiotts
vary from city to city, but these examples convey an idea of the range of outcomes and
show how considering the value of open space in a more complete framework can
broaden local perspectives.
Example 1: Open space in a cofnprehensive plan
■ A city or township located beyond the urban fringe is deciding on its general
approach to the amount of open space of different types to incorporate into its
comprehensive plan.
The city is setting the broad parameters of its land use plan and aIso designating the range
of uses in different azeas through zoning. It has decided the desired amount of active
recreation azeas it will need, but decision-makers aze uncertain about the amount of space
to devote to preseroed natural areas. One specific option involves designating a linear
greenway with the loss of some potential housirig and preserving a wetland that could
either be filled in for development or retained as a scenic ameniry_
lnitiat poticy discussion
In considering the question of whether to incorporate expanded open space into the plan,
the most obvious financial consequences aze the direct costs of implemenfing the open
space option: either the cost of acquiring the land in question or the dollazs foregone by
not selling the land to a private party if it is already under public ownership. In this
hypothetical, the actual cost is roughly $2 million for the total of 200 acres that would
need to be acquired if the greenway land js to be acquired and the wettand is to be
retained in public hands.
On the other hand, if the land were developed in single-family homes, the addition to the
local tax base would be $45 million of new homes that generate �855,000 per year of
added property taxes. Of course, officials know that they would be asked to provide
� �z_;
, ��;,^,,�:",.:!'.,, .:=tE,�. n= i ��' :,",=<"�C:-
?::;,�..,.', ,..-....: �'��;i
�
�
•
� additional services for those added residents. But still, a cursory inspection could leave
the impression that the city was paying S2 million for the chance to collect �855,000 less
in annual taxes. A more complete fiscal analysis of the situarion is far different, however.
Value analysis
As a result of the added financial elements in the value framework, we see a very
different picture. The one-time cost of acquiring the open space is partially offset by the
avoided costs of not having to provide certain infrastructure for the added development
and reduction in capital costs from incorporating the wetland into storm water
management rather than using additional piping and other underground structures.
Exampfe 1: The vafue of green space in a comprehensive ptan
of economic value
�
Acquisition of open space
Change in property taxes ot nearby homes
Avoided costs of public infrastructure for new homes
Lost property taxes from foregone development
Avoided cost of public services
Lowered capital cost for water management
Lowered operating cost for water management
Other Factors:
Preservation value
Wildlife habitat and movement
lmproved air quality
Other environmental impacts
Totals
One-time Annual
impact impact
-$2,000,000
$125,400
5250,000
-$855,000
$930,000
$300,000
$30,000
-$1,450,000 I $230,400
The annual costs of the open space altemative are also difPerent from cursory
impressions. In fact, the open space oprion generates a net annual savings for the city in
this example. The value added to existing or future homes located near the greenway and
pond translates into roughly $125,000 per year of added revenue to the city. Even more
importantly, the actual cost of providing needed public services to the added houses (and
their residents) exceeds the taxes and fees that would have been aenerated by the added
• ., _=...;C'.,fr:':. .:<_,�� :, t`:^ �„ cr .,..
L �.
SF:':,...' �'� :.. ... .. ....: )�",C':s
development. There is also a small saving from storm water management operafing
expenses.
A calculation of the net present value of the added open space provides a clear statement
of the true cost of the open space to the community. Initially, discussion centered on the
one-t�me $2 miIlion cost of the acquisition and the lost tax revenues of $855,000 per year.
The apparent net present value' providing the additional open space was
approximately -�11.7 million, a number than includes both the additional outlay and the
value of the lost taxes over the next twenty years. However, the more complete analysis
provided here shows that the net present value of the project is actually a positive �1.2
million because the added annuat cash flows over 20 years outweigh the initial outlay for
the land.
All-in-all, ihis analysis shows not only that the one-time net cost of implementing the
open space option is not only reduced but it is also offset over future yeazs in positive
cash flows generaTed chiefly from the added value of other homes in tlze city and the
savings on future public services.
Subsequentpolicy choices
Tlus financial analysis should give city policymakers a different perspective on the
proposed open space option and could lead them to some different policy choices.
■ The city could acquire the greenway land and the wetland either from e�sting funds
or it could ask voters to approve bonding to purchase the land.
■ Based on Yhis revised view of the fiscal impact of the greenway, it mighT explore
other greenway options within the city boundaries.
■ The city might also reconsider some of its regulations for new construction, perhaps
by raising development fees to help pay for some of the.costs of providing public
services for new residents. It might also require that land be dedicated as a condition
for approving development on the site in question to ensure that a portion would
remain as open space.
13 In some fiscal impact analyses, ihe pubGc capital costs of new development that aze broken out
separately in tlus table would be annualized in the form of serviciag cost on the debt used to finance
the added infras4ucdue. In t(us exampie, such heaunent wouid increase the apparent one-time cost of
ihe open space but also increase the annual cost savings. Capital costs for stocm water management
coutd be treated similazly.
14 Net present value ca(cu(ated by applying an appropriate discount factor to future dollaz values and
adding t6e resultant values to any cucrent dollar spending. The figures quoted in the text and the
present values in subsequent examples were all calculated using a discount rate of 7 pement and a ume
horizon oftv✓enty years.
. ., 'Li,i . .:: I't 4 ; T :i:�..". � i' ..(„'���
#.�.��n.:f ���..� : �� i.� _�_i %:..�..
�
u
•
• Example 2: Reacting to a residential development plan
■ A city located at or beyond the urban fringe is asked to approve a developer's plan for
a residential subdivision.
The ciry is asked to approve a large private development plan that invoives building 100
new single-family homes on a 100-acre pazcel of land. The development company is
willin� to sell as much as 15 acres to the city for use as open space or for park
development at $65,000 per acre, a figure that reflects the profit it would make by
building homes on the land.
Initiaf policy discussion
The cost of acquiring the whole 15 acres at the developer's price is $975,000, which
would stretch the city's financial capacity and take funds away from other planned open
space uses. It is also calculated that reducing the number of units in the development by
15 would reduce prospective property taxes by almost $100,000 and the cily is eager for
growth.
Further analysis indicates that a particular 15 acres could be connected to other open
space currently owned by the city and slated for improvement as recreational land. But
� the cost of improvements to the added acreage just increases the cost of the open space
acquisition by another $150,000 dollars, bringing the total tab to �1,125,000.
Value analysis
Application of the value framework yields some additional perspective on the possible
acquisition of this open space. The one-time costs aze offset slightly by savings in the
capital cost for storm water management because the particular land in question will
absorb water and has favorable drainage characteristics.
There is more interesting action with regard to the annual impact of the proposed project.
The added open space increases future property t�es in trvo ways. First, it raises the
market value and, hence, the taxes paid by the remaining 85 homes that will be built in
the proposed subdivision. This would generate estimated tax receipts of almost $40,000
per year. Second, because of its location near the edge of the subdivision, it would also
increase the value of some other homes located outside the subdivision by a modest
amount.
In this example, it is assumed that the ciry's circumstances are such that the proposed
development just pays for itself in terms of net cost of public services so the foregone
� k�:. �..�iJi� :(�4i;; �.�at..� � C : '., i,�,. .,.
>;.4,.. fi:;`3a':,. .,, .._;?i.`:
cost of providing services just cancels out the foregone revenue from the 15 hauses that
are not built.
s
8. Example 2: Valuing green space options in a residential subdivision
of economic value
Acquisition of open space
Added property taxes from neighboring homes outside the
proposed development
Added property taxes from homes in the development
Lost properLy tazes from foregone development
Avoided cost of public services
Added capital cosf for recreational use
Lowered capital cost for water management
Lowered operating cost for water management
------- — - - -- - -
Other Factors:
Preservation value
Wildlife habitat and movement
Improved airquality
Ofher environmenfaf impacts
Totals
One-time Annuai
im act im act
-$975,000
$7,980
( $39,568
I -y99,750
_� $99,750
�10,000
-�150,000
$100,000
-$1_025,000
I__, $57,548
�
Therefore, on net, the acquisition of the open space remains expensive, but it actually
generates net positive cash flow from increased taxes on homes that will be valued more
h'ghlY-
A net present value analysis again lughlights the difference between the perceived value
of the open space and the actual value. If only the land acquisition cost of $975,000 and
the annual property taYes on the new homes are considered, the net present value of the
project would be appeaz to be -$2.1 million. E3owever, including all of the other factors
that aze part of the more complete statement in Figure 8 changes tfie net present value to -
$372,000, a much smaller number.
SubsequenE policy choices
The value analysis leads to the consideration of several policy options. For one thing, the
development firm is able to market the open space as an amenity to its prospective
customers and to make more profit on each unit that it sells because of the presence of the
open space. Therefore, there may be the possibility of negotiating an agreement that will
, ., . �.�. .,ii?"; �`.��€,c =� �i;t�": ',..?C�
..:..,r�_„_., - ._:'�:.`�v �
?
•
�
reduce or eliminate the upfront costs ta the city while retaining the pecuniary advantage
to the developer.
■ The city could ne�otiate an agreement where the developer or an association retains
title but ab ees to covenants that preserve the open space and allow certain forms of
public recrearional usage.
� The city could offer the development company the right to develop more units than
current zoning permits (a density bonus) in exchange for its transferring rifle to the
city.
■ Gaining control of the 15 acres of open space miaht make it feasible for the city to
plan and develop a more extensive greenway system that would add value to
additional properties in the city. The city might conduct a referendum to provide the
funds to implement the expanded greenway plan.
The value of open space as an amenity and the potential for higher profits is not news to
the development community with the result that private developers often see it in their
interest to dedicate a portion of developments to open space and, on occasion, provide
pazks and other amenities that have typically been provided in the public sphere. In this
example, if the city were to give the developer a density bonus in exchange for ritle to the
open space parcel, the net present value of the transaction would actually be positive.
The city would be money ahead over the next twenty years and the developer would
make a lazger profit by building more houses.
� . „ �..�,t'�r�i�l^ `:%;i.,`� .1 '�=��, : t�i,`;::
t.=::.. - ' ; i�
. r=�.-E . . .... ... . . .. .. . . .. ...
Example 3: Acquiring a synall parcel of pYeviously undeveloped
land
i A more or less fully developed city becomes aware that a private owner wants to sell
a parcel of undeveloped land surrounded on three sides by single-family homes.
The city becomes awaze that the settlement of the estate of a lonb time resident will
include not only the sale of a home but also the sale of a 7-acre pazcel of moderately
wooded land. The pazcel was bypassed in the development of this suburban city because
it was inconvenient to devetop. However, as Tand nearer the urban core has become more
scazce, and, hence, more valuable, the owner has had numerous inquiries about the
property but has chosen not to sell. Therefore, the city can be certain that, if it does not
purchase the land, it will be developed, probably with seven upper-bracket single-family
homes.
Initiai policy discussion
InitiaI discussions focus on the cost of the parcel, $50,000 per acre or $350,000 total.
Once again, it is also easy to focus on the net loss of tax revenues, which ara estimated at
roughly $93,000. Therefore, the total net cost of preserving this bit of woods could
appear to be the purchase price of $350,000 plus the present value of the stream of
foregone future tax revenues from the new homes that could be buiit on the site. A more
complete analysis modifies this picture slightly.
_
y
� 4 `f
�.
i �
.. a.:Vi�J=`.}�;:� �,���`ve: �� c1�i3i� ��'t..�.
S vti�_
x ..
x
r
v .
�.. �..., :"'<. �.. , ��— �v�r..
�
•
�
�
�
�
Value analysis
The one-iime cost to the city is reduced slightly by the avoided cost of certain public
infrastructure that will be required by the altemarive residenrial development, but this
impact is not lar�e because the community is a mature one and the development is a
small infill project. The public savings only offset a small portion of the cost of
acquirin� the land, reducin� the net cost to $320,000 from 5350,000.
The ongoing annual cost picture is also different. Preserving the open space does cost
the city money on an annual basis but the total net impact is a loss of only about $8,000
per year, not $93,000. The main factor in lowering the cursory figure is the avoided cost
of public services for the development. The taxes for the new construcrion more than
cover its additions to public service costs since the development is small and does not
impact the capacity of different public systems. But a second factor also reduces the
city's loss, avoiding reduction in the taxes collected from 30 neighboring homes whose
market values would be affected by the loss of the woods. In faimess, it should be noted
that the assessed values of these houses would probably not drop immediately but they
would be likely to rise more slowly over the future. So this annual impact may be
thought of as more of a long-term, steady-state calculation.
9. Example 3: The value of purchasing a small wooded parcel
Acquisition of open space
Avoided decline in property taxes of nearby homes
Avoided costs of pubiic infrastructure for new homes
Lost property taxes from foregone development
Avoided cost of public services
OtherFactors:
Preservation value
Wildlife habitat and movement
Improved air quality
Other environmental impacts
Totals
One-time Annual
impact impact
-$350,000
$23,940
$30,000 �
� -$93,100
$61,000
-�320,000
-$8,160
A net present value comparison again highlights how a more complete &scal analysis
gives a cleazer picture of the true cost of providing open space. Narrow consideration of
only the acquisition cost and the foregone taxes would imply a present value of the open
space of $-1.4 million. However, taking the factors in Figure 9 into account reduces that
• . �i ��.i1. : ��vY :t� �: i.i^� J�
e.. t��. 3�_ —�..�.. ... ..._ � /�i.r�
amount to $-412,000. This is a reduction of the apparent cost by almost two-thirds.
Moreover, if the city could arrange to purchase only the development rights, the cost
could be reduced even further.
Subsequent policy choices
The results of the value analysis of this transaction do not overtum the fact that the city
will have to pay to acquire the parcel and will collect lower tax revenues in the future.
But the analysis does alter the net costs and might lead the city to take a number of
actions that it might not have considered without looking at the numbers in Figure 9.
■ The city could decide to purchase the land and keep it as open space.
■ As a result of seeing that the net annual impact is minimal, the city might explore
reducing its upfront cost by purchasing development zights only. This might be
attractive to the owner's heirs if they (and the owner) had a special attachment to the
woods but hadn't made any provisions to protect them.
■ The city might protect a portion of the site by allowing a portion of the pazcel to be
developed while the rest would be protected from further development by a
conseroation easement.
The three foregoing examples all highlight how decisions could be altered by explicit
consideration of the overall financiat impact of open space decisions. The three elements
that can be quantified and included in this value analysis are
■ added properry taxes paid by nearby properties,
■ avoided cost of public services generated by altemative development, and
■ potential cost savings from better storm water management.
Of course, other important environmental impacts are not so readily converted to doliazs
aad cents. However, these three elements can affect the perceived net cost of open space
projects and affect the balance between abstract benefits and tangible costs. At the very
least, applying this value framework should improve land use decisions and open the
door to consideration of policy options that may currendy be ignored in many cases.
. .: .=.,v:� ��i�Il, ::' `�i . r ; � ��(�`.^.r � ��f'=
•
�
.:i`.'.'�. '{"c';.,�� .,� ..�_'. i^�Ci •
„ -r.
i SumntaYy
In their plannin� and land use decisions, communities face a long list of goals and
prioriries: providing housing of different types, planning for commercial development,
providing for schools and infrastructure, building a tax base in orderto afford to provide
needed services, and providing open space are some of the main ones. In setting
prioriries and striking a balance between these different goals, it is important that
communities have a cleaz picture of the synergies and trade-offs between them.
Unfortunately, providing open space can seen as a luxury that uses scarce public dollars
and precludes the use of land for residential or commercial development. Where that
limited view of open space is adopted, less open space will be provided.
The preceding examples illustrate the central theme of this study: open spaces have
positive economic value. That value takes many forms and some of those fonns can be
expressed in dollazs and cents to be included in the financial plans of cities and
townships. Communities that have a more complete understanding of the fiscal
implications of open space will be better equipped to set priorities and shike a balance
between open space and other objectives that will lead to a higher quality of life for their
residents now and in the yeazs to come.
Applying the financial framework put forward in this study can help communities to a
� more complete understanding of the value of providing additional open space for their
residents. Even where full and detailed financial projections are not made, consideration
of the different ways in which open space adds value can lead the communiry to a
broadened perspecrive in land use decision making.
The preceding examples are focused on decision-making at the local level by cities and
townships. This financial framework, even if fully implemented, does not capture one
additional element of the value of some of the open space provided within a city. That is
the value that a significant natural azea or a recreational resource or a portion of a longer
trail may have to people who live outside of the community itsel£ Therefore, it will
continue to be important for the state of Minnesota, counties, and cross jurisdictional
entities like the Metropolitan Council to remain acrive in planning for and providing open
spaces if the quality of life in our region is to be maximized.
. �.; ._i;t :�t`s���i� rt itj3 �F� i i:: �.:
_.. i..,' ... ., . ,—� �:f�:.
Bibliography
Acharya, G. and B. Lynne Lewis (2001). "Valuing Open Space and Land-Use Pattems in
Urban WaTersheds." Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 22(2/3): 221-237
Anderson, S. (2000). The effect of open space on single-family, residential home
property values, Macalester College: 1-7.
Anderson, S. and S. E. West (2003). The Value of Open Space Pro�mity and Size: City
versus Suburbs, Macalester College: 1-34.
ANJEC (2002). Open Space is a Good Investment, Association of New Jersey
Environmental Commissions: 1-12.
B. Bolitzer and N. R. Netusil (2000). "The impact of open space on properry values in
Fortland, Oregon." Joumal of Environmental Manaeement 59: 185-193.
Babcock, M., E. Poscher, et al. (1999). The Social, Aesthetic, and Economic Values of
Open Space. Ooen Spaces in Expandino Urban Environments. University of Arizona:
1-14.
Bates, L. J. and R. E. Santerre (2001). "The Public Demand for Open Space: The Case of
Connecticut Communities." Joumal of Urban Economics 50: 97-111.
n
�
Benhart, J. E. and S. Davis (2002). "The Effects of Greenways and Trails on �
Environmental Quality and Property Values in Pennsylvania." Penns�vania
Geog - �aoher 40(2): 157-175.
BonestrooRoseneAnderlik (2001). Infrastructure Cost Analysis, Metropolitan Council: 1-
15.
Boyer, T. and S. Polasky (2004). Valuing Urban Wetlands: A Review of Non-Mazket
Valuation Studies, Department ofApptied Economics, University ofMinnesota: 1-
41.
Breffle, W. S., E. R. Morey, et al. (1998). "Using Contingent Valuation to Estimate a
Neighbourhood's Willingness to Pay to Preserve Undeveloped Urban Land." Urban
Studies 35(4): 715-727.
Burchell, R. W. (1998). The Costs of Sprawl - Revisited, Transit Cooperaive Research
Program: 1-268.
Burchell, R. W. (2000). Costs of Sprawl - 2000, Transit Cooperative Reseazch Program:
1-551.
CityParksForum (2002). How cities use parks for. Economic Development, American
Planning Association: 1-4.
. c, . .;�,. �;l�sf;'I��t,� �?� � i�s: � �::;�� ..�u.:. :��_.,r _ . ,,.,_�a [�,� �
• CorreIl, M. R., J. H. Lillydahl, et al. (1978). "The Effects of Greenbelts on Residential
Property Values: Some Findings on the Political Economy of Open Space." Land
Economics 54(2): 207-217.
Cox, L. J. and G. Vieth (1997). The Importance of Open-Space Value for Land tise
Policy in Hawaii, Colle�e of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University
of Hawaii at Manoa.
Croke, K., R. Fabian, et al. (1986). "Estimating the Value of Natural Open Space
Preservation in an Urban Area." Joumal of Environmental Manasement 23: 317-324.
Crompton, 7. L. (2001). The Impact of Pazks on Property Values. Parks & Recreation:
90-95.
Crompton, J. L. (2001). The Impact of Parks on Property Values. Parks & Recreation:
62-67.
Crompton, J. L. (2001). "The Impact of Parks on Property Values: A Review of
Empirical Evidence." Journal of Leisure Reseazch 33(1): 1-31.
Crompton, J. L. (2004). The Proximate Princiole, National Recreation and Parks
Association.
Crompton, J. L., L. A. Love, et al. (1997). "An Empirical Study of the Role of
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space in Company (Re)Location Decisions." Joumal of
• Park and Recreation Administration 15(1): 37-58.
Diamond, D. B. (1980). "The Relationship Between Amenities and Urban Land Prices."
Land Economics 56(1): 21-32.
Do, A. Q. and G. Gmdnitski (1995). "Golf Courses and Residential House Prices: An
Empirical Examination." Joumal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 10: 261-270.
Doss, C. R. and S. J. Taff (1996). "The Influence of Wefland Type and Wetiand
Proximity on Residential Property Values." Joumal of Agriculturai and Resource
Economics 21(1): 120-129.
DuncanAssociates (1999). Cost of Public Services Study, Minnesota Deparhnent of
Agriculture: 1-147.
Dwyer, J. F., E. G. McPherson, et al. (1992). "Assessing the Benefits and Costs of the
Urban Forest." Journal of Arboriculture 18(5): 227-234.
Earnhart, D. (2001). "Combined Revealed and State Preference Methods to Value
Environmental Amenities at Residential Locations." Land Economics 77(1): 12-29.
� < .—, Pi;:i; ��� t�...�i( � :'�r„
� .'. �i... � � :JY�i _.. . , .. ,,, : Jis..,.
Espey, M. and K. Owusu-Edusei (2001). "Neighborhood Parks and Residential Properry
Values in Greenville, South Carolina." Joumal of Aericultural and Applied
Economics 33(3): 487-492.
Fausold, C. J. and R. J. Lilieholm (1996). The Economic Value of Open Space: A
Review and Synthesis, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: 1-38.
Fausold, C. J. and R. J. Lilieholm (1999). The Economic Benefits of Open Space in Utah.
Utah Recreation and Tourism Matters Utah State University Extension.
Forsyth, M. (2000). "On Estimating the Option Value of Preserving a Wildemess Area."
Canadian Journal of Economics 33(2): 413-434.
Frank Lupi, J., T. Graham-Tomasi, et al. (1991). A Hedonic Approach to Urban Wetland
Valuation, Department of Applied Economics, university of Minnesota: 1-29.
Freilich, L. C. (2000). Tools & Techniques: Smart Growth in tke Twin Cities,
Metropolitan Council: 1-37.
Harpankar, K. and S. J. Taff (2004). Tracking the Effects of Conservarion Easements on
Property Tax Values, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota: 1-
13.
Harpman, D. A., M. P. Welsh, et al. (2004). °Unit Non-Response Bias in the Interval
Data Model." Land Economics 80(3): 448-462.
$endon, W. S. (1972). "The Pazk as a Determinant of Property Values." The American
Journal ofEconomics and Sociolow: 289-300.
Holtman, C., S. J. Taff, et al. (1996). An Tnquiry into the Relationship of Wetlands
Regulation and Property Values in Nfinnesota, Department of Applied Economics,
University of Minnesota: I-32.
Howell-Moroney, M. (2004). "What Are the Determinants of Open-Space Ballot
Measures? An E�,tension of the Reseazch." Social Science Ouarterly 85(1): 169-179.
Invin, E. G. (2002). "The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values." Land
Economics 78(4): 465-480.
Irwin, E. J. and N. E. Bockstael (2001}. "The Probtem of Identifying Land Use
Spillovers: Measuring the Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values."
American Joumal of Aericultural Economics 83(3): 698-704.
Kalambokidis, L. and D. Leishman (2003). Toward a Minnesota Model of the Fiscal
Impacts of Residential Development, Department of Applied Economics, University
of Minnesota: 1-19.
� � t=. ��°,>r � ; ��` ;��,�, ^" �'^-.. Su.. �,.
�;'��.�.,.-_._,__. �_,._;.���
�
�
i
� Kelly, M. C. H. and M. Zieper (2000). Financing for the Future: The Economic Benefits
of Parks and Open Space. Govemment Finance Review: 23-26.
Krizek, K. J., P. Mowsh, et al. (2004). The Value of Bicycle Trail Proximity on Home
Purchases, Humphrey Insritute, University of Minnesota: 1-25.
Lake, M. B. and K. W. Easter (2002). Hedonic Valuation of Proximity to natural Areas
and Fazmland in Dakota County, Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics,
University of Minnesota: 1-31.
Landis, J. (1995). "Imaa ning Land Use Futures: Applying the Califomia Urban Futures
Model." Joumal of the American Plannintr Association 61(4): 438-457,
Lemer, S. and W. Poole (1999). The Economic Benefits ofParks and Open Space, Trust
for Public Land.
Lindsey, G. (2003). Public Choices and Property Values: Evidence from Greenways in
Indianapolis, Center for Urban Policy and the Environment, Indiana University-
Purdue University Indianapolis: 1-12.
Lindsey, G. and G. Knaap (1999). "Willingness to Pay for Urban Greenway Projects."
7oumal of the American Plannine Associarion 65(3): 297-313.
Lutzenhiser, M. and N. R. Netusil (2001). "The Effect of Open Spaces on a Home's Sale
Price." Contemporarv Economic Policy 19(3): 291-298.
• Mahan, B. L., S. Polasky, et aL (2000). "Valuing Urban Weflands: A Property Price
Approach " Land Economics 76(1): 100-113.
McConnell, V. and M. Wells (2005). The Value of Open Space: Evidence from Studies
of Nonmarket Benefits. Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future: 1-78.
Metropolitan Council (2001). The Non-Fiscal Impacts of Growth, Metropolitan Council:
1-55.
Meyers, P. (1999). Livability at the Ballot Box: Stte and Local Referenda on Parks,
Conservation, and Smarter Growth, Election Day 1998, Brookings Institution.
Miller, S. (1992). The Economic Benefits of Open Space. The Benefits of Open Space: 1-
16.
Montgomery County Lands Trust (2002). Saving Land Saves Money, Montgomery
County Lands Trust: 1-10.
More, T. A., P. G. Allen, et al. (1985). "Measuring the Economic Value of Urban Parks:
A Caution." Leisure Sciences 7(4): 467-477.
••.3'J �..i.,i,, a.(IL`._; _4ilt.i: i�� E tf,�.i¢.;i,� f,�. ,,.�... I .., . ,Ce %..1.,
More, T. A., T. Stevens, et al. (1988). "Valuation of Urban Parks." Landscape and Urban
Plannintr 15: 139-152.
Nahuelhual, L., M. L. Loureiro, et al. (2004). "Using Random Pazameters to Account for
Heterogeneous Preferences in Contingent Valuarion of Public Open Space." Joumal
of Aaricultural and Resource Economics 24(3): 537-552.
National Park Service (1995). Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and
Greenwav Comdors
Nicholls, S(2004). Measuring the Impact of Parks on Proper[y Values. Parks &
Recreation 24-32.
Palmquist, R. B. (1992). "Valuing Localized Extemalities." Joumal of Urban Economics
31:59-68
Phillips, P. L. (1991). Real Estate Impacts of Urban Pazks, Economics Reseazch
Associates: 1-8.
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (2003). Economic Benefits of Trails and Greenways, Rails-
to-Trails Conservancy: 1-4.
Regional Greenways Collaborative Vocabulary of Greenways in the Twin Cities,
Regional Greenways Collaborative: 1-10.
Riddell, M. (2001). "A Dynamic Approach to Estimaring Hedonic Prices for
Environmental Goods: An Application to Open Space Purchase." Land Economics
77(4):494-512.
�
•
Romero, F. S. and A. Liserio (2002). "Saving Open Spaces: Determinants of 1998 and
1999 "Antisprawl" Ballot Measures." Social Science Ouarterlv 83(1): 341-352.
Ryan, B. and S. J. Taff (1996). Estimating Fiscal Impacts of Resideniial Developments in
Smaller Communities, Ivfinnesota Eactension Service: 1-30.
Smith, V. K., C. Poulos, et al. (2002). "Treating open space as urban amenity." Resource
and Enerw Economics 24: 107-129.
Tisctiler & Associates (1999}. Fiscal Impact Analysis: Growth Scenario & Land Use
Prototype Study, City of Shakopee, Metropolitan Council: I-35.
Tischler & Associates (1999). Service Levels, Cost & Revenue Assumptions, City of
Shakopee, Metropolitan Council: 1-52.
Tischler & Associates (2001). The Fiscal Impact of Growth on Cities (draft),
Metropolitan Council: 1-61.
Trust for Public Land (2004). LandVote 2004, Trust for Public Land: 1-18.
. :, s.,... :7i.i;t., ........ �,' \�-'� i . i...,;.F..0
tlifi:�r .�=^.Y�s�;�" „ ,.,.. ; il���: .
. ���
• Tumer, M. A. (2004). "Landscape Preferences and Pattems of Residenrial Development."
Joumal of Urban Economics.
Tyrvainen, L. and H. Vaananen (1998). "The economic value of urban forest amenities:
an application of the conringent valuation method." LandscaQe and Urban Plannins
43:105-118.
Vossler, C. A., 7. Kerkvliet, et al. (2003). 'Bxtemally validating contingent valuation: an
open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon." Joumal ofEconomic
Behavior and Orsanization 51: 261-277.
Wandey, F. N., B. Patton, et al. (2004). Preparing to Use DIAMaTR, Minnesota
Department of Agriculture: 1-37.
Weigher, J. C. and R. H. Zerbst (1973). "The Extemalities of Neighborhood Parks: An
Empirical Invesiigation." Land Economics 49(1): 99-105.
Wolf, K. L. (2004). Public Values of Nature: Economics of Urban Trees, Parks and Open
Space. Desien with S�rit Proceedin¢s of the 35th Annual Conference of the
Environmental Design Research Association. D. Miller and J. A_ Wise,
Environmental Desia Research Association: 88-92.
•
• . .. � ,i?�JtM. �. 4�li`E[.ni. :�f. �::r�p i:.,......;
:>. ....' t�('. . _ ,. ., . . �_ - �..1;.
�X
�
o ������
� o
� ����
4 y e
Economic Benefits
of
Parks and Open Space
Parks & open space can benefit the local,
regional, and state economies in numerous
ways, including:
■ Open space makes higher-density
living more attractive, saves on
infrastructure costs.
■ Lower property tax rates by
encouraging new development, and by
higher property values close to parks.
"The home-buyer, speaking . . . through
the marketplace, appears to have
demonstrated a greater desire for a
home with access ... to permanently
protected land, than for one located on
a bigger lot, but without the open-space
amenity."
■ Encourages revitalization of blighted
areas, returning them to the tax rolls
(Central Riverfront Corridor).
• Increases neighborhood pride, spurring
property improvement (Humboldt
Greenway, Heritage Park, Creekview
Park).
• Attracts smaller, tax paying businesses
seeking talented employees who
appreciate a high quality amenities.
■ Increases health of population through
positive activities outdoors, lowering
health care costs to both business &
government.
■ Heips preserve parks & open space,
views, and wildlife habitat, which are
easy to lose, but expensive to restore.
■ Contributes to cleaner air & water.
Econ benefits of parks fact sheet 12-5-06 FINAL.doc
.
.
.
■
■
.
.
.
■
.
Hotel rooms
Bed and breakfast rooms
Restaurant and hospitality
Building materials and supplies
Sporting gear
Play equipment
Transqortation and air travel
Historic and archeological sites
Outdoor and sports apparel
Fuel
Food, snacks and drink
Cameras, fllm and binoculars
Printing
Skis
Bikes
Skates and skateboards
Books
■ Campmg ge,ar
. M��� � � � �
■ S➢ghtseeing�aad tour operatacs � �
■ Bwses,, cab�, &� ti�nos � � �
■ " G,ater�ng � � � �
■� EveYMS� � � � " � �
� Music, aEts and cultare,
� Cbnstrucrion & developmen#.,`~, ,
■. , Adapt�ve reuse. of historic slr�ctar�
■ Shopp�ng ,
■ So'uv�ertirs��:� � � �
�� ,�Boatingand�ma�n�s � �,�'��.� � �
�� L�aniis,capeimahagement � � �
■ Comrr►un'dy �aGiJens
■ Paik p[ograms-
■ Environmental education
_ � �; �Na�ural restcira��an;'� � � � �
Econ benefits of parks fact sheet 12-5-06 FINAL.doc
CITY COUNCIL MEETING TESTIMONY FOR OPEN SPACE SET ASIDE
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
My name is Judith Morem. I am an artist and one of the founding members
of the Lowertown Lofts Cooperative which is now celebrating its 21 st year of
maintaining safe and affordable live/work studios for artists.
As a longtime resident of what is now the Arts District of Lowertown, I have
come to realize that creating a safe and vital urban community isn't just about
developing buildings. Green, open, public space is needed to connect the
residents of these buildings to each other and to the outside environment of
their immediate neighborhood.
Currently this economically diverse Arts District of Lowertown has a few
small and, hopefully, permanent areas of public open space developed by the
neighborhood's artists. The number of these green spaces has dwindled with
the building of Lot 270 Condominiums and the parking lot for the Great Northern
Warehouse as these developments have utilized every inch of land on their
lot.
The efforts by the artists to create public open space have yet to be
matched by the area's developer.
An example of potential public open space lost to private interests is the 15
foot space required for residential buildings between Lot 270 Condomiums and
the Master Framers Building. 1n its development phase this space was, for a
short time, identified as a public thoroughfare. The now gated private patio is
rarely used by the building's residents.
The loss of this public space is the loss of a place where residents from
different buildings interact informally, helping to break down any barriers
created by economic class.
A"Heart of the Arts Gateway Park" is envisioned for this neighborhood by
some of its residents. This public park could be a garden for sculpture, a
labyrinth and much needed greenery as well as a permanent site for the
Children's Playground. A place for neighbors to socialize and soak in some
sun.
The site of this park would be the surface lof on the southeast corner of 4th
and Wacouta Streets - a site now under consideration for yet another building.
I urge the passage of this resolution in order to help create an additional
source of funding for this park and other open spaces around Saint Paul. I also
hope that developers would take into consideration the need for public green,
open spaces, not only for the future residents of their buildings but for the other
residents of the neighborhood as part of a good neighbor policy.
1000 Friends of Minnesota
Zb Exchange St, E. Suite 3I7
St. Paul, MN 55161
651-322-10(JE}
December 4, 2006
Re: St. Paui Parkland Dedieation
Friends of the St. Paut Parks
Peggy Lynch
To Whom It 1VIay Cvncern:
1000 Friends of Minnesota is in support af the St. PauI Pazkland Dedication ordinance.
We are a statewide non-prafxt orgaanization tt�t cazes about the future of aur state. Tf�e
mission af our arganization, basefl in St. Paul, is to pramote devetopment that creates
hea[thy cammu�rities white conserving naturai areas, faerciIp fa�ms, woodfands and water.
We strongIp believe this ordinance shautd be passed ta benefit the city and its residents.
There is an important connection between our devetopment paiterns and the health of our
ecrmmu�sities auc� the envirctitmne�t. Sy i�ereasi��g parktand and apen spaee gau wilI be
matdng communities more livabte for the residerns. Siudies show yau wiII also be
increasing ttie �ratue of svrrounding pmperty This ordinance, �vhen flassect, wili create a
heatthiar co��u�ity. We encourage you to sugpcYrt tlus c�rdinance.
For the FuEtu�e,
Kris Best
Director of Communications and Devefopmern
1000 �'Fie�cds of lv�i�nesota
}- Embrace Opec� Space studias www.embraceopenspace.com