The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Packet 03-21-2006 Special 1Agenda City of Plymouth Special City Council Meeting Tuesday, March 21, 2006 6:00 p.m. Conference Rooms A & B Agenda 1. Call to Order—Mayor Johnson 2. Discuss Park Needs and Funding Part A Part R 3. Adjourn DATE: March 16, 2006 TO: Laurie Ahrens FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Study Session — Land Acquisition Northwest Plymouth Attached for Council review is some of the technical information we'll be presenting at the Tuesday night Special Study session regarding land acquisition in northwest Plymouth. Information in the packet relates to what we currently own and operate as our playfield system and why we see the need for future expansion. Because of our limited time on Tuesday night, we will need to move very quickly through this data to allow the Council time to ask questions and give direction to staff on how to proceed. Because we are just in the beginning process of updating the comprehensive plan, there is some technical data that we won't be able to review until the land use guiding has been determined. by the City Council. EB/np COMMUNITY PLAYFIELDS Bass Lake Elm Creek La Compte Green Oakwood Parkers Lake Plymouth Plymouth Creek * (15-511- 0 Ridgemount Zachary ACTIVE RECREATION: 173.4 acres ** T AC- {AGI61,'r PASSIVE RECREATION: 9 acres TOTAL AREA: 182.4 acres 9M I ILS Refer to Plymouth Creek City Park, page 8-A-5 Acreage of Plymouth Creek Playfield included in Plymouth Creek City Park 8-A-7 EXHIBIT 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMUNITY PLAYFIELD Size and Function Service area: 1 community (driving neighborhood) approximately 1 to 1.5 mile radius) Spatial standard: 2.5 developed ac./1,000 population (ultimate) Size: minimum 20 developed acres; maximum 65 developed acres Type of usp: intensive, active, formal, programmed Clientele: primary emphasis on ages 8-50 Functional characteristics: almost entirely recreation 7 X . q I g -c s L l TvF W6R rvl COMMUNITY PLAYFIELD ACQUISITION DATA Bass Lake 19 1983 130,000 6,842 Park Dedication Elm Creek 37 1994 1,,216,000 32,864 Park Dedication La Compte 7 1960-1965 NA NA NA Oakwood 19 1980 0 0 Lease Parkers Lake 26 1983 0 0 Park Dedication Plymouth 19 1980 0 0 Lease Plymouth Creek 18 1975-1980 NA NA State & Federal Grants w/Local match Ridgemount 15 1980 0 0 Lease Zachary 30 1980 277,004 9,100 Park Dedication Greenwood 20 2000 0 0 Lease YEAR 2005 YOUTH ASSOCIATIONS NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS Baseball — Summer & Fall 2,469 Football 1,157 Lacrosse — Spring & Summer 413 Rugby 149 Soccer — Summer & Fall 5,474 Softball — Summer & Fall 558 Ultimate Frisbee 46 TOTALS 10,266 YEAR 2004 Baseball — Summer & Fall 2,300 Football 1,132 Lacrosse — Spring & Summer 373 Rugby 111 Soccer — Summer & Fall 5,863 Softball — Summer & Fall 502 Ultimate Frisbee 0 TOTALS 10,281 YEAR 2003 Baseball — Summer & Fall 1,986 Football 1,170 Lacrosse — Spring & Summer 141 Rugby 73 Soccer — Summer & Fall 5,205 Softball — Summer & Fall 448 Ultimate Frisbee 0 TOTALS1 9,023 YEAR 2000 YOUTH ASSOCIATIONS NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS Baseball — Summer & Fall 1,621 Football 1,185 Lacrosse — Spring & Summer 0 Rugby 77 Soccer — Summer & Fall 4,772 Softball — Summer & Fall 400 Ultimate Frisbee 0 TOTALS 8,055 Youth Associations - Number of Participants 2005 i oil= I 2004 3 2003 2000 0 29000 49000 69000 89000 109000 129000 GAMES PER FIELD Year All City & School District Fields City Field Only 1995 5,111 4,801 2005 7,057 5,734 School Distribution K-12 Population District 281 & District 284 Year Population 1995 21,980 1998 22,560 2001 22,945 2004 23,206 2006 22,945 2009 22,519 25,00022,560 22,945 — 22,51921,980 20,000 15,000 - 10,000 x t 5,000 1995 1998 2001 2004 2006 2009 Sheed 0 0 Housing Mode! 1999 2000 2001 Actual Actual 2002 Actual 2003 Pro 2004 ectad 2006 2006 2H9716 Enrollment Projections Grade 1995 1996 1997 1998 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual 635 719 699 680 687 743 610 710 697 840 649 713 652 695 660 671 886 700 678 715 71 689 722 719 Kg 629 607 632 662 1 669 670 640 677 2 657 680 687 707 670 699 692 717 749 716 734 674 714 714 3 626 644 694 637 709 725 716 720 730 769 727 748E 688 727 4 5 657 679 666 718 741 728 733 719 792 741 762 751 701 771 6 631 665 696 684 754 744 762 768 773 746 770 801 7 642 645 691 730 708 732 754 709 772 761 778 775 779 766 820 768 786 657 645 6948 _ 637 637 677 679 729 763 743 763 825 803 809 793 847 794 g 10 611 567 616 655 672 699 748 750 753 783 833 812 816 600 803 854 786 11 542 558 591 641 664 607 682 638 736 637 732 702 9475 732 673 9664 771 720 96929842 822 760 9790 800 810 9841 787 9832 789 12 520 521 521 579 TOTAL 8032 8266 8617 8830 9096 9313 9390 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% OA% 0:1% Ch. 2.9% 3.0% 3.7%.0% 2.4% 0.8% Chan a 234 251 313265 218 73 145 77 28 105 85 3 82 89 50 139 128 2 130 88 41 139 50 71 122 9 120 111108 10 98 Kg -12th 87 111 14156 Net Migr. 147 140 172!209 4275 4229 4219 4280 4229 4258 2329 4271 2351 4341 2255 4370 2248388239674041415102 6th -8th 1910 1967 2032 2108 2194 X699 2207 2831 2295 2866. 2319 2950 2291 3013 2336 3127 3203 3219 3236 3224 9th -12th 224Q 2332 2444 2671 0 Enrollment 1992 - 2009 1/26/2006- DDB t ISD 281 - Enrollment Projections January 1 Enrollment 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Gr. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Proj. ** Proj. ** Proj. ** K* 84 84 85 80 77 80 85 125 116 126 125 125 124 40 36 40 40 40 K 1234 1136 1164 1138 1210 1075 1016 1016 1032 1007 1019 955 960 903 899 886 880 892 1 1183 1222 1163 1173 1152 1207 1060 1032 1045 1026 979 1013 962 984 951 924 911 905 2 1163 1132 1211 1134 1150 1141 1182 1042 993 999 998 992 1004 962 983 947 920 907 3 1128 1141 1144 1209 1124 1139 1105 1157 1054 968 997 998 997 989 1009 995 959 931 4 1113, 1074 1133 1181 1186 1108 1110 1068 1134 1006 961 977 985 981 963 990 976 941 5 1123; 1080 1079 1124 1155 11841 1087 1085 1060 1098 1025 1007 978 999 977 966 993 979 6 1051 1124 1115 1078 1090 1139 1169 1065 1089 1037 1099 1026 1038 971 1003 985 974 1002 7 1061 1036 1140 1123 1065 1105 1131 1153 , 1073 1114 1063 1136 1076 1054 1021 1041 1022 1011 8 972 1046 1013 1107 1087 1045 1066 1114 1131 1072 1094 1038 1140 1054 1069 1020 1040 1021 9 992 972 1029 976 10821 1069 989 1067 1158 1181 1101 1142 1146 1154 1083 1120 1068 1089 10 951 963 925 1005 913 1080 9951 992 1034 1114 1133 1077 1156 1077 11431 1062 1098 1047 11 853 858 863 813 901 839 969 895 891 966 1029 1061 986 1063 1010 1056 981 1014 12 7831 788 798 8071 772 821 772 898 861 841 882 971 1009 919 988 946 989 919 Total 13691. 13656 13862. 13948 13964 14032 13736 13709 13671 13555 13505 13518 13561 13150 13135 12978 12851 12698 7028' 6869 6979 039 7054 6934 6645 6525 6434 6230 6104 6067 6010 5RSR 5818 5748 5679 5595 6-8 3084 3206 3268 3308 3242P3809289 3366 3332 3293 3223 3256 3200 3254 3079 3093 3046 3036 3034 9-12 35791 3581 3615 3601 3668 3725 38521 39441 4102 4145 4251 4297 4213 4224 4184 4136 4069 Total 136911 13656 13862 13948 13964 14032 13736 13709 13671 13555 13505 13518 13561 13150 13135 12978 12851 12698 K 13181 1220 1249 1218 1287 1155 1101 1141 1148 1133 1144 1080 1084 943 935 926 920 932 1-3 3474 3495 3518 3516 3426 3487 3347 3231 3092 2993 2974 3003 2963 2935 2943 2866 2790 2743 4--i 3287 3278 3327 I63383343134313366321832833141308530103001, 2951 2943 2941 2943 2922 7-12 5612 5663 5768 5831 5820 5959 5922 6119 6148 6288 6302 6425 6513 63211 63141 6245 619-8-F 6101 Total 13691 13656 13862 13948 13964 14032 13736 13709 13671 13555 1.3505 13518 13561 13150 13135 12978 128511 12698 296 27 38 116 50 13 43 411 15 157 127 15 3 Kindergarten Prep - 5 year old students Projection using 2004-2006 Actual Retention Average 1/26/2006- DDB t ISD 281 - Enrollment Projections 03/03/2006 FRI 16:44 FAX 763 391 7040 OSSEO AREA SCHOOLS 10002/005 11/9/2005 Enrollment Projections AND SPRING ENROLLMENT PRIOR YEAR DATA 10-11FALL Grade or Ne ' 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Henn Cry Births 15,300 15,434 15,669 15,996 16,581 16 332 16108 16.440 16,718 16 4361 1,5695 Kindergarten 1,582 1,495 1,481 1,579 1605 1838 ! jyffiti Gr 1 ' 1,577 1,597 1,560 1,539 1,597 1,544 1,545 1,6491,62 1,546 t,650 1 629 4 62tt 1 6061 it83' Gr 2 1,631 1,576 1,599 1,611 1,575 1, Gra 1,636 1,616 1,634 1,576 1,595 i,68 "1;664" x t 862 1 662j Gr 4 ' 1,749 1,647 1,667 1,611 Gr5 1,696 1,801 1,732 1,673 1,638 1,746 1,649 1,661 7 ; 1 s36161216l r. Gr6 Kind - Gr 6 11,159 11,242 11 2 4 47 -' 11,572i"s3 11 389 11,672 11,320 11,211 1,759 1,682 1661 1,632, 1 636 Grade 7 ' Grade 8 1,695 1,759 1,766 1,708 1,705 1,800 1,720 1,751 1,691 1665; 1 690, 1,1; 1642 (7+ Grade 9 1,717 1,759 1,708 1,771 1„745 1-753 1 693: 1 692 , F Gr7 -Gr 9 5,250 5,178 5125505 4,969 f 4,944 4931V5,171 5,233 5,213 1,813 1X64 1,772 71 t 1 TO 1 969` Grade 10 1,735 1,699 1,766 1,717 1,773 1 83U' 1 7811727; Grade 11 1,779 1,768 1,684 1,745 1,862 1890 °: 1,957. i 904 {,12 1,847: Grade 12 * 1,610 1,884 1,915 1,795 Gr 10 - Gr 12 5,257 5,448 5 490 235,`95 404 5350 $, - 5,324 5,351 5,365 22,167 21,904 21,789 21,666 21736 21,868 21878. 21 83& 21 762 21 t!69 41 t_` Kind - Gr 12 10';:0 75Chanes 0a1°k 0 03°f°; 0150.0596B°i6 -035 25,350 25,301 25,167 25,142 25,092 wadm NOTE: Henn County Births shown above occurred 5 years prior to the year displayed 03/03/2006 FRI 16:46 FAX 763 391 7040 OSSEO AREA SCHOOLS 19004/005 GRADE KEY B3 = Birth to 3 yrs. Osseo Independent School District No. 279 26 = Early Childhood 25 = Handicap Kdgn February 1, 2006 ES = ELL Kdgn Enrollment B SchooVGrade KF =Kdgn Full Day y KAXB = Kdgn AWPM SCHOOL 63 26 25 ES KF KA/KB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total oo0678asswood Eleni 15 105 160 139 122 155 121 128 jn(/ T} i) s. 945 0671 - Birch Grove Eleni 14 44 93 62 77 87 85 88550 O'M ,Cedar Island Elem t: -- 3 86 68 78 93 99 80 91 Zy /rf N i01 K f /hJ — — 612 ------ 0672 - Crest View Elem 11 55 52 60 57 46 62 59402 0673 - Edgewood Elem8 31 39 59 64 72 66 63 ---- 72 476 0668 - Edinbrook Elam 6 37 95 131 138 145 128 120 117 917--------- 0684 - Elm Creek Eleni 18 64 73 73 77 84 67 108564 0674 - Fair Oaks Elem 1 96 89 76 81 82 62 78 565 0689 - Fernbrook Elern 8 87 91 81 74 106 126 91664 0675 - Garden City Elem 6.----. 58 51 56 67 53 60 6.1 -••- 5 412 Oak View Elem 8 21 38 76 66 97 82 8o 80 548 0677 - Osseo Elem 7 51 49 39 45 60 41 52- 344 — 0678 - Palmer Lake Elem 9 68 90 87 109 92 133 94--------- 682 0679 - Park Brook Elem 1 51 34 56 45 46 47 51 331 0685 - Rice Lake Eleni 6 63 85 76 73 60 80 99542 0669 - Rush Creek Elem 9 97 136 123 119 113 110 127 834 0693 - Weaver Lake Elem 11 57 79 80 93 78 91 100589 0665.- Woodland Eleni 3 22 81 146 130 125 101 122 116 846 0681 - Zanewood Eleni 5 80 78 63 55 68 74 65 468 0033 - Brooklyn JR389 362 364 1115 Maple Grove JRMaple 515 583 5301628 0086 - North View JR 373 434 421 1220 0034- Osseo JR413 412 427 1252 0701 - OALC JR 4 4 ----_ Maple009MapleGroveSR--- r------------•-----------------------•---------------------------- 645 598 572 1815 32 - sseo SR 544 584 543 1671 0088 - Park Center SR613 515 445 1573 0702 - OALC SR14 33 51 127 225 0703 - OALC IS (SnglEnr) 1 7 44 52 0042 - OSTC I........... 1577 1690 1791 1756 1840 1755 1812 21955Subtotals149fib38397516601547152616021624 0698 - ECSE (ARB) 97 97 0697 - ECSE (WL) 113 171 284 0703 - OALC IS (DualEnr) 3 1 69 201 273 27g Inlorm®rion systems Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:32:37 PM Page 1 of 1 FIELDGAITESPER Total Summer Fall Total 1995 2005 2005 2005 SOCCER City Playfield Elm Creek 0 371 114 485 Greenwood 0 96 77 173 Plymouth Creek - L Oakwood - L 445 466 202 195 92 41 294 246 Rid emount 185 267 108 375 Turf 0 12 30 42 Plymouth Middle School - L Zachary Playfield - L Bass Lake - L 205 204 102 89 154 85 32 53 19 121 207 104 Parkers Lake - L 300 199 69 268 Wayzata School District Fields Wayzata Central Middle School Stadium - L62 46 62 Kimberly Lane 78 28 106 Wayzata High School Stadium - L 12 35 47 Wayzata Central Middle School 71 71 Wa zata West Middle School 90 90 PI mouth Creek Elementary 139 139 L. 0..4.....1 Ilio+rir+ Mi Irlc III IJUCIIG Jill iuv v, - . .v...... Pilgrim Lane Elementary 8 8 Zachary Lane Elementary E125 16 141 Armstrong High School Stadium - L 22 22 Other rirlelua Providence Academy98 98 West Lutheran 20 20 TOTALSOCCER FOOTBALL - TACKLE & TOUCH City Playfields 1,907 2,353 756 3,119 Plymouth Middle School - L 46 62 Oakwood - L 50 95 Plymouth Creek - L 80 31 Rid emount 4 Bass Lake - L 97 F O., L,L..I flit+rir+ PicArkWayzCIIQ Jl..l lv V, vwu.va . .v...... Wayzata Central Middle School Stadium 29 Wa zata Central Middle School Stadium 45 Wayzata High School Stadium - L 24 RobL;--14 C 4,^^' nic+rir+ Gialric Armstrong High School Stadium - L 7 Armstron High School Sub Varsit 9 TOTAL FOOTBALL 180 399 Total Summer Fall Total 1995 2005 2005 2005 BASEBALL 60-75 Feet City Playfield Zachary - L 77 195 60 255 Bass Lake 24 41 Plymouth Creek - L 87 Plymouth Creek - L 80 68 4 72 Plymouth Middle School - L Elm Creek - L 180 87 10 97 Ridgemount LaCompte Oakwood - L 82 137 152 114 106 10 29 12 162 143 118 Lions 56 62 20 62 Greenwood 8 149 261 175 Timber Shores 7 1 7 4 C.. 4...r.1 nicfrirf GiniticWayz 41O Jl'IIVVI VIJ I..va . Wayzata West Middle School 1511 15 Birchview 31 31 Gleason Lake 20 12 32 Robbinsdale School District Fields Zachary Lane Elements 3011 30 Other Fields Medicine Lake Community Club 3111 31 TOTAL BASEBALL 60-75 Feet 580 1,067 163 1,230 BASEBALL 90 Feet City Playfields Zachary - L Parkers Lake - L 82 148 77 148 77 12 160 Bass Lake 43 41 41 Plymouth Creek - L 87 70 70 Oakwood - L 81 216 Plymouth Creek - L Wayzata School District Fields Wa zata High School321132 831 199 Wa zata Central Middle School Zachary -L 37114 41 Robbinsdale School District Fields Armstrong High School 3111 31 Other Fields West Lutheran 24 24 TOTAL BASEBALL 90 Feet 441 460 16 476 SOFTBALL City Playfield Elm Creek - L 831 199 1,030 Zachary -L 1648 53 4 57 Plymouth Middle School - L 15 216 216 Plymouth Creek - L 173 25 25 Bass Lake 22 34 34 Parkers Lake 56 31 20 51 Ridgemount 8 Greenwood 12 12 Oakwood - L 81 41 10 51 Wayzata School District Fields Central Middle School 5611 2011 76 Wayzata West Middle School 361136 Armstrong School District Fields Armstrong Varsity Softball TF777= 14 14 TOTAL SOFTBALL 2,003 1,349 253 1,602 Total Summer Fall Total 1995 2005 2005 2005 RUGBY City Playfields Elm Creek 21 21 Turf 7 7 Robbinsdale School Uistnct t-ielas Armstrong High School Sub Varsity 411 4 TOTAL RUGBY 32 LACROSSE City Playfields Elm Creek 72 72 Turf 68 68 TOTAL LACROSSE 140 ULTIMATE FRISBEE City Playfields n. Robbinsdale School District F-ielas jArmstrong High School Sub Varsity 811 8 TOTAL ULTIMATE FRISBEE 19 CRICKET City layfields Elm Creek 101110 Bass Lake 2 2 Parkers Lake 4 4 TOTAL CRICKET KICKBALL City Playfields Plymouth Mid Plymouth Cr TOTAL KICKBALL 16 TOTAL GAMES 5,111 24 7,057 increase of 38% 12 12dleSchool - L eek - L I I121L 12 TOTAL GAMES 5,111 24 7,057 increase of 38% tl_JSEP,S OF EXIS'FINC FACI]LI-YIES iTV Tiiful nQ finfthall/Rasehall Multi -Use Zachary 5 softball/baseball 2 multi -use PNHLL Wings Soccer RAYBA PSA AHS Softball AHS Soccer AHS Baseball Armstrong Ultimate Frisbee Club Park & Recreation Park & Recreation Bass Lake 2 softball/baseball 1 multi -use OMGAA Softball Wings Soccer OMGAA Baseball PSA RAYBA OMGFA AHS Baseball AHS Soccer West Lutheran Softball Park & Recreation Park & Recreation Plymouth Creek 3 softball/baseball 2 multi -use West Lutheran Baseball/Softball PSA PWYBA West Lutheran Soccer RAYBA AHS Soccer Park & Recreation Park & Recreation Plymouth Playfield (PMS) 3 softball/baseball 1-3 multi -use J.H. Softball Wings Soccer RAYBA Adult Soccer PWYSA J.H. Soccer PMS Phy Ed J.H. Football Park & Recreation Armstrong Girls Rugby Club ACYFA PMS Phy Ed Elm Creek 4 softball/baseball 5 multi -use WHS Softball WHS Soccer PWYBA WHS Girls Lacrosse PWYSA Wayzata Boys Lacrosse Club WHS Phy Ed Wayzata Boys Lacrosse Assoc. Park & Recreation Wayzata Girls Lacrosse Assoc. Wayzata Boys Rugby Club Wayzata Girls Rugby Club Wayzata Ultimate Frisbee Club WHS Phy Ed WSC PSA Park & Rec Soccer Ridgemount (WEMS) 2 softball/baseball 3 multi -use WEMS Phy Ed WEMS Phy Ed PWYBA PSA Park & Recreation WSC Park & Recreation Greenwood 4 softball/baseball 4 multi -use PWYSA PSA PYWBA WSC Greenwood Phy Ed WHS Soccer Greenwood Phy Ed Park & Recreation Oakwood 4 softballibaseball 3 rnulti-use PWYBA PSA PWYSA WSC Park & Recreation PWYFA Oakwood Phy Ed WHS Soccer WHS Phy Ed Oakwood Phy Ed Park & Recreation LaCompte 2 softball/baseball 1 multi -use 4`h Baptist Church PSA Wayzata Central Middle School PWYBA WSC Parkers Lake 3 softball/baseball 2 multi -use PWYBA WHS Soccer PWYSA PSA West Community Services WSC Birchview Elementary WHS Baseball Park & Recreation Adult Baseball PSA Park & Recreation\ Birchview Phy Ed Lions 1 softballibaseball Park & Recreation PWYBA Timber Shores 1 softball/baseball Park & Recreation Plymouth Creek Turf 1 multi -use PSA WSC Wings Soccer Armstrong Boys Lacrosse Club ACYLA Wayzata Girls Rugby Club West Lutheran Soccer Park & Recreation WAYZATA SCHOOL nirc! ]:)lr Cnfthall/Racehall Multi -Use Wayzata High School 2 softball/baseball 3 multi -use WHS Baseball WHS Soccer Wayzata VFW WHS Football Wayzata Mickey Mantle WSC Wayzata Legion Wayzata Boys Rugby Club WHS Phy Ed Wayzata Girls Rugby Club WHS Girls Lacrosse Wayzata Boys Lacrosse Club WHS Phy Ed Wayzata Central Middle School 3 softballibaseball 3 multi -use WHS Baseball PSA PWYBA WSC PWYSA PWYFA WCMS Phy Ed WCMS Phy Ed Birchview Elementary 2 softballibaseball 1 multi -use PWYBA PSA Birchview Phy Ed Birchview Phy Ed Park & Recreation Gleason Lake 1 softball/baseball 1 multi -use PWYBA PSA Gleason Lake Phy Ed Gleason Lake Phy Ed Armstrong Legion Park & Recreation Kimberly Lane Elementary 1 softball/baseball 2 multi -use PWYBA PSA Kimberly Lane Phy Ed WSC AHS Phy Ed Kimberly Lane Phy Ed Zachary Lane Elementary 2 softball/baseball Park & Recreation Soccer Plymouth Creek Elementary PNHLL 1 multi -use Zachary Phy Ed PSA Park & Recreation WSC Pilgrim Lane Elementary Plymouth Creek Phy Ed Sunset Hills 1 softball/baseball 1 multi -use PWYBA PSA PWYSA Sunset Hills Phy Ed Sunset Hills Phy Ed Park & Recreation Soccer Wayzata Central Middle School 1 multi -use Stadium PWYFA PSA WSC WCMS Phy Ed Wayzata West Middle School 2 softball/baseball 2 multi -use PWYBA PSA PWYSA WSC WWMS Phy Ed WWMS Phy Ed ROBBINSDALE SCHOOL ci...111i2.0o1,-A11 Multi -Use Ia 1 loll 1 Armstrong High School 2 softball/softball 2 multi -use AHS Baseball AHS Football Armstrong VFW AHS Soccer Armstrong Legion AHS Girls Lacrosse RAYBA Armstrong Ultimate Frisbee Club AHS Softball Armstrong Girls Rugby Club ACYSA AHS Phy Ed AHS Phy Ed Zachary Lane Elementary 2 softball/baseball 2 multi -use PNHLL Wings Soccer Zachary Phy Ed Zachary Ln Phy Ed Park & Recreation Park & Recreation Soccer Pilgrim Lane Elementary 2 multi -use Wings Soccer ACYFA Pilgrim Ln Phy Ed carr: n IsnfthAIII/Racehall Multi -Use Medicine Lake Community Club 1 softball/baseball PWYBA West Lutheran High School 1 softball/baseball 1 multi -use PWYBA Wings Soccer PSA Providence Academy 1 multi -use Wings Soccer PSA C)n"ANIZA'Fl"NS 8L "®lJPS USINCB PUVN400>1J F" F lEI-13S BASEBALL SOFTBALL I. AHS = Armstrong High School 1. AHS = Armstrong High School 2. Armstrong Legion 2. ACYSA = Armstrong Cooper Youth Softball Assoc. 3. Armstrong VFW 3. WHS = Wayzata High School 4. RAYBA = Robbinsdale Area Youth Baseball Assoc. 4. PWYSA = Plymouth Wayzata Youth Softball Assoc. 5. PNHLL = Plymouth/New Hope Little League 5. OMGAA = Osseo/Maple Grove Athletic Assoc. 6. WHS = Wayzata High School 6. West Lutheran High School 7. Wayzata Legion 7 4`h Baptist High School 8. Wayzata VFW 8. J.H. = Junior High Softball 9. Wayzata Mickey Mantle 9. West Community Services 10. PWYBA = Plymouth/Wayzata Youth Baseball Assoc. 10. Park & Recreation Programs 11. OMGAA = Osseo/Maple Grove Athletic Assoc. 12. West Lutheran High School 13. Adult Baseball Teams 14. Park & Recreation Programs SOCCER FOOTBALL 1. AHS = Armstrong High School Boys & Girls 1. AHS = Armstrong High School 2. WHS = Wayzata High School Boys & Girls 2. ACYFA = Armstrong Cooper Youth Football Assoc. 3. PSA = Plymouth Soccer Assoc. 3. WHS = Wayzata High School 4. WSC = Wayzata Soccer Club 4. PWYFA = Plymouth Wayzata Youth Football Assoc. 5. Wings Soccer Club 5. OMGFA = Osseo/Maple Grove Football Assoc. 6. West Lutheran High School 6. J.H. = Junior High Football 7. J.H. = Junior High Soccer 7. Park & Recreation Programs 8. Adult Soccer 9. Park & Recreation Programs LACROSSE RUGBY 1. AHS = Armstrong High School Girls Lacrosse 1. Wayzata Boys Rugby Club 2. WHS = Wayzata High School Girls Lacrosse 2. Wayzata Girls Rugby Club 3. Wayzata Boys Lacrosse Club 3. Armstrong Girls Rugby Club 4. Armstrong Boys Lacrosse Club ULTIMATE FRISBEE5. Wayzata Boys Lacrosse Assoc. 6. Wayzata Girls Lacfosse Assoc. 7. ACYLA = Armstrong Cooper Youth Lacrosse Assoc. 1. Wayzata Ultimate Frisbee Club 8. Park & Recreation Programs 2. Armstrong Ultimate Frisbee Club PHY ED CLASSES 1. Wayzata High School 9. Birchview Elementary 2. Armstrong High School 10. Gleason Lake Elementary 3. Wayzata East Middle School 11. Plymouth Creek Elementary 4. Wayzata Central Middle School 12. Kimberly Lane Elementary 5.Wayzata West Middle School 13. Sunset Hills Elementary 6. Plymouth Middle School 14. Zachary Lane Elementary 7. Greenwood Elementary 15. Pilgrim Lane Elementary 8. Oakwood Elementary Total Number of Groups = 68 BENNOINift"WMAr-Mmm N.. - s}' Rim -IN- ah i v1s nttll f/fdr 1111 4 rar G X 11. i '' ` ` ; \ rlNfri I GGi r un llr+r 7uA!1a syiIt `` 1 MINIM ie IIIEIn i1 ulln r 1 a 111 i 1 r Illll ,. 1 ria Hvqln+ln+1 111111 Ire+ r 11i + .111 Il I +1 i iW 111r1+,11+ +nu,. r11 , . I .Il, it 11 11111-1 1 11U r'r s =I`+ nlnli p1 +.rr i k ia.unnl=li _ i11. lam; ins / Y1 f r16_ :iTil tet= G T'I Tw 11 Plavtield Locatio T _ Future k I zlemert ary Future T r ri At fount. "Rclad"'47 r ! - - j t ti r i CtoufTt RO p ! r ........ d rt uFttiir r-' ; y 5 14'o Wider Prererve• t :F 10'•4" Wide :'x ; f Al6n CaunfJAfoad 47 MtuudnousTrail " iYide _ _ [ - F :6iluminousTraJ { - 1 ittsrilfnousTrail ` '9 • Potential BufF¢ra1 j 14'-0"-'--" Along Elm Geek , , ,. Wet brill Ed Bilungn r e+r Interceptor I .. r _ Park -' , Future ,. r y •L v.. 1" AUgnm¢nt teEArting . i NergFtborh¢od - t ....• r l l dl Pr ¢ dland ix Precerve Woo a Ed and ,° •'s er¢rlr .Wop • _ ^apt[. J• _ k" Propert rail Ara dWeilands ' f ° Bu,ferAlang f•"- pisranalYg Trail '• 2'-o"Wirt,! Loo !i} 3 dr••• k • j , I t<i' " P - - ...... _ - _ ." r ••r r ` GDS' f.. - j • Eru". Overhei cc72`.+p"Widet 1R'-4" Wide CrasGng Boardwa n --- M1rT11ti•Usc ••••++ ft ``• •, f Mu1ti•ttce aldic6urg lane •j , aRoa 9. n `• Bituminous Trail f pm¢nto' $ilutTlnvu}Srail d -_ 1. ., I Gtada TrailLrpssing c{ e„• • .ons- ementedDloposedCityTrailF. :' K- Trail Parades s.. i• - oA 1lurrklft[.ane 6. - 1 K r• , LLAlon 1HdcrbtlrLaneB zvgYtr _ ft gn and triPeD ,*E;tRg , ,... _ • : lar. ; e ' n 4a ks r • - 5. . Pr¢rerveAlongwoadlandltutf¢rs Pla .. c , de r - °,'.. Tatedtort •a - mrve aodirail orridw ' #i 4 f- g s` t' .. i r f 'Gott Course Quin r plana slope to Field Lane 1 b1lowAlignment .T=+ r , t - tifg d iYripPL7,. Living ti 1. •-% 3 • ' *. • . rt j toFarm 't- '- t r' a •,,\\t., o r t k Potential 'S, , Property ! t 1 Ll Maintain z 4.' p 1 Lim one 7rail¢ is ( I' Ca : ,;4 open 9] S Potential Woodland . Ts .._ Sate `. Alon La1!¢fronl .°• Lake t .T -r y Buffer i j * :, 3 Trailhead Parcel r + • - wise ; '- E111L ree$ Jf G + Biluminour Tram: Rer! Area4 yr tiffs Overlook f t ipua rtrar S} 4 4- _1 1: . N • ` Ing 1 L tF !'-'...•;•''• •• t fpurTrail vt14,.ti.. Connection {, - - It t' '.r t _ 6 toReside'ntial ;._ ^ t y ` rushed Park Houring _ arsi ton Property c C r 40 Qq 4 ' Resi ATea Prepused GtY e Trail Along CDrrlook ^ • t t - + s' V Peony - ,•+', Elirlitlif i : r ,all lingfeFamlly h + - ciao.•_ ++' fIrFd_E ''itewResiderrli _ I - T Dr P` Rowing MCoonnectnnect- ion 3 , 1 h y , to High School I' Mainlaitl ' I .: - . -'- .. + Woodland Trail Buffer yr t • - ; - T, ProvidenceaytataSeni $At•Grad, x''14 t_ - _ Water Stoke ¢ fi Hi 9 }TfBilCrc!<rmy Ata ' IderFirl4reGrade g Facility' y 3' yd dem paraled Cresnng t . Pr 1 Gty Trail _ on Sdamdt lake Road _ - - - ..'- qq 1 - 1 1 ar. Y , 3 rn i d t L R o t R--- _' ..— L .... __._ New Schmidt - y •. _ i, ._ ... _ xlr-! i lake Road Connection f r t'rinai Trail Connection - 1 1 Wryfrom - - ., - _ 40 to thYP fchnidtWkeRoad, Holl dal¢ Golf Course T,4 W.' l -A” M I d-:11 W A 111.101a T, Sixty Wayzata High School students tried out for the junior varsity and varsity boys' lacrosse teams earlier this month at the Plymouth Creek Center dome. A tough sell PREPS from Cl It isn't easy far a sport to get sanctioned by the Minnesotaf s> State High School League, especially it it is a boys' sport. Here's 27 S®f tai a look at the newest sports added: L. Sport Year add ed lit q Girls' synchronized swimming................................ 1985-86 S%i2C l i2 i a Coed adapted sports (floor hockey; soccer, softball).. 199394 1Vll]Z%Z.S® Minnesota Girls' hockey.........................................................1994-95 badminton 1995-96Girls' ..................................................... 1999-2000Co-ed adapted bowling ............. ...............I............. Nudging a sport into the Girls' lacrosse ....................................................... 2001-02 realm of the sanctioned lends h History lessoninstantprestigeandlegitin,acy, C: s f,:,,,,- sia The most rec n stens rapped by the k45HSL, with year theirrrp;dm tt, an official state + ,u, u"- is last le - sanow—;i .. .,..._ _ i..l.. t rP. mac t s ,rs_" , s' e sal2 during Nhei c,vo Fat 3e8. Minnesota has 4Ca boys' club la has a three years arc. SIIzort etaa . r srrt.t -.` vuzd ean_tianed Na VayzaU _-LW--..k_, worke=d on drills dwing tlw r %ryout, il tAd, "J"Rennescr Via.; 40 bays' club Ia- rosse Programs, with sil-i more star ing in spring. Girls' gw• rx:;.-,. was , af.'Cu6ne"n three rears ago. rsevs clutched rosin bags like Torry heads. Proud parents ner- ously looked on. Yet for many bowlers, some - ung still was missing. We're treated like a second - lass sport," said Greg Seath, junior at Mankato West, the 003 state champion. "It's not ven treated like a sport by some eople, but it should be." The Bowling Proprietors As- ciation of Minnesota (BPAM) as been making that pitch for to better part of a decadewith- ut success. Two springs ago, a proposal to inction bowling fell four votes tort of the two-thirds needed tong the league's 90 -member presentative assembly. The Iain concern was finances. After the state's bowling pro- rietors pledged to keep provid- tg free lanes for practices and Leets, the proposal reappeared to next year — and failed by ane votes. Kenn Rockier, executive di- ctor of BPAM, said athletic di- ctors were concerned about tturday youth bowling leagues ting afoul of the "independent ay" rule, which forbids high hool players from taking part outside competition during e season. In light of that hangup, "I n't think there would be a ranee of passing it this [spring]; to want to use yo ur energy in a sitive way," Rockler said. its that are not sanctioned ' Minnesota State High as on 95 co-ed teams in S; sanctioned for boys in d it this year. include `Benilde St: V, Holy Angels, M nne- rnka, Eden Pra rie and s on 46 varsity club is, 44 JV teams and an re teams In Minnesota in s in 17 states; sanctioned fear states have added it i ,,,i,,,c e Breoi:, > ,1,:: a. i ,d That's ironic in his viev,. On - til recently, Minnesota has been a leader in high school bowling, with BPAM sponsoring club bowling for the past 24 years and 95 coed teams dotting the state. Meanwhile, 14 states — many with nascent club programs already have made bays' and girls' bowling a varsity sport. Another, less -voiced con- cern might have hurt bowling's chances. I hate to say it, but some people think bowling is all about smoking and drinking," said Josh Hodney, BPAM's as- sociate director. "That's not the case. During matches, no smoking or alcohol is allowed near the lanes." Without league sanctioning, most school districts — an esti- mated 60 to 70 percent — aren't willing to give bowling varsity status. That's the case at Maple Grove. Although its club team won the 2004 state title, the school didn't hold a pep assembly to celebrate because "you anger more people by forgetting something," athlet- ic director Mark Corless said. "We have a paintball group. Ultimate Frisbees trying to get going. And that's just off the top of my head here." Which is Rockler's very Point. Sanctioning legitimizes the sport," he said. "There's a differ- ence between belonging to a bowling drib and officially rep- resenting your high school." Lacwosseo Booming Dan Forsyth remembers the day he watched the NCAA lacrosse championship on TV and thought: "That looks like fun." Then a freshman and dis- enchanted baseball player at Armstrong, Forsyth decided to try lacrosse and spent a season playing for the Hopkins club team. The next year, he and his dad, Mike, contacted a coach and started a club at Armstrong. Seventy boys showed up on signup day. Three years later, Armstrong has three boys' lacrosse squads varsity, JV and freshman/ sophomore — plus four volun- teer coaches, a lacrosse board and a booster club. All told, Minnesota has 46 boys' club programs, with six more starting this spring. Cur- rently, a Sunday night winter league is underway. Girls' lacrosse was sanc- tioned by the MSHSL three years ago, but the boys are still waiting. It's growing; there are newpro- grams popping up every year," said Forsyth, a midfielder being court- ed by several Division I schools. Eventually it'll happen." For Forsyth, sanctioning is more about fields than legiti- macy or varsity letters. Because Armstrong was concerned that Piaiev/Star Tribune The mom jecem sports dropped by the MSHISI_ .i ii ye,: _heir Iasi el r, aic. Sportu pas= yVai Boys' curling........................................................... 1977 Boys' ski jumping .............................._.................... 1978 Boys' gymnastics.................................................... 1983 lacrosse would chew up the grass field in its stadium, For- syth's squad had to practice in a community center gym for a month, then moved to a park field without fines. In the fall of 2003, boys' la- crosse looked to be a shoo-in for sanctioning. Howard Rogers, executive director of Minnesota Lacrosse Association, had spent the previous year lobbying the leagues assembly. But at its November meeting, seven of my yesses were out with the flu," he said, and the proposal fell two votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed. At the same meeting, the as- sembly changed the timing for the approval process — mean- ing boys' lacrosse can't compete as an MSHSL-sponsored sport until 2006 at the earliest. The proposal is expected to be ap- proved for consideration at the league's mid-Maymeeting. The main objections among athletic directors and coaches who voted against the proposal came down to finances. They worried that schools would be forced to start lacrosse teams with start-up costs of more than $11,000 — and that fields would get ruined. Rogers countered that schools are under no obliga- tion to start lacrosse teams and that the sport doesn't tear up fields anymore than soccer does. As for budget issues: "We understand the climate; every- thing is desperate," he said. But we're willing to dig into our pockets." Meanwhile the burgeoning sport is becoming more diffi- cult every year to manage by a statewide association made up of volunteer coaches. We should have been var- sity a couple years ago, when we had 30 teams," Rogers said. Now, we're nearly double that, and we'll be another third great- er than that by 2006. It's hard to get your arms around it." Loss of freedom In spite of all the good that league sanctioning would bring, even hicrosss aAicionadnssee a diiwbackar two. The biggest: ?' e', tdniit.cicirtte coaches also would have limits placed on offseason coaching and clinics. Under the current setup, you have more leniency and less rules," said Ian Flam, a Wayzata coach and the com- munications officer for the Min- neso to Boys' Scholastic Lacrosse Association. Likewise, some bowlers — and bowling proprietors — see a downside to sanctioning. Not only would league supervision take away autonomy, it could lead to the end of coed high school teams because schools could field an all -female team if enough girls go out for the sport. Personally, I'm fine with it not being sanctioned just because we have such a good team with both boys and girls," said Amber Geh- rke, a Mankato West junior. "We have such a variety. I like that." For sports even further on the fringe, freedom is exactly what makes their sport appealing. While there are 29 boys' and girls' high school rugby teams in the metro area, sanctioning isn't necessarily what we want to see happen," said Guy Wray, Wayzata's girls' rugby coach and communications director for the Minnesota Amateur Rugby Foundation. Because rugby has no tryouts or cuts, it draws kids who might feel disenfranchised by the high school system. What's more, if it did become sanctioned, "then we would be required to coach'x' days a week to comply," Wray said. As volunteers, we dont necessar- fly have the time to do that" Ultimate Frisbee finds itself in a similar situation. With 20 coed club teams in Minnesota, We're still in our infancy," said Eden Prairie co-head coach Mi- chael Stanefski. "Frankly, we're still trying to get organized, get out some of the kinks." If the sport grows enough to consider seeking league over- sight, its self -officiated games could pose a challenge. Unlike most other sports, ultimate Fris- bee players are on their honor not to cheat. Once it's all governed," Sta- netski said, "the more con, ro- mised that could get." DATE: March 16, 2006 TO: Laurie Ahrens FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Study Session — Land Acquisition Northwest Plymouth Attached for Council review is some of the technical information we'll be presenting at the Tuesday night Special Study session regarding land acquisition in northwest Plymouth. Information in the packet relates to what we currently own and operate as our playfield system and as we see the need for future expansion. Because of our limited time on Tuesday night, we will need to move very quickly through this data to allow the Council time to ask questions and give direction to staff on how to proceed. Because we are just in the beginning process of updating the comprehensive plan, there is some technical data that we won't be able to review until the land use guiding has been determined by the City Council. EB/np Park Dedication Fee Fact Sheet By statute, cities "...may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, recreation facilities... playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space...". Statute also states that a ..."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...". In order to follow the statute, the City of Plymouth developed a formula for park dedication fees based on a benchmark of land per capita and market value for the land. Based on the 2000 Comprehensive Plan, the City determined that existing parkland and open space amounted to .0183 acres per capita. This amount was adopted as the standard for future park land need, and has since been utilized to determine the amount of land that should be required for donation, or the required cash fee in lieu of land. The park dedication fee (currently $4,000 maximum per dwelling unit) paid in each development may vary. Different housing types have different average household sizes. Single family detached dwellings are estimated to average 3.1 persons per unit. Duplexes and townhomes are estimated to average 2 persons per unit. Multi -family dwellings are estimated to average 1.9 persons per unit. The total expected population in each development is multiplied by the per capita share (.0183) to determine how much land is required. The resulting number - the acres of land required for that development - is then multiplied by the current land value to determine the maximum cash donation in lieu of land, up to the maximum amount per unit established by the City (currently $4,000). The following table shows several examples of the maximum per unit fee for various housing types and land values if the $4,000 maximum were not in existence: Maximum Potential Fee 5,673 3,477 11,346 6,954 17,019 10,431 Since land prices are now in the $200,000 to $300,000 range, it is clear that the City can justify a higher rate than $4,000 based on the need for park land created by residential development. However, there is the practical consideration of how much the market will consider generally acceptable. The following is a list of park dedication fees for Plymouth and other cities: Land Value Single Family 100,000 per acre Multi -Family 100,000 per acre Single Family 200,000 per acre Multi -Family 200,000 per acre Single Family 300,000 per acre Multi -Family 300,000 per acre Maximum Potential Fee 5,673 3,477 11,346 6,954 17,019 10,431 Since land prices are now in the $200,000 to $300,000 range, it is clear that the City can justify a higher rate than $4,000 based on the need for park land created by residential development. However, there is the practical consideration of how much the market will consider generally acceptable. The following is a list of park dedication fees for Plymouth and other cities: 2005 2006 Maple Grove (Single -Family) 4,000 5,500 Eden Prairie (Single -Family) 3,400 5,000 Apple Valley (Single -Family) 4,584 4.584 Bloomington (Single -Family) 4,800 Plymouth (Max Per Unit) 3,400 4,000 Prior Lake (Single -Family) 3,750 3,750 Brooklyn Park (Single -Family) 3,400 3,600 Burnsville (Single -Family) 2,288 2,860 Woodbury (Single -Family) 2,000 2,500 Agenda Number: TO: Laurie Abrens ity Manager FROM: Mike KoKK%-' "C ial Analyst and Eric Blank, Park & Recreation Director SUBJECT: Potential Park System Projects and Financing DATE: March 8, 2006 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Evaluate this report and place the issue of future park system projects and financing on a future City Council study session agenda for further consideration. 2. BACKGROUND: The Park and Recreation department has prepared a list of projects that they would like to accomplish to finish off the park system for the City of Plymouth (see Attachment I). Some of these items may change, be added to, or be eliminated as part of the Comprehensive Plan process. However, they currently represent the best menu of potential projects available. In addition, the Park and Recreation and Administrative Services departments have attempted to estimate revenues that may be available to pay for these projects (see Attachment II). Once again, these revenue estimates may change significantly based on decisions made in the Comprehensive Plan process. These projections can be compared in total to see if the list of projects is reasonable in total. These projections must also be compared from a timing perspective to see if the projects can be adequately cashflowed. The figures developed for this report rely heavily on a great number of assumptions regarding land costs, land donation vs. fee collection, park dedication fee amounts, inflation, ultimate land use, community needs and others. In general we feel the report is fairly accurate with the understanding that the margin of error is potentially in the $1,000,000 plus range. 3. DISCUSSION: Expenditures The list of potential projects (Attachment I) includes items already contained in the CIP (bold.) as well as items which were omitted from the CIP due to timing or cost considerations. The items contained in the CIP are projected to cost approximately $5,150,000 and it is projected that these items can be adequately financed with funds on hand, plus projected park dedication fees received in the next five year period. The other projects on the list include: development costs for six neighborhood parks (the assumption is that the land — approximately 40 acres - will be donated); additional cost for acquisition of the 10th play -field due to rising land prices; possible acquisition of an additional 20 acres for the 10th play -field; development of 15 miles of trails; acquisition of approximately 23 acres of land for the Northwest Greenway Corridor (it is assumed that about 30 acres of trail corridor will be donated); development of the Northwest Greenway Corridor; 10th playfield development; West Med Park building; Parker's Lake pavilion upgrade; Zachary Park program building; skate park; and tennis dome. In total, this list represents projects with a cumulative total cost of $38 million. Revenues Attachment II, which projects park dedication fee revenues, consists of three separate tables illustrating three separate scenarios. The first scenario is based on the Metropolitan Council's estimates on household growth for the City of Plymouth. The Met Council projects that Plymouth will add 6,000 households between 2005 and 2030 with specific targets in 2010 and 2020. Based on this information, a computation of land donation vs. fee revenues, and a projection of fee increases, the first scenario estimates revenues of $5.3 million by 2010, $22.5 million by 2020 and $45.6 million by 2030. If this scenario is correct the City would receive more than enough revenue from the Park Dedication Fund to eventually pay for all the items in the Potential Parks Projects list. The second scenario reflects what could potentially happen if the City of Plymouth chooses to develop at a lower density than desired by the Met Council. This scenario projects a total of 5,000 new households by 2030. Based on this information, the second scenario estimates revenues of $3.3 million by 2010, $17.8 million by 2020, and $36.8 million by 2030. If this scenario is correct the City would receive just about enough revenue from the Park Dedication Fund to pay for all the items in the Potential Park Projects list. The third scenario reflects what could happen if the City of Plymouth chooses to develop at an even lower density. This scenario projects a total of 4,000 new households by 2030. Based on this information, the third scenario estimates revenues of $23 million by 2010, $14 million by 2020, and $26.4 million by 2030. If this scenario is correct, the City would not receive enough revenue from the Park Dedication Fund to pay for all the items on the Potential Park Projects list. All of these scenarios are greatly affected by a number of assumptions. One of the primary assumptions is the park dedication fee. Currently, the fee is $4,000 per unit for residential property. Several other communities have fees that are considerably higher than $4,000. In addition, a model based on land costs of $150,000 per acre and 6,000 new units suggests that a fee of up to $6,400 could be justified, When the model is nm based on land costs of $200,000 per acre and 4,000 new units it suggests that a fee of up to $9,300 could be justified. The Council may wish to become more aggressive in raising park dedication fees which would greatly impact the amount of revenues that would be received. 2 Cashflows For the most part, development costs are assumed to increase at the rate of inflation (3%). Land costs are quite another matter. Raw land prices in Plymouth have increased dramatically over the years. The attached table (Attachment III) shows the escalation of land prices since 1969. From 1969 to 2005 land prices have gone up an average of 13% per year. However, there has been a recent spike in land prices both inside and outside the MUSA area, and in adjacent areas such as Maple Grove. Land speculation by developers who believe that development will be allowed in NW Plymouth, as a result of Comprehensive Plan modifications, is well underway. Any actual change in the Comprehensive Plan may cause land values to shoot even higher. To provide some perspective, land is currently going for over $300,000 per acre in Maple Grove for property that is served by sewer and water. Other areas of Plymouth are seeing '/2 acre lots served by streets and utilities going for nearly $500,000. Given the rapidly increasing price of land, it is clear that land acquisition should be a priority, if the City does desire to add a 10th Playfield and create a Northwest Greenway Corridor. On the bottom of Attachment I there is a breakout entitled "Select Land Acquisition". This breaks out the cost of land acquisition for the 10th Playfield (40 acres only) plus the Northwest Greenway. The cost per acre for the 10th Playfield has been held at $200,000 per acre since negotiations are currently underway. The cost of land for the Northwest Greenway has been inflated from the current price of $200,000 per acre by 15% per year and is projected to be acquired in 2007, 2008, and 2009. In total, it is estimated that it will cost approximately $14,000,000 to acquire the 10th Playfield and Northwest Greenway. Of this amount, $4,000,000 is already programmed into the CIP and is funded by monies currently in the Capital Improvement Fund, Community Improvement Fund, and Park Dedication Fund, as well as park dedication proceeds that will hopefully be received over the next 5 years. This leaves a shortfall of approximately 10,000,000 if only land, and the other items contained in the CIP, are done in the 2006-2010 timeframe. A ItPrnativPc To solve this cashflow issue the City has only a few alternatives. Most available reserves have already been spoken for which leads to the conclusion that some form of debt must be utilized. There are two reasonable debt alternatives for the acquisition of the 10th Playfield and Northwest Greenway: 1) General Obligation debt backed by a tax levy on the taxable market value of the City (requires referendum), and 2) Annual Appropriation Lease Revenue Bonds backed by future park dedication fees (does not require a referendum). The single most important consideration when evaluating these two alternatives is to answer the question of who should be paying to support the debt service (and ultimately the land purchase). There are several items to consider including: who will use the facilities, historical precedents, and the purpose of fees being collected. When evaluating the 10th Playfield we would argue that this facility is primarily required to serve the new residents who will be moving into NW Plymouth as it develops. Consequently, it would seem reasonable that the new residents should pay for that facility with the park dedication fees that they generate vs. usage of a general tax levy paid for by all residents, including those who have already paid for playfields located in other areas of the community Park dedication fees are authorized for the acquisition, development and expansion of park facilities necessary to serve new development. Therefore, use of these fees to acquire the 10`1' Playfield would seem to be a good fit. When evaluating the NW Greenway we would argue that this is primarily open space that benefits the community as a whole. Consequently, the acquisition of this property should be paid for by the City as a whole. This has been the City's past practice. The last time the City acquired open space it was paid for by $2,235,000 of GO bonds issued in 1995. When making the decision to issue debt, the City must remain cognizant that this will likely not be the only debt that will be issued by the City :in the not too distant future. It is likely that the City may have to issue some debt for future street reconstruction projects, a fourth fire station, and reconstruction/expansion of streets such as Vicksburg Lane, CR 47, and possibly others. Summary If the City desires to acquire land for a 10'h Playfield and NW Greenway in the near future it may make sense to issue two separate bond issues. 'The first would be an Annual Appropriation Lease Revenue Bond for the 10`h Playfield. This would enable the City to use future park dedication fees to pay for the purchase of the property. If a portion of the funds currently earmarked for use in the purchase of the 10`h playfield were used, the bond issue could be bought down to approximately $6,000,000. The remainder of the proceeds could be transferred into the Park Dedication Fund to cashflow debt service and other park dedication funded projects. Two examples of cashflows are attached (see Attachment IV). If this option is acceptable it could be done fairly quickly without waiting for a referendum in November of this year. This could result in more favorable sales terms. The second bond issue would be a General Obligation bond issue for purchase of the portion of the NW Greenway not likely to be acquired through land dedication. It has been the City's past practice to purchase open space with GO issues which results in the spreading of the cost on all taxable market value in the City. If a GO bond is pursued, it would require that the item be placed on the ballot as a referendum question at either the November, 2006 or 2007 general elections. The date for notification of the County for intent to place an item on the ballot is September 1.5 of each year. If a GO bond were issued for the approximately $6,000,000 cost of acquiring the NW Greenway Corridor, it would result in an annual levy of $23.14 for an average valued home of $356,200 see Attachment V). This would be at least partially offset by the maturity of the current open space bond which matures in 2010. This maturity will free up approximately $10.77 of levy from the average valued home for other uses (which may not be parks related). 4. BUDGET IMPACT: Any action taken to increase the authorized costs or change funding sources for acquisition of the 10th Playfield and NW Greenway will require an amendment to the 2006-2010 CIP. 4 5. RECOMMENDATION: The scope and funding of future park system projects is a complex issue with potentiai long-term ramifications. Due to market conditions, and deadlines for submission of ballot referendum questions, it is important that staff receive some timely direction on which course(s) of action to pursue to ensure the future that the City Council desires. Consequently, staff would recommend that the City Council place the issue of future park projects and financing on a future study session agenda for more detailed analysis and consideration. Potential Park Projects - 2006 to 2020 Inflation - Land ln0ation Development Item NW Greenway - Acquis€t€on 10th Playfield - Acquisition 10th Ptayfreld -Acquis€tion Current CIP - Other Funds 10th Playfield - Acquisition New Trails Transfer to Park Replacement Fund Current CIP - Park Dedication Fund Neighborhood Park - Development (1) Neighborhood Park - Development (2) Neighborhood Park - Development (3) Neighborhood Park - Development (4) Neighborhood Park - Development (5) Neighborhood Park - Development (6) Cost Increase - 10th Playfield - Acquisition (5200,000 per acre) 10th Playfield - Acquisition - Extra 20 acres ($200,000 per acre) Additional Trails - Development (Total 15 Miles) ($100,000 mile) NW Greenway -Acquisition (23 acres - majority donated) NW Greenway - Development (2 miles paved) (underpasses - Vicksburg & Cheshire) 70th Playfield Development (estimated current cost $6,000,000) West Med Park Building (estimated current cost $2,000,000) Parker's Lake Pavilion Upgrade (estimated current cost $500,000) Zachary Park Program Building (estimated current cost $1,000,000) Skate Park (estimated current cost $350,000) Tennis Dome (estimated current cost $750,000) (Could potentially pay itself back) Total Cumulative Total Park Dedication Total Cumulative Park Dedication Total Select Land Acquisition 10th Playfield - Acquisition - 40 Acres ($200,500 per acre) NW Greenway - Acquisition (23 acres - majority donated) Items Included in Park Dedication Gashflow Projection 15,00% 3.00% Attachment I Funding Source 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2042 2013 2074 2015 201E 20_17 2018 2015 202G Capital Improvement 350,000 Community improvement ;'7.59;000 50!1,00(]' ,750;000 :250;000 Capital Improvement 2501000 Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Park Dedication Paris Dedication Loan 750,'000 .250;000 259;000 2501,000 1.5.,"00.0 75,000 76-,-q60 .160;000 110;000 50irobo, < . -Suou 50;1100 -100 000 10%,900 32S;000 344;793 A. Goo.Ooo 1.,000;000 1;0001000 1,000;000 2,645,000 3,041,750 1,763,333 2,027,833 2,332,008 365;790 41'1;700 438;773 173;891 (.7.9;1.08 184;961 190;011 1.95;716 ,201;5a7 2071-635 M.,864 220;280 226;888 874,503 3,477,622 3,582,157 2,251, 018 5 97, 026 1,229,874 371,315 869,456 2,975,000 4,213,333 7,169,148 7,418,550 3,343,521 4,886,959 4,358,291 1,802,422 190,016 607,416 201,587 644,408 213,864 220,280 226,888 7,188,333 14,357,481 21,776,031 25,119,552 30,006,511 34,364,802 36,167,224 36,357,240 36,964,656 37,166,243 37,810,651 38,024,515 38,244,795 38,471,684 1,875,000 3,463,333 6,419,148 7,168,550 3,343,521 4,886,959 4,358,291 1,802,422 190,016 607,416 201,587 644,408 213,864 220,280 226,888 5,338,333 11,757,481 18,926,031 22,269,552 27,156,511 31,514,802 33,317,224 33,507,240 34,114,656 34,316,243 34,960,651 35,174,515 35,394,795 35,621,684 2,500,000 1,750,000 2,250,000 7,50n,000 1,763,333 2,027,833 2,332,008 Already Funded - CIP Total Sub -Total 350,000 2,250, 000 250,000 2,850,000 1,500,000 435,000 358,000 325,000 344,793 365,790 388,067 411,700 436,773 4,000,000 5,686,750 1,993,467 6,123,174 874,503 7,059,979 2,251,018 597,026 1,229, 874 371,315 869,456 38,471,684 35,621,684 8,000,000 6.123,174 14 ,123,174 4.000,000 10,123,174 2,293, 000 Attachment II Park Dedication Fee Projections Based on current Met Council Household Estimates Current Met Council Househuld Estimates 2004 27,206 2005 27,500 2010 29,000 2020 31,500 2030 33,500 Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Annual Total 300 27,800 300 28,100 300 28,400 300 28,700 300 29,000 250 29,250 250 29,500 250 29,750 250 30,000 250 30,250 250 30,500 250 30,750 250 31,000 250 31,250 250 31,500 200 31,700 200 31,900 200 32,100 200 32,300 200 32,500 200 32,700 200 32,900 200 33,100 200 33,300 200 33.500 Increase From 2005 1,500 4,000 6,000 Fee Increase (2006-2015) Fee Increase (2016-2030) Percent Land 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 0.2717 1.1 1.05 Park Dedication Fee 4,000 4,400 4,840 5,324 5,856 6,442 7,086 7,795 8,574 9,432 9,903 10,399 10,918 11,464 12,038 12,640 13,271 13,935 14,632 15,363 16,132 16,938 17,785 18,674 19,608 O:\Accounting\WRKSHTS\Mkohn\Comp Plan\[Future Park Dedication Fees.xls)Met Council Estimates Cumulative Revenues Revenues 873,960 961,356 1,057,492 1,163, 241 1,279,565 5,335,613 1,172,934 1,290,228 1,419,251 1,561,176 1,717,293 1,803,158 1,893,316 1,987,982 2,087,381 2,191,750 22,460,081 1,841,070 1,933,123 2,029,779 2,131,268 2,237,832 2,349,723 2,467,210 2,590,570 2,720,099 2,856,104 45,616,860 Park Dedication Fee Projections Based on 5,000 New Housing Units 5.000 New Units Increase From 2005 2004 27,206 2005 27,500 2010 28,500 1,000 2020 30,750 3,250 2030 32,500 5,000 Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 202:1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Annual Total 200 27,700 200 27,900 200 28,100 200 28,300 200 28,500 225 28,725 225 28,950 225 29,175 225 29,400 225 29,625 225 29,850 225 30,075 225 30,300 225 30,525 225 30,750 175 30,925 175 31,100 175 31,275 175 31,450 175 31,625 175 31,800 175 31,975 175 32,150 175 32,325 175 32,500 Fee Increase (2006-2015) Fee Increase (2016-2030) Percent Land 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 0.3166 Attachment II Park Dedication Fee 4,000 4,400 4,840 5,324 5,856 6,442 7 '086 7,795 13,574 9,432 9,903 10,399 10,918 11,464 12,038 12,640 13,271 13,935 14,632 15,363 16,132 16,938 17,785 18,674 19,608 0:1Accounting\WRKSHTS\Mkohn\Comp Plan\[Future Part: Dedication Fees.xls]5000 New Units Cumulative Revenues Revenues 546,720 601,392 661,531 727,684 800,453 3,337,780 990,560 1,089,616 1,198,578 1,318,436 1,450,279 1,522,793 1,598,933 1,678,880 1,762,824 1,850,965 17,799,644 1,511,621 1,587,202 1,666,562 1,749,890 1,837,385 1,929,254 2,025,717 2,127,003 2,233,353 2,34S,021 36, 812, 653 Park Dedication Fee Projections Based on 4,000 New blousing Units 4,000 New Units Increase From 2005 2004 27,20E 2005 27,500 2010 28,250 750 2020 30,250 2,750 2030 31,500 4,000 Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Annual Total 150 27,650 150 27,800 150 27,950 150 28,100 150 28,250 200 28,450 200 28,650 200 28,850 200 29,050 200 29,250 200 29,450 200 29,650 200 29,850 200 30,050 200 30,250 125 30,375 125 30,500 125 30,625 125 30,750 125 30,875 125 31,000 125 31,125 125 31,250 125 31,375 125 31,500 Fee Increase (2006-2015) Fee Increase (2016-2030) Percent Land 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 0.3755 Attachment II Park Dedication Fee 4,000 4,400 4,840 5,324 5,856 6,442 7,086 7,795 8,574 9,432 9,903 10,399 10,918 11,464 12,038 12,640 13,271 13,935 14,632 15,363 16,132 16,938 17,785 18,674 19,608 O:\Accounting\WRKSHI'SWkohn\Comp Plan\[Future Park Dedication Fees.xls14000 New Units Cumulative Revenues Revenues 374,700 412,170 453,387 498,726 548,598 2,287,581 804,611 885,072 973,579 1,070,937 1,178,031 1,236,932 1,298,779 1,363,718 1,431,904 1,503,499 14,034,642. 986,671 1,036,005 1,087,805 1,142,195 1,199,305 1,259,270 1,322,234 1,388,345 1;457,763 1,530,651 26,444, 885 Attachment III Rave Land Prices - Plymouth Year. Actuals 10.23% 10.23% 13.72% 17.71% 15.81% 21.64% Cost Per Acre 13.00% 1969 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 1970 2,425 2,425 2,486 1971 2,673 2,673 2,809 1972 2,946 2,946 3,174 1973 3,248 3,248 3,587 1974 3,580 3,580 4,053 1975 3,946 3,946 4,580 1976 4,349 4,349 5,176 1977 4,794 4,794 5,849 1978 5,284 5,284 6,609 1979 5,825 5,825 7,468 1980 6,420 6,420 8,439 1981 7,077 7,077 9,536 1982 7,800 7,800 7800 7,800 10,776 1983 8,598 8,598 12,176 1984 9,477 9,477 13,759 1985 10,447 10,447 15,548 1986 11,515 11,515 17,569 1987 12,693 12,693 19,853 1988 13,992 13,992 22,434 1989 15,423 15,423 25,351 1990 17,000 17,000 17000 17,000 28,646 1991 19,332 19,332 32,370 1992 21,984 21,984 36,579 1993 25,000 25,000 25000 25,000 41,334 1994 29,428 29,428 46,707 1995 34,641 34,641 52,779 1996 40,777 40,777 59,640 1997 48,000 48,000 48000 48,000 67,394 1998 55,590 55,590 76,155 1999 64,379 64,379 86,055 2000 74,558 74,558 97,242 2001 86,347 86,347 109,884 2002 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 124,168 2003 121,644 121,644 140,310 2004 147,973 147,973 158,551 2005 180,000 180,000 180,000 179,162 Raw Land Pnces In Plymouth 1969-Present. xis 3/7/2006 Ana-chment. IV Park Dedication Fund 6 Million Dollar - 15 Year Bond Issue Year Beginning Cash Balance Park Ded Fees Capital Expenditures Debt Service Interest Ending Cash Balance 2006 3,970,000 598,775 2,125,006 112,241 2,556,016 2007 2,556,016 249,348 450,000 558,682 81,613 1,878,295 2008 1,878,295 274,283 125,000 558,682 66,944 1,535,840 2009 1,535,840 567,911 544,793 558,682 57,063 1,057,339 2010 1,057,339 439,200 218,000 558,682 44,430 764,286 2011 764,286 804,611 539,681 558,682 30,871 501,4-05 2012 501,405 885,072 179,108 558,682 28,752 677,439 2013 677,439 973,579 572,548 558,682 29,931 549,719 2014 549,719 1,070,937 190,016 558,682 35,542 907,500 2015 907,500 1,178,031 6071416 558,682 45,673 96 5, 10 6 2016 965,106 1,236,932 201.587 558,682 60,172 1,501,941 2017 1,501,941 1,298,779 644,108 558,682 77,489 1,675.119 2018 1,675,119 1,363,718 213..864 558,682 98,535 2,364,827 2019 2,364,827 1,431,904 22.0,280 558,682 134,565 3. 152.334 2020 3,152,334 1,503,499 226,888 558,682 175,565 4,045,827 2621 1.045.827 986.671 555.682 212,r>91 4.(586,8(18 Includes: transfer in of $2,500,000 of Capital Improvement Fund and Community lmprovemeni 1,und money 5;2,000,000 cash expenditure on 10th PLiyfield in 2006. all items currently in CAP.. development of 6 additional neighborhood parks. development of 15 miles of additional trails. Park dedication fees revenues based on detailed projection through 2010 and 4,000 housin, unit projection for future years. Attachment IV Park Dedication Fund 6 Million Dollar - 20 Year Bond Issue Includes: transfer in of $2,500,000 of Capital Improvement Fund and Community Improvemeni Fun, money, $2,000,000 cash expenditure on 10th Playfield in 2006, all items currently in CIP, development of 6 additional neighborhood parks, development of 15 miles of additional trails. Park dedication fees revenues based on detailed projection through 2010 and 4,000 housing unit projection for future years.. Beginning Park Ded Capital Ending Year Cash Balance Fees Expenditures Debt Service Interest Cash Balance 2006 3,970,000 598,775 2,125,000 112,241 2,556,016 2007 2,556,016 249,348 450,000 471,302 83,251 1,967,314 2008 1,967,314 274,283 125,000 471,302 72,252 1,717.547 2009 1,717,547 567,911 544,793 471,302 67,205 1,336,568 2010 1,336,568 439,200 218,000 471,302 60,576 1,147.042 2011 1,147,042 804,611 539,681 471,302 52,193 992,863 2012 992,863 885,072 179,108 471,302 55,510 1,283,034 2013 1,283,034 973,579 572,548 471,302 62,395 1,275,158 2014 1,275,158 1,070,937 190,016 471,302 73,998 1,758,776 2015 1,758,776 1,178,031 60'1,416 471,302_ 90,422 1,948,510 2016 1,948,510 1,236,932 201,587 471,302 111,527 2,624.,080 2017 2,624,080 1,298,779 644,408 471,302 135,781 2,942,930 2018 2,942,930 1,363,718 213,864 471,302 164,110 3,785,592 2019 3,785,592 1,431,904 220,280 471,302 207,788 4,733,702 2020 4,733,702 1,503,499 226,888 471,302 256,818 5,795,829 2021 5,795 821) 986,671 471,302 302,676 6,6 13,87, Includes: transfer in of $2,500,000 of Capital Improvement Fund and Community Improvemeni Fun, money, $2,000,000 cash expenditure on 10th Playfield in 2006, all items currently in CIP, development of 6 additional neighborhood parks, development of 15 miles of additional trails. Park dedication fees revenues based on detailed projection through 2010 and 4,000 housing unit projection for future years.. Attachment V Debt Service on 15 Year Bond Issue For Parks Options 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000 10,000,000 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 15 15 15 15 15 15 465,569.04 558,682.85 651,796.66 744,910.46 838,024.27 931,138.08 Effect on Averaae Home Referendum Market Value $8.598,255.800 Market Value Rate 0.054146917 Annual Levy on $356,200 Home 19.29 0.0649763 0.075805683 0.086635067 0.09746445 0.108293833 23.14 27.00 30.86 34.72 38.57