HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4864 ORDINANCE NO, 4864
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND § 166,03 (K) PARK LAND
DEDICATION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the City Council , of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby
repeals §166.03 (K) Park land dedication and enacts a new §166.03 (K) Park land
dedication attached as Exhibit "A" in its stead. N.. �jjl TRS
A. G\SY •0� °° GP.
PASSED and APPROVED this 2"d day of May, 2006. :A?
; FAYETTEVICLECb
; 3
APPROVED: ATTEST: °-,ss• 0Ns •J�
By: By:
AANCOMayor S RA SMITH, City Clerk
Exhibit "A"
(K) Park land dedication. monetary contribution may be used to
develop the park land in the
(1) Subdivision. development or elsewhere within the
quadrant consistent with the
(a) Dedication or fee-in-lieu. When a Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Plan.
proposed subdivision does not provide
an area or areas for a public park based (e) Approval. The Planning Commission's
on the Fayetteville Parks and Recreation decision must be incorporated into the
Plan, the developer shall be required to developer's preliminary plat or large
make a reasonable dedication of land scale development plan prior to plat or
for public park facilities, or to make a plan approval.
reasonable equivalent contribution' in
lieu of dedication of land, such (f) Dedication ratios. Land shall be
contribution to be used for the dedicated at a ratio of .024 acre of land
acquisition and development of park for each single-family dwelling unit and
land that serves the subdivision or .017 acre of land for each multi-family
development. dwelling unit.
(b) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. (g) Fee-in-lieu formulas. A contribution in
Prior to the submittal of a preliminary lieu of land dedication shall be made
plat or large scale development plan, the according to the following formula:
developer shall submit to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board a concept $960.00 for each single-family
plat or plan. unit
5680.00 for each multi-family unit
(c) Planning Commission. The developer
and the Parks and Recreation Advisory based upon actual density. The
Board shall make a joint Parks Department shall review the
recommendation $ to the Planning . contribution formula every two (2) years
Commission as to the land dedication or and make recommendations to the City
contribution in lieu of dedication. In Council following such review.
the event that they are unable to agree,
the developer and advisory board shall (h) Dedication in excess. If a developer
make separate recommendations to the wishes to dedicate park land which
Planning Commission who ' shall exceeds the requirement of this
determine the issue. subsection, the developer shall make a
written request to the Planning
(d) Decision. If the developer proposes to Commission who may grant the
dedicate land for a public park after developer a credit equivalent to said
consultation with the Parks and excess. Said credit shall be applied
Recreation Advisory Board which the toward the developer's obligation under
Planning Commission determines is this subsection for any subsequent
suitable for park purposes, the proposed development located in the same park
dedication shall be accepted. Upon quadrant.
consent and consultation with the
developer and the Parks and Recreation (2) Timing of dedication and/or
Advisory Board, a developer may contribution. All dedications of land
dedicate a portion of the required park must be made before final plat approval
land dedication and make a contribution or large scale development approval. A
of money in lieu of land dedication for final plat shall not be released for
the remaining park land dedication recordation until the deed for a land
requirement. With consent of the Parks dedication is received. Deeded land is
and Recreation Advisory Board, this dedicated public park land and not
subject to any right of reversion or be refunded to the developer who made the
refund. A cash contribution in lieu of contribution.
required land development shall be
payable within 30 days of final plat
approval or large scale development
approval. With the approval of the
Planning Commission a developer may
pay such contribution in three equal
installments to be paid in full within one
year of final plat approval. If a
developer makes a cash contribution in
lieu of land dedication, the developer
shall be entitled to a pro rata refund,
together with the accrued interest
therefrom, in the event actual density is
less than the density used as the basis
for the developer's contribution;
provided, no refund shall be made
unless application therefore is made in
writing to the Zoning and Development
Administrator within one year from the
date of final plat approval. In the event
actual density is more than the density
used as the basis for a dedication of
land or case contribution the developer
must make an additional land dedication
or contribution in lieu of dedication.
(3) Applicability. The requirements of this
subsection shall apply to lot splits,
replats of subdivisions and large scale
developments; provided, ' said
requirements shall not apply to a lot
split or replat which does not create one
or more vacant lots on which a structure
could be erected under the city's zoning
regulations.
(4) Zoning Requirements. Lots created for
the purpose of park land dedication
shall not be required to meet the
standards for lot size, bulk and area
within any zoning district.
(5) Fee-in-lieu allocation. All money received
under this subsection shall be deposited in an
interest bearing account. Said money together
with the interest, shall be expended within three
calendar years of the last date of the calendar
year in which it was received for the acquisition
and development of park land that services the
subdivision for which a contribution in lieu of
dedication has been made. If said money has not
been expended within the three-year period, said
money, together with the interest thereon, shall
4
City of Fayetteville
Staff Review Form
City Council Agenda Items � �66 Qj
or CK) Parkd
Contracts
�c c(-t cw'h ars
4/18/2006
City Council Meeting Date
Connie Edmonston Parks & Recreation Operations
Submitted By Division Department
Action Required:
Approval of an ordinance amending the Unified Code of Ordinances to modify the Park Land Dedication Ordinance.
N/A $
Cost of this request Category / Project Budget Program Category / Project Name
Account Number Funds Used to Date Program / Project Category Name
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund Name
Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached O
Previous Ordinance or Resolution # 4454
Department 15irector Date Original Contract Date:
// ll Original Contract Number:
City Ati ey Date
Received in Cit lerk's ffice
_ . SZ
06
Finance and Internal Service Director Date
&I
Received in Mayor's Office I
ZK I
M or Date
Comments:
ce q Bn 41!
Taye
KANSAS 113W. Mountain St.
le, AR 72701
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILI;E ARKANSAS Fhone: (479) 444-346
� Telephone: (479) 444-3469
PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
To: Mayor Dan Coody and City Council Members
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations P //' ,
Connie Edmonston, Parks and Recreation Directa
From: Alison Jumper, Park Planner
Date: March 30, 2006
Subject: Park Land Dedication Ordinance Amendments
* Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Planning Commission have forwarded this
recommendation to City Council to consider for approval.
BACKGROUND
The Park Land Ordinance was adopted in 1981 requiring developers to dedicate land for parks or
make a reasonable contribution of money in lieu of land dedication. The City has received 33
parcels of park property which combine to create approximately 26 parks, trails and natural
areas. Over the past 25 years, approximately $3 . 1 million has been accumulated.
Money acquired through the Ordinance can only be used for the acquisition and development of
park land and must be spent within three years of the last date of the year in which it was
received. The money must also be used in the same park quadrant as the development that made
the dedication.
Amounts received in each quadrant since the Ordinance was adopted in 1981 are $583, 198 in the
NE quadrant, $ 1 , 174,380 in the NW quadrant, $646,510 in the SE quadrant and $741 , 127 in the
SW quadrant. Improvements have been made to 28 parks. Park improvement and development
projects utilizing these funds include Walker Skate Park, Lake Fayetteville bridge and trail,
Bryce Davis Park, Bundrick Park, Braden Park, Bayarri Park, Gulley Park, Lewis Soccer
Complex, Walker Park tennis and basketball renovations, and Greathouse bridge
As shown in the attachments, Park Land Dedication funds have made a significant difference in
the development of new .parks as well as renovations and additions to old ones. Additionally, the
Ordinance has provided over 157 acres of park land, green space and trails for our park system.
The impact this ordinance has made on parks and recreation in the City of Fayetteville is
invaluable.
The impact this ordinance has made on parks and recreation in the City of Fayetteville is
invaluable.
CURRENTSTATUS
The Park Land Dedication Ordinance requires Parks and Recreation to review the contribution
formula every two years and make recommendations to the City Council from such review.
UDC 166(K)(1 )(g)
The fee in lieu formula was last reviewed in 2002 and the Ordinance was updated in January
2003 . The average cost per acre increase for the past two reviews has been 23 percent in 2002
and 25 percent in 1999. (See attached document for fee increases.)
Parks and Recreation Staff is recommending the following amendments to the Park Land
Dedication Ordinance.
1 . Updating the average cost per acre for determining the fees in lieu from $23, 125
to $40,000. UDC 166(K)( 1 )(g)
2. Requiring residential developments under one acre to be subject to the Park Land
Dedication Ordinance. UDC 166(K)(3)
• This would require infill projects less than one acre to meet the
requirements of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance as do all other
residential developments.
3 . Deleting the "manufactured home" designation from the ordinance and including
them as single family residences. UDC166(K)(1 )(g)
• Manufactured homes are assessed the same fee as a single family
residence.
4. Deleting the "major development" subsections of the ordinance.
UDC 166(K)(7)(a)(b)(c) Currently the Ordinance requires a land dedication for
developments containing 100 units or more, or 40 acres or more. A resolution by City
Council is required to be approved if development is not dedicating the full
requirement of land, often adding more time to the review process.
• All residential developments are evaluated by criteria approved by PRAB
regardless of their size.
• In determining if park land is needed in a development, Park Staff utilizes
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Fayetteville Alternative
Transportation and Trails Master Plan, and current park property service
areas.
5 . Add the requirement of a written request to bank land for future development.
• This written request will minimize any confusion when future development is
reviewed and banked land is requested.
DISCUSSION
Since our Park Land Dedication was last reviewed in 2003, the cost per acre value has not
increased with the market value. With this inequity in value of land versus money in lieu, it is
often difficult to obtain park land due to the monetary advantage of the developer paying money
in lieu of dedicating land.
In order to develop parks and to increase the recreational value of land and homes around it, the
Park Land Dedication formula should maintain parity with current property values and address
the impact created from new subdivisions. We strive to enrich the quality of life with parks and
recreational opportunities for our citizens. By keeping the formula in balance with the current
market, we can create a win-win situation for parks and recreation and the citizens of
Fayetteville.
When the Park Land Dedication Ordinance was adopted in 1981 , a formula was created to justify
the amount of park land required as well as the money in lieu. (See attached formula and
explanation.) Parks and Recreation Staff began reviewing the average cost per acre in June 2005 .
Several methods were researched to determine the most accurate way of determining the average
cost per acre.
1 . The first method included gathering land sale information from the Washington County
Assessor's office on parcels sold within the city limits in 2004. This data was merged with the
City's zoning to determine the cost of land for multi-family versus single family zoning. The
averages were $2,052,538 for single family parcels and $2,200,439 for multi-family parcels. This
included parcels that were subdivided into lots with existing infrastructure. Parcels less than one
acre were taken out of the equation in order to remove the parcels with infrastructure; however,
the averages were still very high. This method was presented to Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board (PRAB) for their review and evaluation. Due to the high average cost per acre, a new
approach was taken.
2. The second approach considered using the actual sale price of land to determine the fee in
lieu amount, making the fees unique to each development. This method was presented at two
public meetings in November 2005. After comments from the public and further evaluation of
this approach, Staff noticed several downfalls of this method including a cumbersome formula to
determine fees, lack of consistency for the developers, and an opportunity for inaccurate sale
prices and special land deals to affect fees.
3 . Staff recommended using the sale price from the Washington County Assessor to
determine the average cost per acre within the city limits. It was determined that using an
average cost per acre city wide would be the most equitable method.
An average cost per acre of $49,082 was presented to PRAB at the December 2005 Board
meeting. This number was based on parcels over 5 acres sold within the Fayetteville city limits
in 2005 . PRAB made the following motion:
In January, the Board lost four members and gained four new members. In an effort to bring new
Board members up to date, the history of the update process was presented, as well as the new
information. PRAB requested Staff to obtain updated data from Washington County records to
provide the most accurate and up to date average. Data was presented at the January PRAB
Orientation to determine a firm number for the fee in lieu. Again, the data included parcels of
over 5 acres sold within the Fayetteville city limits in 2005. The average increased to $67,225 an
acre.
Staff presented a final recommendation of $36,250 which was the median of the cost per acre
(see *number on data spreadsheet) to PRAB for the fee in lieu amount at the February 6`h 2006
PRAB meeting. The average cost per acre of land was $67,225 per acre. PRAB made the
following recommendation:
Langsner moved to keep the $40,000 fee per acre for park land dedication. Davis
seconded the motion. The Board approved with a vote of 8-0-0.
Proposed Updated Formula
Housing Type Persons/ Acres/ Acres/ Cost/ Feein
unit 11000 Pop, unit acre lieu/unit
SINGLE FAMILY 2.39 10 .024 $40,000 $960
MULTI FAMILY 1 .7 10 .017 $40,000 $680
Other ordinance amendments as listed above were approved by PRAB at the December 5`h 2005
PRAB meeting. (See attached minutes.)
On February 27`h, 2006 Planning Commission forwarded this item to Council with a favorable
recommendation. (See attached minutes.)
RECOMMENDATION
Parks and Recreation Staff recommends making the above outlined amendments to the Park
Land Dedication Ordinance.
attachments: Park Land Ordinance past increases
Average cost per acre spreadsheet
February 6, 2006 PRAB minutes
December 5, 2005 PRAB minutes
February 27, 2006 Planning Commission minutes
Park Land Dedication Expenditures
Park Land Dedication Land and Money in Lieu History
Park Land Dedication Formula Explanation
Lands Received Through the Park Land Dedication Ordinance
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY -
DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT
TO: Dan Coody, Mayor
City Council
CC : Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
Connie Edmonston, Parks & Recreation Division Head
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: April 4, 2006 9
RE: Park Land Dedication Ordinance -- §166.03 (K) of the U.D.C.
The Parks Department and Parks and Recreation Advisory Board have
proposed several changes to the long time Park Land Dedication Ordinance. This
was the first and only impact fee ordinance for the City of Fayetteville for decades
and was initially challenged all the way to the Arkansas Supreme Court. When
the legislature decided to enact an impact fee statute (A.C.A. § 14-56- 103), I was
able to convince Senator Bisbee and Representative Ledbetter to "grandfather in"
our Park Land Dedication Ordinance in the last subsection of that Act.
"(3) In addition, a municipality with a park land or
green space ordinance that has been in existence for
ten ( 10) years on July 16, 2003 , and any amendments
to the ordinance, which allows the option to pay a fee
or to dedicate green space or park land in lieu of a fee,
may continue to be administered under the existing
ordinance." A.C.A. § 14-56- 103 (i)(3).
We owe Senator Bisbee and Representative Ledbetter our thanks because
without this statutory provision, we might have had to conduct and pay for an
expensive impact fee study for a new parkland ordinance.
Attached is the ordinance replacing the old § 166.03 (K) with a new § 166.03
(K) attached as Exhibit A. The new § 166.03 (K) updates the fees per dwelling
unit pursuant to a land valuation of $40,000.00 to $960.00 for single family and
$680.00 for multi-family unit. Subsection (d) is also rewritten to ensure the
developer has the option to provide suitable land for park purposes within the
developer's subdivision. Thus, no developer would be required to pay money in
lieu of suitable park land. Subsection (g) incorporates the new fee-in-lieu of land
formulas. Subsection (h) was incorporated into subsection (g). Former
Subsection (i) is now lettered subsection (h). Subsection (6) was removed as
outdated and unneeded.
The Parks Department recommends amending subsection (3) Applicability
to include in-fill lots rather than applying this only to Large Scale Developments,
lot splits and subdivisions. Since a builder of a single house built on an in-fill lot
(currently not covered) could not dedicate park land (less than a fiftieth of an
acre), the statutory requirement of a developer having an option to dedicate land
would seem to be lacking. Therefore, for purely legal reasons, I do not
recommend changing (3) Applicability. The existing language that states the park
land "requirements shall not apply to a lot split or replat which does not create one
or more vacant lots on which a structure could be erected" conflicts with requiring
a park land fee to be imposed on a pre-existing, in-fill lot. If the City Council
wishes to try to impose this new park land dedication requirement on existing,
small in-fill lots, I shall draft such language. However, such a change may
invalidate our Park Land Ordinance.
(7) Major Development.
After seeing large neighborhood subdivisions be approved without a
neighborhood park (only monetary fees paid), as an alderman I proposed the
ordinance which required City Council approval if no neighborhood park was
proposed in a subdivision of at least 100 homes (which would equate to 2.4 acres
of park land). This ordinance became § 166.03 (K)(7) Major Development which
the Parks Department and Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommend
eliminating.
I have drafted the replacement § 166.03 (K) without subsection (7) now
numbered "(6)", as proposed by the Parks Department with the assumption that
the City Council may wish to abandon its automatic review of a decision that a
large neighborhood subdivision does not need a neighborhood park. If an
alderman believes such a review may still be beneficial, the old subsection may be
inserted by amendment. As this is a policy decision, I cannot and will not take any
position on the merits of removing or retaining this subsection.
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND §166.03 (K) PARK LAND
DEDICATION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby repeals
§166.03 (K) Park land dedication and enacts a new §166.03 (K) Park land dedication
attached as Exhibit "A" in its stead.
PASSED and APPROVED this 18th day of April, 2006.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By: By:
DAN COODY, Mayor SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
Exhibit "A"
(K) Park land dedication. development plan prior to plat or plan
approval.
(1) Subdivision.
(f) Dedication ratios. Land shall be dedicated
(a) Dedication or fee-in-lieu. When a proposed at a ratio of .024 acre of land for each
subdivision does not provide an area or single-family dwelling unit and .017 acre of
areas for a public park based on the land for each multi-family dwelling unit.
Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Plan, the
developer shall be required to make a (g) Fee-in-lieu formulas. A contribution in lieu
reasonable dedication of land for public park of land dedication shall be made according
facilities, or to make a reasonable equivalent to the following formula:
contribution in lieu of dedication of land,
such contribution to be used for the $960.00 for each single-family unit
acquisition and development of park land $680.00 for each multi-family unit
that serves the subdivision or development.
based upon actual density. The Parks
(b) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Department shall review the contribution
Prior to the submittal of a preliminary plat or formula every two (2) years and make
large scale development plan, the developer recommendations to the City Council
shall submit to the Parks and Recreation following such review.
Advisory Board a concept plat or plan.
(h) Dedication in excess. If a developer
(c) Planning Commission. The developer and dedicates park land which exceeds the
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board requirement of this subsection, the Planning
shall make a joint recommendation to the Commission may grant the developer a
Planning Commission as to the land credit equivalent to said excess. Said credit
dedication or contribution in lieu of shall be applied toward the developer's
dedication. In the event that they are unable obligation under this subsection for any
to agree, the developer and advisory board subsequent development located in the same
shall make separate recommendations to the park quadrant.
Planning Commission who shall determine
the issue. (2) Timing of dedication and/or contribution.
All dedications of land must be made before
(d) Decision. If the developer proposes to final plat approval or large scale
dedicate land for a public park which the development approval. A final plat shall not
Planning Commission determines is suitable be released for recordation until the deed for
for park purposes, the proposed dedication a land dedication is received. Deeded land
shall be accepted. Upon consent and is dedicated public park land and not subject
consultation with the developer and the to any right of reversion or refund. A cash
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, a contribution in lieu of required land
developer may dedicate a portion of the development shall be payable within 30 days
required park land dedication and make a of final plat approval or large scale
contribution of money in lieu of land development approval. With the approval of
dedication for the remaining park land the Planning Commission a developer may
dedication requirement. With consent of the pay such contribution in three equal
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, this installments to be paid in full within one
monetary contribution may be used to year of final plat approval. If a developer
develop the park land in the development or makes a cash contribution in lieu of land
elsewhere within the quadrant. dedication, the developer shall be entitled to
a pro rata refund, together with the accrued
(e) Approval. The Planning Commission's interest therefrom, in the event actual
decision must be incorporated into the density is less than the density used as the
developer's preliminary plat or large scale basis for the developer's contribution;
Exhibit "A"
provided, no refund shall be made unless
application therefore is made in writing to
the Zoning and Development Administrator
within one year from the date of final plat
approval. In the event actual density is more
than the density used as the basis for a
dedication of land or case contribution the
developer must make an additional land
dedication or contribution in lieu of
dedication.
(3) Applicability. The requirements of this
subsection shall apply to lot splits, replats of
subdivisions and large scale developments;
provided, said requirements shall not apply
to a lot split or replat which does not create
one or more vacant lots on which a structure
could be erected under the city's zoning
regulations.
(4) Zoning Requirements. Lots created for the
purpose of park land dedication shall not be
required to meet the standards for lot size,
bulk and area within any zoning district.
(5) Fee -in -lieu allocation. All money received
under this subsection shall be deposited in
an interest bearing account. Said money
together with the interest, shall be expended
within three calendar years of the last date of
the calendar year in which it was received
for the acquisition and development of park
land that services the subdivision for which
a contribution in lieu of dedication has been
made. If said money has not been expended
within the three-year period, said money,
together with the interest thereon, shall be
refunded to the developer who made the
contribution.
Lands Received Through the Park Land Dedication Ordinance
Developed Acres
Bayyari
2.4
Bundrick
2.5
Dale Clark
8
Craft
4.8
Davis
9.2
Gulley Trail
0.2
Hampton
15.5
Gordon Long
5
Mill District
0.2
Red Oak
8.7
Sweetbriar
0.3
Trammel
0.7
Braden
2.3
Natural Areas Acres
Rocky Branch 5.7
Wildwood 14
Undeveloped Trails Acres
Fairfield 7
Gulley Trail 3.2
Shiloh West . 0.5
The Crown 6.9
Clabber Creek 41.5
Undeveloped Parks Acres Development Year
Eagle
5.6
Friendship
0.4
2006
Lafayette Lofts
.2
2006
Legacy
3.4
2006
Salem Meadows
1.8
2006
Copper Creek
4.5
2007
Fairlane
1.3
0
N
w
UI
z
`i
z
0
5
z
4
C
z
J
z
V
O
UI
C
Li
z
yJ
LL
Q
a
n
N
OYi
Yf
tB
d
P
t+M
0
fG
-
0
-
m
a
-
m
m
m
pO
N
O
N
pO
N
pS
N
pS
N
S
N
O
w
O
W
S
R
�Pp
N
S
w
O
g
0
l0
m
w
pN
(n0
pS
N
O
Q)
Ow
a
N
O
P
66
P
��m
0
^
01
n
pO
0
n
N
y
w
yR
w
p
IO
N
m
C
CO
N
'Si
w
W
w
N
N
M
Q
w
O
O
O
0
N
O
P
0
n
0)
0
P
n
r
01
"
0
N
p
M
yy
0
O
N
0
O
pO
O
O
t0
y0
P
N-
M
N
M
N
P
1y'1
0
O
0
S
0
O
if)
0
ON
n
S
0
-
d
g
p
W
S
N
N
w
o
N
N
Eq
0
w
N
w
N
p0
N
N
a
N
{y0
N
w
0
N
0
w
N
w
0
0
w
0
w
pO�
O
N
w
CO
^
w
r
N
l7
N
P
N
0
n
0
N
N-
CO
0
b
0
N
S
w
N
C
N.
N
8
8
8
8
8
g
8
S
g?$
'o,
o$
8
8
8
0
0
0$
8
'o
8
n
v
o
O
0
O
w
0
Sj
N
'
Ow
0
N
R
0
O
0
S
Opp
01
N
Owp
(O0
Op
S
Mi N.
0
N
0
n
N-
0
N
P
P in
N
b
O
On
N -
N
yO
P
>
a�yp�
N
N
N
N
IR
IA
w
N
q
w
N
N.
0
w
N
N
w
N
ON
N.
N
N
N
W
N
0
w
w
w
C
I,
M
N
0
N
N'
0
0
P
1r
M
t
O
y1
Q
en
(V
O
m
O
S
S
O
N
{p
CD
O
•
O
O
p
0
n
m
m
N
Q
fl
(p
0
(p
P
OO)
m
N
O
pS
pS
pS
oS
0
0
ym
0
N
rid
0
C^
d
N
N
N
N
W
w
w
N
N
p�
N
N
tO
N
N
y0
w
W
O
P
0
O
N
N
0
O
N
^
O
0
N
fl
N
U,
N
0
N
X04
O
(
0
0
N
R
M
N
N
-
..
E
N
M
w
N
w
V'
w
w
N
w
w
w
p
w
w
y
N
m
P
N
N
OOO
O
O
O
n
M
n
0
N
1�
RN
O
G
0
N
U)
A
O
V)
N
C]
N
O
O
p0
t0
^
O
0
0
N
0
N
M
0
N
0
M
ON
0
0
ON
•N.
yp
aj
w
N
w49
„
O
N
O
R
N-
N
in
U,
N
CO
N. O
N
0
0
O
N
0.
M
[NO
CO
b
YI
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
49i
N
N
4i
w
w
w
c
w
8
w
m
`°
S.
S
S
S
S
S
O
0
O
S
O
O
O
S
p
O
p
0
0
Sp
O
O
O
n
S
w
N
0
1pNp
p0
Mi
00
Ui
'Li
'Lid
Of
N
In
it)
tp0p
eq
R
pN
O
N
N
N
N
w
P
w
O
w
0)
N
yO
N
y0
w
N
w
r
N
0
0
pr
N
A
N
N
N
N
0
0
p
M
w
pO
0
A
N
6
M
0
OI
CO
y
w
w
N
N
w
N
N
w
N
C
j
N
0
P
N
00
C]
0
0
N
O
0
'M',
'-
n
N
w
N
g
Q
0
N
g
8
S
0
S
0
tQ
O
P
S
N
N
N
r
N-
S
(00
N
01,
Vf
N
y
10
C
0)
pS
N
pS
N
pS
N
pS
N
pS
N
N
W
R
N
N
0
Oi•
N
N
N
N-
r
fl
N
U))
M
tT
P
t0)
0
0
0
H
0)i
0
N
w
N
<
b
N
OO1
0
O
S
0
M
pO
t0
0
pO
t0
N
0
y
N
w
N
.-
EC,
COO
N
w
Vt
N
M
N
N
CO
in
W
w
w
N
d
N
U,
2
A
oS
Vi
S
W
S
N
p
Op
N
n
P
N. en
en
p
t0
N
m
w
N
N
n
N
CO
0
N
N
S
N-
p
t0
S
r
N
O
0
N
0
b
N
M
PP
0
Or
b
0
in
O
0
S
N
r
O
N
p0
10
N-
^
O
0
-
in
n
R
CO
N
P
N.
P
001
0
N.
t0
r
b
m
l7
y
—
w
^
w
M
w
^
w
N
w
Cl
w
N
,-
w
N
w'9
O
O
w
N
w
CI
w
r
w
N
w
0
w
�
+
N
(0
Ci
w
0
N
0N.
w
w
w
N
w
rc
0
0
0
Mn.
S
o
S
S
10.
0
0
8
o
S
o
0
Oo
0
0
-
g
M
w
0
0
0
N
N
w
M
N
n
pS
0
den
N
n-
N
O
N
O
0
m
n
$
O0
0
S
6-
0)
n
N
0
d^
pO
t0
'
yO
P
f
g
N
n
c6
N
0
e4pO
N-
P
N
0
N-
N
N
yy
OI
N
N
0
U'
w
N
N
N
•
N
N
N
w
0
N
pM
a
N
`
N
0
w
n
N
tD
N
0
N
O
N
49
0
w
n
N
N
N
O
J
M
O
M
^
0
N
o
in
P
(ND
t0
N
M
0
M
N
d
(N
_0
[�
0
0
0
M
00
O
N
S
O
N
1Of]
M
0
r
w
m
p
M
0
100
p1
P
0
q
S
p
IA
S
O
w
S
O
w
S
O
w
p
t0
p-
0
N
p
O
0
N
0
N
M
M
0
N
0
0
N
N
O
0
r
m
N
Y
N
p
O
N
n
Nfl
w
b
N
b
N
0
O
w
n
0
N
0
N
0))
N.0
O
N
p
IO
CO
M
N
m
O
ONI
Y0
N
VO1
NO
P
yN
W
O
n
0
N
NN
N
N
N
w
p
O
$
b
N-
N
q
E
C
V
O
a
W
w
r
`
CN
-
O
O
N
S
N
S
N
p
0
0
d
N
N
O
n'
'3-
r
0
YO]
O
w
N
N
00)
yO
N
CON
P
N
100
10
w
P
0
w
m
n
w
N
p�
N
en
0
N
N
P
N
N
O
0
N
f0
O
N
^N.
F
S
a
0)
N.
Ui N
n
N
g
S
N
N
N
N
w
q
N
b
N
N.
w
-0
>1')
K
0
w
•
S
O
S
S
S
O
O
O
N
p
O,
O
O
O
S
0
O
p
O
O
O
O
p
O
p
O,
S
O
p
O
p
O,
N
C
o
V)
O
w
U,
64
O
N
0
n
IS
w
O
N
a
0
m
N
i0
N
O^
49
0
OO1
w
^
0
N
49
yO
tO
w
w
n
N
43
OO
N
•-
69
O
4
N
59
O
0
M
N
10
Pp
N
i0
CO
M
49
0
N
w
Y]
N
N
49
U,
P
P
69
O
CM0
N
44
0
pO
f0
W
n
M
N
45
O
O
N
CO
100
O'
w
CON
O
W
N
00)
-
49
2
PARK
LAND ORDINANCE
Proposed Update 2006
SINGLE FAMILY
.024
$960
BASED
ON
$40,000 PER ACRE
MULTI FAMILY
.017
$680
• Ord # 4454 (January 7,
2003) 2003 —
Present
01/07/03
SINGLE FAMILY
.024
$555
MULTI FAMILY
.017
$393
BASED
ON
$23,125 PER ACRE
MOBILE HOME
.024
$555
Ord # 4199 (November
2, 1999) 1999-
2003
SINGLE FAMILY
.025
$470
MULTI FAMILY
.020
$375
BASED
ON
$18,750 PER ACRE
MOBILE HOME
.015
$280
Ord # 4068 (November
4, 1997) 1997
to 1999
SINGLE FAMILY
.025
$375
MULTI FAMILY
.020
$300
BASED
ON
$15,000 PER ACRE
MOBILE HOME
.015
$225
Ord # 3797 (May 17, 1994) 1994 - 1997
r
SINGLE FAMILY
.025
$300
MULTI FAMILY
.020
$240
BASED
ON
$12,000 PER ACRE
MOBILE HOME
.015
$180
Ord # 3578 (November
19, 1991) 1991-1994
SINGLE
' $225.00
MULTI
.025
.020
$180.00
BASED
ON
$9,000 PER ACRE
MOBILE HOME
.015
$135.00
,
Ord # 2695 (January 20, 1981) 1981 -1991
SINGLE FAMILY
.0125
$105.00
BASED
ON
$8,400 PER ACRE
MULTI FAMILY
.010
$85.00
BASED
ON
$8,500 PER ACRE
40 ACRES OR 100 UNITS
CONSIDERED
MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT
Park Land Dedication Formula Explanation
Utilizing Current Fees
I Q RE N
Housing Type Persons/ Acres/ Acres/ Cost/ Fee in
unit 1,000 Pop. unit acre lieu/unit
Single 2.39 10 .024 $23,125 $555
Multi -Family 1.7 10 .017 $23,125 $393
Mobile 2.38 10 .024 $23,125 $555
1. Column #1 represents the average number of persons living in each of the three
designated housing types based upon the latest census data available, which is
from the year 2000.
2. Column #2 is the standard of park land acres needed per 1,000 people.
Fayetteville uses the National Recreation and Parks Association standard of 10
acres of park land per 1,000 population. This standard is adopted in the Parks and
Recreation 10 Year Master Plan, which was approved by City Council in 2002.
Column #3 is the number of park land acres needed per housing type unit. The
number is obtained by multiplying column #1 — persons/unit, by column #2 — and
then dividing by 1,000 to obtain the standard park land acres needed for 1,000
population. This number represents the park land requirement. Each
development multiplies the corresponding single family or multi -family acres per
unit number, by the number of units within the new development to determine the
park land acreage requirement.
4. Column #4 is the average cost per acre in the City of Fayetteville. The best
methodology for determining the average cost per acre was to utilize the sale
price of raw land within the City Limits from the Washington County Assessor's
Office.
5. Column #5 determines the money in lieu of land fee for each housing type unit.
This number is calculated by multiplying column #3 — the park land acres needed
per housing type, by column #4 — the average cost per acre. Column #5 specifies
the amount of park land needed as determined by the standard established for our
citizens according to the average cost of land within our City. Each development
multiples this number according to the housing type, by the number of units
within the new development to determine the money in lieu of land requirement.
In compliance with City Ordinance, this formula is to be reviewed and updated every
two years. The formula is updated with the latest census information relating to the
number of persons occupying each housing unit type (column #1); the establishment
of the standard of the acres of park land preferred for our citizens (column #2 — park
acres/1,000 population); and lastly, the average cost of land per acre within our City
(column #4). For this review period, the census data and standard of park land
required per population remains the same as when evaluated in 2003. The average
cost of land per acre is the only figure in the formula that can be updated this year due
to the lack of full census data including persons per household.
Average cost per acre base on parcels sold within the city limits over 5 acres
Parcel Number
Date Sold
Sale
Amount
Type
Acres
Price
Per Acre
765-15268-100
07/29/2005
$
70,333.00
AV
24.70
$
2,847
765-15118-000
11/01/2005
$
75,000.00
RV
7.00
$
10,714
765-15321-000
03/11/2005
$
109,000.00
AV
10.00
$
10,900
765-13393-000
06/30/2005
$
430,000.00
AV
30.50
$
14,098
765-08462-000
06/13/2005
$
77,000.00
RV
5.04
$
15,278
765-13393-000
06/13/2005
$
466,000.00
AV
30.50
$
15,279
765-08464-000
01/26/2005
$
103,000.00
RV
6.01
$
17,138
765-15191-000
08/31/2005
$
150,000.00
AV
8.08
$
18,564
765-15223-000
08/31/2005
$
150,000.00
AV
6.40
$
23,438
765-15399-000
09/19/2005
$
165,000.00
RV
6.51
$
25,346
765-15269-202
05/26/2005
$
417,000.00
AV
13.89
$
30,026
765-13651-000
06/15/2005
$
250,000.00
RV
8.00
$
31,250
765-13646-000
04/06/2005
$
260,000.00
AV
8.16
$
31,863
_- :',,
Y_____ ie °
j, ;t.`y y.Yr}Yn7 "is
.`w,_
,.,
y.. : i
jat .e
765-13255-000
07/2.1/2005
$
300,000.00
AV
6.83
$
43,943
765-15269-101
10/28/2005
$
1,596,000.00
AV
33.84
$
47,163
765-21240-003
02/28/2005
$
322,000.00
AV
5.45
$
59,083
765-24076-000
03/18/2005
$
342,000.00
AV
5.08
$
67,363
765-24075-000
03/18/2005
$
342,000.00
AV
5.00
$
68,400
765-15810-100
03/25/2005
$
2,301,000.00
AV
30.00
$
76,700
765-16658-400
11/21/2005
$
592,000.00
AV
6.79
$
87,187
765-13152-200
07/08/2005
$
1,007,667:00
AV
11.20
$
89,970
765-21241-100
05/13/2005
$
500,000.00
AV
5.06
$
98,814
765-15269-701
06/15/2005
$
1,513,000.00
AV
10.98
$
137,846
765-13152-300
07/08/2005
$
1,007,667.00
AV
5.30
$
190,126
765-24048-001
12/13/2005
$
1,450,000.00
AV
5.45
$
266,055
765-15268-451
10/28/2005
$
1,596,000.00
AV
5.33
$
299,437
Average Price Per Acre $ 67,225.12
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Meeting Minutes February 6, 2006
Opening:
The regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was called to order by
Chairman Wade Colwell at 5:30 P.M. on February 6, 2006 in Room 326 of the City
Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Present:
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members Bailey, Harrison, Langsner, Davidson,
Davis, Bitter, Burke & Colwell; Park Staff Coles, Mihalevich, Jumper, Wright, Whillock
and audience were in attendance.
1. Park Land Dedication Fee and Ordinance Discussion:
Staff recommends using a price per acre of $36,250 to base the fees in lieu
required for single family and multi -family units. This number is the median
figure taken from 27 parcels sold in 2005 within the city limits being over 5 acres
and being designated as either agricultural or residential by the county.
Langsner asked what is the rationale behind the $36,250 figure and had there
been any more developer response to the increase.
Wright said there has been no further response from developers and said he
feels in this case that is a good sign. He explained that getting a figure that was
justified was the reason for presenting the $36,250 for the Board's approval.
The $36,250 was the median sale price per acre for all land sales in the City in
2005.
Davis asked if this is the figure first agreed on by the Board.
Wright said it is not. The first figure was to be no less than $40,000.
Bitner asked what process was used to arrive at the $23,125 figure used in 2005
prior to the research for a new amount. -
Jumper said it came from calling realtors to find out what the average sale price
of land had been.
Wright said this is the first time figures from the courthouse have been used to
get a median price amount.
February 6, 2006/ 1
'C
Langsner said it is nice to be able to say we did our homework as opposed to
saying a certain figure sounded good.
Davis said he is concerned that we're falling behind by accepting a lesser
number.
Jumper said the Board had recommended an annual adjustment to better keep
up with the increasing land costs.
Bitler stated he understood the resistance to an increase to $60,000 but is
concerned land will not be available at the amount currently being
recommended.
Davis said he believes the $40,000 approved by the previous Board should be
the figure to send to Council.
Langsner said he believes if Parks doesn't buy some land soon there won't be
any land available. He explained that a lot of work had gone into the process of
selecting.a new amount and it was difficult to get a good average due to
variances of land values in different parts of the city.
Colwell said he has been told $75,000 is the per acre average in Fayetteville. He
said he feels taking steps to reach a more accurate figure for property value will
be the best way to go. He reiterated that future land for parks will be financially
out of reach if the land dedication amount doesn't reflect true land costs. He
said land can't be purchased for $40,000 but it's a step in the right direction. He
feels the need to look to develop larger parks like Gulley is better than a
proliferation of small parks.
Davidson said he believes the $40,000 figure will change the dynamics that drive
the developers decision on land vs. money.
Jumper requested the Board members make an effort to attend the Council
meeting when this change request is on their agenda. She reviewed the four
proposed changes.
Wright stated it is in the plans to begin the discussion earlier in the process the
next time around.
Bitler suggested November would be a good time to begin the process.
Davis stated he would rather stick with the originally recommended figure of
$40,000 and not go down since the price of land is only going up.
t
February 6, 2006/ 2
PRAB Motion: Langsner moved to keep the $40,000 fee per acre for park land
dedication. Davis seconded the motion. The Board approved with a vote of 8-0-0.
Minutes submitted by Cheryl Whillock
February 6, 2006/ 3
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Meeting Minutes December 5, 2005
Opening:
Mike Hill called the regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to
order at 5:30 P.M. on December 5, 2005 in Room 219 of the City Administration
Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Present:
In attendance were Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members Hill, Bailey,
Langsner, Marley, Davidson, Mauritson, Pawlik-Holmes and Park Staff Edmonston,
Wright, Coles, Jumper, Mihalevich, Whillock and Audience.
1. Park Land Dedication Ordinance Proposal: Alison Jumper & Matt
Mihalevich, Park Planners - (power -point presentation slides attached)
Jumper began the presentation by answering a question that had been asked at the
public meetings held in November. She said 33 parcels have been dedicated
through the Park Land Dedication Ordinance process and of those six remain
undeveloped at this time. Also, two are designated as natural areas and five are
undeveloped trails.
Ordinance Amendment Proposal #1 — lot splits, replats of subdivisions and
large scale developments...
PRAB Motion: Marley moved to accept proposed language. Mauritson
seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0-0 with. Harrison absent for the
vote.
Ordinance Amendment Proposal #2 - $555 for each manufactured home
unit....
PRAB Motion: Mauritson moved to accept Staff's proposal to omit the
manufactured home designation and calculate as single family homes.
Pawlik-Holmes seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0-0 with Harrison
absent for the vote.
Ordinance Amendment Proposal #3 — The developer does not have the
discretion to pay a cash contribution in lieu of the dedication of land for the
establishment of this neighborhood or subdivision park. Staff recommends
omitting the section in the ordinance requiring major developments to
dedicate land unless approved by City Council.
December 5, 2005 / 1
Hill asked if this passes will the need for these developments to go on to Council be
waived?
Pawlik-Holmes asked if the amendment takes away the waver requirement or does
it also alter the requirement that land must be taken on developments over 40
acres or 100 units.
Edmonston stated that it does both.
Pawlik-Holmes stated that if it's not an exception to the rule any longer are we just
going to review these to the criteria we use already, then it takes away the notice to
the Council that here's a big development coming through and we're not accepting
land and it also takes away the requirement to accept land in the first place.
Edmonston said we review all requests under the same requirements.
PRAB Motion: Mauritson moved to accept staff recommendation. Bailey
seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-1-0 with Pawlik-Holmes voting
`no' and Harrison absent for the vote.
Ordinance Amendment Proposal #4 — Add the requirement of a written
request to the section in the ordinance under 166(K)(1)(i) Dedication in
excess. Staff proposes additional language. "The developer must present
a written request for banked land for future development to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board."
PRAB Motion: Mauritson moved to accept staff proposal for additional
language. Pawlik-Holmes seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0-0
with Harrison absent for the vote.
Land Dedication Formula Two Year Review:
Hill asked if the sample properties in the spread sheet are all vacant land with no
improvements.
Jumper replied per the information from Washington County they are either
residential vacant or agricultural vacant.
Pawlik-Holmes asked if this study is the most thorough research on this piece of the
formula that has been done for several years.
Jumper indicated that is the case.
Pawlik-Holmes asked what other pieces of the formula will change.
December 5, 2005 / 2
Jumper said the land requirement per unit, price of fee in lieu, and, if the decision is
made to change it, the 10 acres per thousand population.
Edmonston said the City has requested a full-blown census in 2006 but the data
won't be ready till the end of 2006 so it's important the fees be updated at this
time. -
Hill stated the result of the census doesn't effect the decision on the formula.
Edmonston said the ordinance states the formula shall be reviewed every two years.
Mauritson asked if
the
consideration of
using
actual costs of the individual parcels of
land
to determine
the
amount
has
been
ruled
out.
Jumper stated that it has been reconsidered.
Pawlik-Holmes questioned the equitability of requiring the same fee in all parts of
the City. She said is seems like a fairness issue due to costs of land being more or
less in different quadrants of the City.
Edmonston said using cost of land would cause an unequal issue for various
quadrants and the City Attorney, Kit Williams, said it was to our best interest to go
to an average cost of land per acre.
Marley asked how difficult it would be to go with a different formula for each
quadrant. %
Jumper said that is a possible method.
Pawlik-Holmes reiterated that would raise the concern voiced by the City Attorney.
Mauritson said he'd be interested in what the City Attorney has to say about the
equity of a developer having to pay almost twice as much per acre for the park
dedication then he actually paid per acre for the land.
Langsner
said the value of
less
expensive land today will most certainly go up in the
future so
costs will
balance
out
over time.
Pawlik-Holmes asked where the current figure of $23,000 per acre came from.
Edmonston said the previous method to arrive at the figure for the formula was to
call real estate agents and ask what the average price per acre was.
Pawlik-Holmes inquired if that was an average city-wide.
December 5, 2005 / 3
Edmonston said it was. At that time the price range was huge and therefore in
today's environment that didn't seem the best way to rethink the formula.
Hill suggested taking the list of properties used in the example to arrive at the
$49,000 figure, take out the two highest and two lowest and refigure for the results.
He reminded the Board that the figure they decide on will only be a proposal that
will go to the Planning Commission for review and then on to City Council for
approval.
Hill opened the floor for public comment while Jumper reworked the average figure
with the suggested chart revision.
Tom Terminella introduced himself and complimented the Park Planners and Staff
on the good job they are doing for the City. He said his interest falls into several
areas. He suggested that not only the parks fee formula but also the various
ordinances might need to be reviewed every two years to assure they work in
tandem with the developers for the good of the community overall. He said trails,
roadways and municipal services could be reviewed in order to be proactive with the
growth rather than reactive to the needs of the citizens.
He said he also wants to clarify what is acceptable ground for park dedication. He
believes it's especially important on the larger developments to make sure there is
land for the trail system connectivity. He said he also needs clarification on other
green spaces in developments that are not trail areas. He referred to processes
used in Tulsa, OK, and Springfield, MO. He said they are developing the detention
areas for public spaces thereby using otherwise wasted space that could actually be
used to create assets for the communities.
He stated the formula based on the average overall property values overburden the
developer that has done a responsible job of purchasing the land. He said that
under the new formula it is creating an unfair situation for those who purchase the
land early -on when prices are low but are now developing the area. He said that he
had been appointed to speak for the other developers because he lives in
Fayetteville and has an office here.
He suggested the most fair way to achieve a figure is to use the revenue stamps.
He said they cannot be manipulated because they reflect the sale price recorded at
the County Court House. He said the spread of costs of property is great across the
area ranging all the way from $10,000 to $60,000 and in many cases even more.
He agreed that the $23,500 per acre figure needs adjustment but suggested that
morethan doubling it in the 24 month period since the last review is excessive. He
asked that more consideration be given on the task of picking a dollar figure for the
formula. He said he is supporting the department overall but asked for a fair
methodology for determining the new figure.
December 5, 2005 / 4
He suggested allowing the use of trail corridors be applied toward the parkland
dedication requirements.
Bailey asked if he was recommending the original consideration by the Board of
going with the sale price of land to determine the new value.
Terminella stated that he was and regretted not staying current on the discussions.
He said he believes market value is a better way to arrive at a figure than blended
(average) rates.
Pawlik-Holmes asked how he would suggest dealing with side -by -side tracts of land
that have a large sale price difference thereby affecting the parkland dedication
amounts for each tract at time of development. She stated though the dedication
amounts would be very different, the impact on the citizens of those communities
would be the same.
Terminella said perhaps different formulas based on density issues could be utilized.
Pawlik-Holmes stated that from the citizen's perspective the issue of lower priced
land in one quadrant compared to higher priced land in another quadrant means
that area won't have the quality or quantity of park area that is available in another
part of town. The Park Board has to come up with a figure that is fair to all citizens
and she asked how that can be reconciled from the developer's standpoint. She
said she believed Terminella has suggested a formula that is best for developers but
not necessarily the best for citizens.
Terminella reiterated that he doesn't believe the currently suggested formula is fair
to the proactive developer. He said the fees currently necessary to build a house
are pricing the average family out of the market in the Fayetteville area.
• Mauritson asked if it's possible to determine how much land has appreciated in the
last two years.
Edmonston said she believes the average can be determined. She said that since
she has been with the City, each year the ordinance was reviewed they went
extremely low just to promote developers in the area and to help handle the impact
of the various fees.
Mauritson clarified the figures on the spread sheet are only for land sold within the
city limits and does not include any land outside the city limits.
Hill said he has some concern in passing on the decision at this time and feels a
figure needs to be determined because four of the current Board will term -out at
the end of December and will be replaced by four new members. Those four new
December 5, 2005 / 5
members will need to get up -to -speed on the issue and that would further delay a
• decision. Therefore he feels this Board needs to come to a decision.
Pawlik-Holmes asked Jumper what the new figure is after throwing out the two
highest sale prices and two lowest sale prices.
Jumper said the figure is $39,407 per acre.
Davidson said he has always considered the purpose of the ordinance is to either
get land or money to buy land and if the money taken in isn't at market value of the
acreage in the quadrant there wouldn't be enough to buy additional park land. He
said he would like to understand the City Attorney's perspective on the overall
fairness/constitutionality issue.
Hill stated the Board needs to come to a decision on a number and send it on to
Planning Commission for review. He said there are two ideas - 1) market value per
acre and 2) average price per acre.
Pawlik-Holmes says market value doesn't provide equal treatment for all quadrants
due to diverse property values. She said the Board knew it was going up
substantially but probably didn't know it would go up as much as the figures in the
spread sheet indicate is necessary.
Edmonston said she would like the Board to pass to Planning Commission what they
believe is best. She volunteered to have the City Attorney meet with Board
members to explain his take on the fairness issue.
Mauritson said he agrees the Board needs to put something. forward to Planning.
Edmonston said the Park Ordinance had to go before the Arkansas Supreme Court
at one time and was upheld by that court. Several changes were made at that
time. The way it has been done in the past has been upheld by the Court and so
probably the City Attorney is interested in continuing this approach.
Pawlik-Holmes said the figures on the spread sheet can be looked at in many ways.
Hill suggested this is a starting point and simply coming up with a figure to pass on
would be the best way to go.
Terminella suggested a $35,000 figure would be acceptable to him.
Hill closed the floor to public comment and asked for a motion.
PRAB Motion: Davidson moved to send the following motion to Planning
Commission - The Parks Board recommends using a market value based
December 5, 2005 / 6
o.
formula unless that process is deemed unconstitutional in which case a fee
of not less than $40,000 per acre be set for Park Land Dedication.
Mauritson seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-1-0 with Hill, Mauritson, Bailey, Langsner,
Davidson, and Marley voting `yes', Pawlik-Holmes voting 'no', and Harrison
absent for the vote.
Minutes submitted by Cheryl Whillock.
December 5, 2005 / 7
Planning Commission
February 27, 2006
Page 4
ADM 06-1975: Administrative Item (City of Fayetteville PARKS DIVISION):
Submitted by Parks Division Staff to propose amending the Park Land Dedication
Ordinance, amending the fees in lieu and other criteria in Ch. 166.03 of the Unified
Development Code of Ordinances.
Pate: I would like to introduce Connie Edmonston, Parks. and Recreation
Director and she and others with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
will give a presentation tonight and recommendation, after many months
of public meetings and sessions to determine changes to park land
dedication ordinance which we have under Chapter 166 development.
Edmonston: Our park land dedication ordinance was created back in 1981 and it pretty
much came together with the Planning Commission working cooperatively
with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board that actually drafted this
ordinance. As housing additions are constructed in our City, that it was
increasing the demand placed upon our Parks and Recreation system. In
fact, Ernie Jacks from the Planning Commission back then was very
instrumental in helping us to draft this ordinance. Our ordinance does
provide a reasonable dedication of park land or money -in -lieu which must
be spent for either park land acquisition or park development that does
serve the subdivision in that park district. In determining in a subdivision
if we should take park land or not, Park Staff utilizes our Park and
Recreation ten-year master plan which was adopted and blessed by the
Planning Commission as well as the City Council back in 2002, also, the
alternative to Transportation and Trails master plan and then our current
park property service map. Our park land dedication ordinance has been
crucial in helping us develop our progressive park system. In the past 25
years, we have gained over 33 parcels of land; that includes 19 parks, 2
nature trails and 5 pieces of park that we use for a trail corridor. In
addition money accumulated through the money -in -lieu has brought over
$2.7 million for park development and land acquisition. I would like to
explain to you about our current park land dedication formula. This tells
you how we determine how much land and how much money is required
through this ordinance. First of all, we take the census data and right now
the most current census data we have is the year 2000. As you know, we
are in the process of doing a new one in 2006, but that data won't be
available to use until the fall. We found out that the number of people per
unit in a single family is 2.39 people per unit and a multi family is 1.7
persons per unit, and mobile home is 2.38 persons per unit. We also look
at the standard that we set for the amount of park land that is needed for
our citizens. We utilized the National Parks and Recreational
Association's standard of ten acres per 1,000 people and this was also
recommended by the consultants that we hired for our Parks and
Recreation master plan. You take the persons per unit times the number
of acres, that ten and that gives you the land dedication requirement. So
Planning Commission
February 27, 2006
Page 5
for every single family unit that comes in, we need 0.024 acres times the
number of units. For multi family, we need 0.017 acres per the number of
multi units that come in. Then when we go to look at money into the
formula, it is a little bit different. We have to determine the average cost
per acre. The last time we did this, the cost per acre in which current fee
is, is $23,125, the average cost per acre. So then you take the acres per
unit times the average cost per acre and then you get the fee -in -lieu per
unit. So, right now currently, our single family units, for every unit that
comes in as a single family unit, we take it times $555. For every multi
family unit that comes in, we take it times $393. Mobile home is $555.
This formula must be reviewed and updated every two years and that is
why we are here with you today. We do have our chairman from our
Parks and Recreation Board, Wade Caldwell, who would like to give our
recommendation and then we will follow up with our Park Planner, Alison
Jumper who is going to visit with you about the methodology — how we
came up with these numbers. Are there any questions.
Caldwell: I am Wade Caldwell, Chair of the Parks Board. Tonight we also have
from our Parks Board, Jerry Bailey, Jay Davidson and Monroe Harrison,
and one of our Park Planners, Alison Jumper. The Parks and Recreation is
recommending the following amendments to the Park Land Dedication
Ordinance. First, updating the average cost per acre for determining the
fee -in -lieu from $23,125 to $40,000. This is an increase of approximately
73%.. The second item is, requiring residential developments under one
acre to be subject to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance. This would
• require.infill projects less than an acre to meet the same requirements of
the Park Land Dedication as all the other residential developments do. It
had the same as a multi family. Third, deleting the manufactured home
designation from the ordinance including the single. family residences.
We don't have very many of these in our community as this point, as far
as new ones being allowed. Manufactured homes are assessed the same
fee as a single family residence. Then we would suggest deleting the
major development subsection of the ordinance, these developments of
course are over 100 units or 40 acres, they are evaluated on their own
individual criteria regardless of their size. The fifth item, add the
requirement of a written request to bank land for future development.
This written request would minimize any confusion when future
development is reviewed and banked land is requested. It would give us
something to fall back On as far as what was agreed upon earlier. Do you
have any questions for me?
Ostner: We might get back with you.
Jumper:
I would
like
to elaborate
a little on what
Wade has already touched on.
First, I'll
go
through the
first ordinance
amendments that don't include
•
Planning Commission
February 27,
2006
Page 6
updating the fee. The first one does deal with parcels under one acre.
Currently we do not see these under our review and we see an increasing
amount of infill in the City and often those are less than an acre in size and
they are increasing the impact on our Park system just the same as any
other residential development. We would like to add these in our review
and require them to meet the requirements of the Park Land Ordinance.
The second one is pretty simple. We really don't see manufactured homes
that often and when we do, they are considered as single family residences
so we would just like to take that language out of the ordinance to clear it
up. The third one does deal with major development. I think it was in
2004, the Parks Board adopted criteria that we use to evaluate park land
when we review it, when the projects come through. We apply that
criteria to every development whether it is five acres or forty acres or five
units. We apply the same criteria to every development to evaluate
whether we need park land there or not. And things we take into
consideration are existing parks in the area, existing recreational
opportunities, so whether that project if forty acres or not, to us we
evaluate it the same way. The next one deals with banking. Developers
are allowed to dedicate park land in access of their requirement if they
want to bank this land. We are asking that they provide us a written
request for that, just so that we have record for future developments, that it
is clear that they want to bank it. I'll go on to the fee update process now.
We have had several meetings on this. We had three public meetings and
•
we then presented to Parks Board in February for final recommendation.
We have been viewing this at every direction we could think of. First, we
did go back and try to determine an average cost per acre City wide. We
looked at parcels that were sold within the City limits in 2004 and then we
tried to apply the City zoning to try to differentiate single family from
multi family and those prices might be for the fee -in -lieu. When we were
doing that, we had hundreds of records from the County. They ran a query
for us that gathered all the data that was sold within the City limits in
2004. And we found that the averages were very, very high, as much as
$2 million. You probably have seen that in the paper. And part of the
reason for that is that these parcels included lots that had already been
subdivided and had existing infrastructure, so that really swayed how
those averages were turning out. Then we started thinking, maybe we will
take this out, or take that out and not everyone was comfortable with just
picking and choosing a number, so we tried to look at it from another
angle. So then we said we would try to come up with a fair market value
approach. To do this, we again used the County records and used the
actual sale price of the lands and plugged it into a pretty complicated
formula and I can find it on the Power Point if you need it. We found this
very cumbersome; it wasn't predictable for developers. Each development
would have a different fee -in -lieu amount using that method, so it was
predictable for them to try to figure their own fees. And it didn't take into
Planning Commission
February 27, 2006
Page 7
account family land swaps, or land deals. We saw potential for errors in
the recordation of the prices. We did present that at two public meetings
that were geared towards developers. It was open for everyone, but we
made sure developers were invited to those. We took in their comments
and took them into consideration and we ended up going back to looking
at an average cost per acre City-wide. And again, we looked at all parcels
sold within the City limits in 2005, after this some time had gone by and
we wanted to get the most recent data. So we presented that to Parks
Board in November and came up with an average. They made a
recommendation to use the fair market value unless it wasn't deemed
appropriate and then to use a number of $40,000 for the fee -in -lieu. Since
that time, we had Parks Board members go off the Board and four new
ones come on. We went through this process with the new members at
our orientation in January and they asked us to get the most recent data
from the County and present that. And we did that in February. The
average came out to be $67,225. That was from parcels sold in 2005
within City limits that were over five acres. We did it over five acres to
try to weed out all those parcels that already had existing infrastructure
and made those averages go up higher. We felt that number was very
high; we presented a median number that was right in the middle and that
was $36,000+. The Parks Board reviewed that and then made a
recommendation of the $40,000 for the fee -in -lieu.
Ostner: What was the first number? $67,000? And you did more figuring and
came at $37,000.
Jumper: We proposed the median and that was the $67,225 number. The Board
recommended the $40,000 and that is where we are here. If you have
questions, I will be glad to answer them.
Ostner: Sort of a procedural issue, Mr. Pate. Is this sort of an informative item
before the council. This doesn't seem to be something we regularly rule
on.
Pate: This is an amendment to the Unified Development Code and happens
every couple of years by ordinance. I'm sure Ms. Allen has seen this
before. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board makes a recom-
mendation to this Council, just like with every development, they make a
recommendation to you and you actually decide. With this case, they are
making a recommendation to you as the Planning Commission to then
forward a recommendation to the City Council for ultimate adoption. So,
yes, you will be voting on a recommendation to go to the City Council.
Planning Commission
February 27, 2006
Page 8
Ostner: If anyone from the public would like to speak to this issue, please step
forward and share your comments with us. Seeing none, I will close the
public comment and bring it back to the Commission for discussion.
Clark: I have a couple of questions. How much have we banked money -in -lieu?
Jumper: In each quadrant?
Clark: Overall, City-wide? There is a bank account somewhere.
Pate: The money that is taken in -lieu when the Parks and Recreation Board
recommend to you in the Planning Commission decides to take money -in -
lieu, that has to be utilized in a certain amount of time period. So that
money is going into a capital projects or other projects used annually
within that quadrant of the City.
Clark: But you are not out of money -in -lieu are you?
Edmonston: No, we still have money -in -lieu. We have three years in which to expend
the funds and it must be spent within that park district that the subdivision
is located.
Clark: Do you have any idea what percentage of developments pay as opposed to
plant?
Edmonston: We have taken in 33 parcels of land and we have taken in $2.7 in the last
25 years. Does that answer your question? Each year it varies because we
never know what subdivisions will be coming in.
Clark: I am reacting to the 73% increase. To me that seems like a big number. I
don't fault your rationale; you certainly know what you need, but that is a
very large number. My concern is and remains affordable and obtainable
housing. The more you put in fees on developers, the more the base cost
goes up and I'm afraid we are excluding a percentage of the population at
the lower, entry level homes that I don't know exist any more. I am
concerned that this may have a negative impact which is certainly not your
intent.
Edmonston: One of the problems we hit now is that with an average of $23,000 an
acre, the developers are not wanting to give the City park land. We need
park land in that area, but when the average was $69,000 an acre and they
are going to give it to us for $23,000 or if we request money -in -lieu, they
get the $23,000 per acre formula, that's one of the problems we had. One
of the bases of this ordinance is that we can serve the people coming in.
Planning Commission
February 27, 2006
Page 9
The impact is great
that the people are bringing upon
our park
system,
either by acquiring new land or by developing the current
parks we
have.
Clark: So in the recent years, have you had to buy park land?
Edmonston: We have bought very little park land. Most of it has come through our
Park Land Ordinance, we have been very blessed in that instance. A lot of
times, we are behind, because we get parks and then we have to get the
money to develop it. So we wait until we get the park land dedication
money to help develop that park. We are getting on that system right
now. We have several — Salem Meadows, Legacy, Lafayette Lofts,
several of those are developing. Braden Park we just finished.
Clark: Okay, the 73% just makes me stumble. Now if your incentive is to get
them to dedicate, to give you park land, that is a great philosophy.
Edmonston: I might let the Parks Board address it. One of the reason we went with the
lower figure, they average is $69,000 and we are only asking for $40,000
an acre, so we are already below the market value on it. We want them to
support our parks system and we thought that was something we could
live with.
Bailey: Jerry Bailey with the Parks Board. I would like to point out also is that
people are wanting in the neighborhoods are Wilson Parks, they are
wanting Gulley Parks. And at $23,000 or even $40,000, we don't have
much opportunity to do that. And 73% could also be looked at as we have
given developers a bargain for quite a while and I don't think that this is
going to be too much to swallow considering even in my 15s' Street/6u'
Street neighborhood, my propertyvalues have tripled in three years. I
don't mean to be too defensive sounding, but I have to because we can't
buy good park land at the current value we are getting. And we can't take
care of the parks at the current value that we are getting. I think we should
look at it that the developers have gotten a good deal for quite a long time,
and the increases do look like they are large, just because we haven't been
increasing them at the rate we should have been increasing them. We are
behind the curve ball on this. They should have been increased quite a
while back. We are playing catch up here, and if we don't play catch up
now, we are going to have to do it sooner or later. I do not think we are
gouging anybody. You can't buy five acres, sixteen acres, twenty acres at
what we are getting now.
Ostner: If the point is to basically motivate the landowner to donate land instead of
money -in -lieu, which sounds like the best choice right now. I paid so
much, if I paid the Parks this much, I come out better. Wouldn't it be
great if part of the difference went toward affordable housing. It doesn't
a w
Planning Commission
February 27, 2006
Page 10
sound like Parks Board is saying we are dying for more money; we have
got to raise these rates. It sounds like we really would prefer land and we
have to raise the price in order to make that logic flow. Instead of the
entire the 73% going back toward Parks, wouldn't it great if 10-15% of
that could go towards affordable housing? It would almost defray the
obvious downfall that they would have to charge more per unit but right
now, there is no overall plan for affordable housing. There has been a lot
of discussion and some rough notes on the shelf that the Council is trying
to get to, but it seems like almost a middle ground right there.
Bailey: We can bring up affordable housing — I don't think that aligns with. Parks
Department issues; we don't handle affordable housing, we handle Parks.
And one of the reasons why we can't simply rely on the landowner to give
us the lands, because if the land is an area that is not near a lot of other
neighborhoods, what good does it do to those children. What we would
like to do, and I hope I am not out of line here, is to be able to get enough
revenue to where we could buy a premium piece of land that is situated in
an area that's accessible to the majority of the people in the neighborhood,
as opposed to being an outlying piece of land. We would like to be able to
say we are going to go buy a great piece of land for the Parks Department,
for the community, not simply rely on a piece of land the developer
doesn't want because it is in an out -of -way location. We want to get in
there and buy the best parkland we can, not just settling for what they are
willing to give us. I may be out of line a little bit there, but that is how I
feel. We want to be able to buy the good land, not just settle for the
second hand land.
Ostner: I assure you that that has come up at this level before. We have noticed
the same time. It is not new.
Bailey: I hope I have gotten across to you that the 73% may seem like a lot, but it
is simply because we are playing catch up. I want to emphasize that
developers have gotten a deal over the years.
Anthes: Question of Staff. How often is this ordinance reviewed?
Jumper: Every two years.
Anthes: When I look at the amount of what land is selling for, I do think the Parks
Board has done a good job of trying to apply an even hand to those who
are required to dedicate property versus those who are required to pay
money -in -lieu. There was quite a big differential between how you came
out, how your bottom line came out, depending on where you happen to
have land and whether or not it was deemed to be in a place that Parks
wanted it. I think this goes to a level that differential to make it fairer. I
O
Planning Commission
February 27, 2006
Page]]
do have some questions and maybe this is something I could ask you to
consider in your next biennium when you are looking at how to rewrite the
ordinance in the future. Obviously there is talk about a sliding scale of
impact on different. kinds of fees that are being charged in the City and
addressing some of the other Commissioners' concerns here tonight, there
might be an incentive or sliding scale that had to do with Park fees
depending on what kind of development was being proposed — whether it
was a certain kind of housing or development that met our intention of our
City Plan for example, when that is enacted. The other thing I would
really like for Parks to consider is public art. We've talked about it in our
review of the downtown code, about where might be the most appropriate
place for money to be collected and spent for public art. Without a lot of
review about that issue, it seemed like that the Commission, in our initial
reaction thinking Parks was the right place for that to happen. I wish that
we were seeing an ordinance tonight that included a provision for public
art. I understand that we are hitting you with it tonight and you have
developed this ordinance, but if you could take a comment on that and
incorporate it into the future, I think it would be great for the citizens of
Fayetteville.
Allen: Connie, could you tell me specifically some ways in which the money -in -
lieu has been used in the four quadrants in the last two years?
Edmonston: I think we have a list of projects — Braden Park, we just developed that — it
is a small neighborhood over in the Covington Subdivision. We have
almost finished out on that project — the playgrounds and trails through
there. What we do when these neighborhood parks come in is we meet
with the people and ask them what kind of parks do they want us to
develop, and that is how we come up with our parks. It helped with the
State Parks.
Ostner: May I ask how much Covington Park cost?
Edmonston: Covington Park came to just under $110,000 for phase one.
Ostner: Is that land and equipment?
Edmonston: That land was given for Park Land Ordinance. This one was kind of
unique because we did get $40,000 grant money from Arkansas Parks and
Tourism. So the City only had in $70,000 or so for this project. And that
is normally what we do. That's why the money -in -lieu is very important
for those subdivisions that were around Covington and we collect money
so we can develop those neighborhood parks. Budrig Park, out on 416 — it
was developed with park land dedication ordinance; Red Oak Park — the
trail around it and the playground; Lake Fayetteville bridge — some monies
Planning Commission
February 27, 2006
Page 12
came from park land dedication along with other funding from sales tax
from park land dedication ordinance. This next year we have dedicated
money for Salem Village and for Legacy Point and Lafayette Lofts.
Walker Skate Park — we put quite a bit of our money in that quadrant. It
just depends on which quadrant has the money at that time. We will have
a park comes in, but because that quadrant doesn't have a lot of
development going on or because we took land in lieu of, there is not a lot
of funding, but that is when we tried to subsidize it with our general
budget that we get from sales tax and HMR tax. I can provide you with a
list of $2.7 million worth of projects.
Clark: We have a beautiful park system; there is no denying that.
Allen: I wanted to ask is that the only criteria used about the location of the park,
is that the money -in -lieu came from that quadrant? It could not be spent in
any other quadrant, even if there was a real need for a facility in that area?
Edmonston:
That
is
correct.
Allen:
How
is
that determined?
Edmonston: That was determined by our ordinance.
Williams: That was determined by the Supreme Court when our Park Land
Ordinance was on appeal and went to the Supreme Court. You see, it is
based upon the fact we can require developers to provide public facilities
and one of those things can be park land for their residents and that is why
you must have the park close to the residents for them to be able to access
it. If you took money from someone that is developing on Dead Horse
Mountain Road and you put a park out on Wedington Road — way out, that
probably wouldn't serve that development.
Allen: I understand that, it just seemed like it could become very skewed to the
quadrants of town that are newer, because there would be less
development in the other parts of town.
Edmonston: But one of the things is that the ordinance is an impact. When the
numbers of people are coming in there, then we need to provide the park
facilities to serve those. It used to be the northeast quadrant had lots of
money, but now it has shifted to the southeast then had quite a bit and now
the northwest has been flourishing.
Allen: Could you tell me how many City parks there are in each quadrant?
L
Planning Commission
February 27, 2006
Page 13
Edmonston: I have those numbers; I don't have them right in my head. I have the
number of acres that were approved by park land dedication ordinance. In
2004 we took in 18.26 acres, in 2005, we took in 41.37 acres and money -
in lieu, we received $418,000 in 2004 and in 2005, almost $440,000. As
to how many parks in each quadrant; I do have those numbers available.
We do have 55 parks.
Bailey: Ideally what we would like to have in Fayetteville is parks like Wilson
Park and Gulley Park.. These are twenty -acre parks and we are seeing this,
too, around Lake Fayetteville and now slowly around Lake Sequoyah as
well. We found that at these larger parks you have more things going on,
our crews can go there and in one day can maintain the whole facility. All
these parks can please more people at one time instead of the smaller
parks. The neighbors when they come into the subdivisions like to have
those small neighborhood parks as well. We are not able to aquire these
Gulley Parks, these large pieces of land, even at $40,000 an acre, you
know land doesn't go for $40,000 an acre. So this would allow us, too, to
be able to acquire larger pieces and this is what we are trying to
concentrate on in West Fayetteville, where a lot of the development is
occurring. With Gulley Park, it was an exception with a very nice gift.
think Ms. Gulley, when we bought it from here, it was at a very reasonable
price. Those things don't happen very often at all. But that is what we are
trying to counteract.
Allen: Can I
presume
that is
what the
survey
showed when
you
were polling
people
and they
wanted
the larger
parks,
rather than the
small
parks?
Bailey: Number one was the community park and that is what we are trying to do
with South Pass. We had a ten-year plan done and that was the number
one item. Number two item was neighborhood parks and trails. And now
we are trying to connect all these parks and green spaces with trails. Also,
I think an item that came out of the most recent plan we had was that
people wanted more green space.
Edmonston: Our park land dedication, is not only trying to acquire neighborhood parks
but trail corridors so we can finish our trail system. We try to take that in.
And preservation areas. We have some areas that will never be developed,
but it is green space that people can enjoy. We try to incorporate that also.
So our park land dedication is really stretched to its limits based on the
demands that the citizens are crying for.
Clark: You haven't exactly made this argument in this manner. You are asking
for 73% increase, you are using the money -in -lieu currently to support
current parks and develop what is given to us, but that does not leave you
Planning Commission
February 27, 2006
Page 14
with enough to purchase additional park land in more prime or better
locations.
Edmonston: Yes, we try to do all of it. That's all part of it.
Clark: That works for me.
Ostner: I have a question about this survey that we are referring to. You say the
number one thing — were people given an either or, or was the question,
what's the thing you want? There is a big difference.
Edmonston: That was a survey that was done in 2001 and there was a survey done and
we had a meeting that had forty stake holders, people from all aspects of
recreation and anybody was welcome to come. We had a one -day session
on it. That steering committee came up with the number one need, the
community park. The survey that was done was actually, they liked the
community park but the big one was trails and greenways. They want
more parks like Wilson and Gulley.
Ostner: What I am driving at is if it was phrased a certain way, what is the thing
you want most in Fayetteville, people could say yes, I want a
neighborhood park and number two, the small playgrounds in our
subdivisions are important to me. But if the question was never asked,
you can only have one, a community park or your neighborhood
playground, that is crucial to me. We all want both and if we have to
choose between one or the other, I'm not so sure the community park is
hands down what everyone wants. I think if people have to choose, there
is only one dollar and it has to go one way or another, I think people want
smaller parks. I realized they cost more to maintain, there are more edges
to weed eat, there is one trash can for half acre.
Allen: My recall of that is that is was a long list of items that you actually put
them one, two three,......
Edmonston: They prioritized them. When we say we are trying to get larger, if there is
a subdivision going in and we know that there is raw land around it and
we know someday that land might be coming in as a subdivision, we try to
take the land in that corner and hook on and get land in the next
subdivision, so instead of having two acres here, we can have four acres,
six or add it all in. Red Oak Park is a perfect example. We have three
subdivisions that make up that eight acre linear park and it serves all of the
people. This park land dedication does go for getting us land for parks,
trails, for green space, for connectivity and it gives us money to develop
existing parks, new parks or to acquire land. Those are all important.
Planning Commission
February 27, 2006
Page 15
Ostner: So the acquisition of trails is something you can use the money for. Trails
are parks.
Edmonston: Yes.
Clark: Should I ask about a dog park yet?
Edmonston: This money could help support a dog park and it is on our list.
Anthes: I would ask the Parks Board to understand that if we are now requiring
item number two, residential development under one acre be subject to
this ordinance, that we are looking for densification issues and infill issues
and people choose those places to live and those places to develop might.
be more interested in having neighborhood parks near those infill
potentials. There probably aren't those large parcels available in those
infill areas, if you put that into your equation. I would like to move to
forward ADM 06-1975 with a positive recommendation.
Clark: I will second.
Ostner: Is there any further discussion?
Roll Call: The motion to forward ADM 06-1975 passes by a vote of 6-0-0.
PARK LAND ORDINANCE EXPENDITURES
NORTHEAST PARK DISTRICT
BRADEN PARK
2002 Braden Pack (Diversified Recreation)
$5,201.24
2002 Braden Park (Emerson)
$376.69
2002 Braden Pat (Schwartz Stone)
$215.25
2005 Braden Pat
$11,165.00
316,958.18
BUTTERFIELD SCHOOL PARK
1993 Butterfield basketball goal (Diversified)
$510.20
1993 Butterfield goelsttackboar (Diversified)
- $496.91
1993 Butterfield playground apparatus (hon Mn Forge)
$4,199.78
1991 Butterfield School Pat, RCP Shelters, 20X36 pine pavilion w/ 20 yT roofing package - matching
-$3,110.05
1997 ButtedkW School Pat, RCP Shelters, 20X36 pine pavilion w/ 20 yr roofing package- matching
$6,111.00
$8,207.64
CRAFT PARK
1999 Craft Pat, Gazebo, Enwood Structures 16' Hexagon
$6,746.00
1999 Craft Pat, Install 2 rail fencing (Modem Fence)
$2.955.64
1999 Craft Pat, mist, lumber for Gazebo (City Lumber)
$98.60
1999 Craft Park, mist. materials for pink fades (Home Depot)
5153.36
1999 Craft Park, purchased and instafed 2 gulls (Jamestown Products)
$243.00
1999 Craft Pat. purchased materials to build picnic tables, benches and Trash Receptcals(Ozat Steel)
$317.07
1999 Craft Park, ready mrx concrete for sidewalk (Beaver Lake Concrete)
$500.35
$11,014.02
GULLEY PARK
1988 Gulley Pat bid ads (NWA Times)
$37.41
1988 Gulley Pat fence (Arkansas Fence Co.)
$3,593.38
1989 Gulley Pat fence (Arkansas Fence Co.) -
$3,699.66
1990 Gulley Pat (Milholland Eng)
$750.00
1990 Gulley Pat Bid 90-60&61 ads (NWA Times)
$10476
1990 Gulley Pat bid documents (MESA-Elnert)
$5,141.15
1990 Gulley Pat Contour Survey (Jorgensen & Assoc.)
$450.00
1990 Gulley Pat Playground (Meeks Lumber)
564.97
1990 Gulley Pat RFQ (NWA Times)
$52.38
1990 Gulley Pat RFQ (NWA Times) -
$80.00
1990 Gulley Pat Sand (J & P Trucidng)
$394.84
1990 Gulley Trail Partial Payment
$750.00
1991 Gulley Pat- searrewater line (RJ Keating)
$1,500.00
1991 Gulley Pat Fence & Sign (McClinton -Anchor)
517,750.00
1991 Gulley PatService Drive & Parking Lot(MCClinton-Anchor)
$17,519.00
1991 Gulley Pat Trail (McClinton -Anchor)
$20,000.00
1991 Gulley Trail - Partial Payment (Tomlinson Asphalt)
$770.00
1992 Gulley Pat bridge calls and send volleyball court (McClinton -Anchor)
$958.52
1992 Gulley Pat Complete Gulley Pat trail (Tomlinson Asphalt)
$13,892.50
1992 Gulley Pat Pipe transfer to Street Dept
$147.60
1992 Gulley Volleyball standards (City Lumber)
$124.69
1994 Gulley Pat Playground and plans (Lewis Landscaping and MESA)
$3,600.00
1994 Gulley Pat Restroom electricity and lighting
$1,966.00
1994 Gulley Pat Restrooms ($31 Inc.)
$13,180.00
1999 Gulley Park, 9 Frisbee Gaff Baskets (match funds)- Play If Again Sports)
$1,433.69
2002 Gulley Pat and VMP Bike Racks (Creative Pipe)
$539.00
2002 Gulley Pat Terrace (Caldwell Stone)
$20,136.00
2002 Gulley Pat Terrace (Home Depot)
$736.00
2002 Gulley Pat Terrace (Huff Enterprises)
$650.00
2002 Gulley Pat Terrace (MdSout Awards)
$58.06
2002 Gulley Pat Terrace (Schwartz Stone)
$4,623.08
2002 Gulley Pat Terrace (Spring River)
$422.50
2002 Gulley Pat Terrace (Tune Concrete)
$1,758.47
2002 Gulley Pat Terrace (Upchurth Electrical)
$621.48
2003 Gulley Terrace Fiber Optic Lighting (BpedalT Lighting)
$2,831.00
.
$140,358.22
LAKE FAYETTEVILLE / VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK
1983 Lake Fayetteville Sand Volleyball Court
$183.58
1995 Lake Fayetteville Botanical Garden species nameplates (Nameplate Technology)
$679.47
1996 Lake Fayetteville -Veterans Memorial Pat Pavilion J&L Construction
$51.893.00
1996 Lake Fayetteville Wittenberg, Delany & Davidson LFS Veterans Memorial Pavilion
$5.694.04
1997 Lake Fayetteville Boat Dock Improvements
$11,469.05
1999 Veterans Mentioned Park, Gate supplies (Ozark Steel)
$179.98
2000 Veterans Memorial Pat, Electical work for voleyba9 court fighting (King Electrical)
$3,280.00
2001 Lake Fayetteville North Shares fencing (Fenceco)
$7,980.00
2001 Veterans Memorial Pat Grins (Medlin Recreation)
$1,054.22
2001 Veterans Memorial Pat, Playground (Atoms Playground)
$12,807.74
2001 Veterans Memorial Park, Playground (Miracle Recreation)
$15,500.00
2001 Veterans Memorial Park, Wood Chips for Playground (Children's Specialties, Inc)
$1.638.13
2002 Veterans Memorial Pat Children Specialties Woodchips
$195.00
2002 Veterans Memorial Pat Drinking Fountains Medlin Recreation
$367.52
2002 Veterans Memorial Pat Playground (Atoma Playgrounds)
53,192.20
2002 Veterans Memorial Pat Playground (Miracle Recreation) -
$4,535.00
2002 Veterans Memorial Pat Colwell Natural Stone
$10,147.00
2003 Lake Fayetteville Sotball Complex -Install Bike Racks(RJR Enterprises)
$1,521.80
2003 Lake Fayetteville Spillway Bridge (Carter Burgess)
$38,029.91
2004 Lake Fayetteville Sachem Reyrographl¢
$662.50
2004 Lake Fayetteville Southern Reprographics
$628.32
2004 Lake Fayetteville Spillway Bridge and Trail Bid For 04-39
5301.50
2004 Lake Fayetteville Spillway Bridge
$225,560.46
2005 Lake Fayetteville Spillway Bridge
$9,118.81
$406,825.23
MUDCREEK TRAIL
2002 Muccreek Trail (Sweetser)
$830.71
2002 MudcreekUndsay (Diversified Recreation)
$1,822.87
$2,653.58
SWEETBRIAR PARK
1999 Sweetrir Part mac, bolts, washers, and nuts (Fastenal Company) $135.45
1999 Sweetrlar Park. misc. materials (Ozark Steel) $365.12
1999 Sweetbdar Park plastic wood (&peks Building Center) $832.95
1999 Sweetrfar Park plastic wood (Meeks Building Center) $999.55
1999 Sweetbdar Park treated lumber (City Lumber) $308.95
2000 Sweelbdar Park Concrete pads for picnic tables (Tune Concrete $157.98
$2,800.00
VAHOERGRIFF SCHOOL
1997 Vandergri5 School playground, Miracle Rec, 2 basketball goals, backboards & poles- Matching Funds $1,635.62
$1,635.62
NORTHWEST PARK DISTRICT
ASBELL PARK
1990 Asbell - Sand and gravel for Asbell play area (J & P)
$395.06
1990 Asbell-Weed mattfor Asbell play area (Jenco)
$133.46
1990 Asbell play area benches (Diversified)
$688.75
1990 Asbell Playground apparatus (Diversified)
$12,152.05
1990 Asbell Playground Bid Advertisement
$27.16
1990 Asbell soccer field (McClinton & Anchor)
$18,383.00
1990 Asbef soccer field (Orat Lawn Care)
$10,740.00
1990 Asbell soccer field bids (MA Times)
$102.82
1990 Asbe0 soccer field survey (Jmgonsen & Assoc.)
$1,500.00
1990 Asbell -Treated pine for Asbell Play area (Meeks)
$310.90
1990 Asbell volleyball standards (NRA Gym Sup.)
$865.50
1990 Asbell water meter (Water & Sewer Fund)
$600.00
1990 Asbell Weed mall for play area (Jenco)
S133A6
1992 Asbell Picnic tables and Bench (Diversified) (Wabash)
$1,116.00
1993 Asbell small playground apparatus (Iron Mm Forge)
$2,464.30
1998 Asbell School Pat, Mracle Recreation Equip 2 basketball goals
$1,439.44
2000 Asbell Park, Soccer goals, nets and freight (Prime Stripe)
$4,132.54
2001 Asbell - Pipe
$355.80
$55,542.24
BUNDRICK PARK
2001 Bundrick Park Enhance Sign (Plastic Lumber Co)
$573.78
2001 Bundrick Park Grills (Modlin Recreation)
$336.27
2001 Bunddck Park Playground Simclure (Miracle Recreation)
$20,930.20
2002 Bundrlck Park (Sweetser)
$4,515.50
2002 Bunddck Park Playground (RJR Enterprises)
$13,793.75
2002 Bundrick Park Playground Installation (RJR Enterprises)
$6,143.75
$4629325
DAVIS PARK
1990 Davis Grading plaMEM docs (NW Eng)
$2,700.00
1990 Davis Park Easement
$300.00
1990 Davis Park Master Plan (Bob Cations & Assoc.)
$4,200.00
1990 Davis Pat M0Wlbatbn, consi docs, coordination (Catians) (Master Plan -Davis Pat)
$4,400.00
1990 Davis Park Survey/opo (NW Eng.)
$500.00
1994 Davis Park -Trees for dev of Davis Pat (Fryers Tree Farm)
$822.90
1995 Davis Pat benches. grills, receptacles (Mod!M)
$3,429.53
1995 Davis Pat Picnic Tables (Diversified Rec)
$5,548.54
1997 Davis Playground equipment & 112 Courl Basketball Cola
$5,208.00
1997 Davis Pat
$2,424.13
2000 Davis Park, Ad for swing set (Community Publishers)
$33.75
2000 Davis Part. Swing set and ground cover (Arkoma Playground)
$16,532.40
2003 Davis Pat Observation Deck Equipment (Rugg & Hall)
$207.55
2003 Davis Pat Observation Deck Equipment (Tune Concrete)
$282.52
2003 Davis Park Observation Deck Materials (Lowes)
$586.15
2003 Davis Pat Observation Deck Materials (Meeks)
$5,253.28
352.42$.75
GARY HAMPTON SOFTBALL COMPLEX
1995 Gary Hampton Softball Complex Sign (NWA Sign)
$506.40
1996 Gary Hampton Softball Complex Red Deer Construction
$7,540.15
2002 Gary Hampton Bte Rack(Creathe Pipe)
$564.00
2002 Gary Hampton Equipment Shed (Franklin & Sons)
$2,600.00
2003 Gary Hampton Softball Complex - Install Bike Racks(RJR Enterprises)
$1,516.00
2003 Gary Hampton Softball Complex - Picnic Tables and Grills (RJR Enterprises)
$778.00
2004 Gary Hampton Equipment Shed (Franklin & Sons)
$3,068.00
$16,592.55
HOLCOMB SCHOOL PARK
1998 Holcomb School Park Miracle Recreation Equip 2 basketball goals - matching funds
51.439.44
$1,439.44
LEWIS SOCCER COMPLEX
1993 Lewis Park Street (Street Dept)
$6,763.40
1993 Lewis Park Tope (Alan Reid)
$1,950.00
1995 Lewis Soccer Fields grass seed (Farmers Coop)
$386.60
1995 LewisSoccer fields krigafon (Munldpal Pipe)
$178.67
1995 Lewis Soccer Fields sod (AgraTurf)
$2,004.50
1995 Lewis Soccer Fields straw (Fanners Coop)
$299.48
1995 Lewis Sheet Soccer field Consuuction (Street)
537,000.00
1996 Lewis Soccer Complex Payless Fence Company, wood fence Installation
$3,262.50
1996 Lewis Soccer Complex Restroom and Concession Building J&L Construction -
$113,101.00
1996 Lewis Soccer Complex Sanders Nursery, junipers for HoWculudst
$1,065.00
1996 Lewis Soccer Complex United Fence Company, woad fence materials
$4,997.71
1998 Lewis Soccer Complex Resboom and Concession Building J&L Cons ucton
$42.459.85
1998 Lewis Soccer Goals - Wheeler Metal
$85.80
1998 Lewis Soccer Goals - Wheeler Metal
$320.00
2001 Lewis additional materials
$6,085.64
2001 Lewis Sign at Mt Comfort
$335.72
2001 Lewis Soccer Complex Sidewalk (Tune Concrete)
$4,153.77
2001 Lewis Soccer Field Sidewalk
$326.54
$224,776.18
MUDCREEK TRAIL
2003 &ludcreek Troy (Sweetser)
$75,575.33
2003 Madcreek Trey (Sweetser) Retainage
$8,397.26
2004 Mudcreek Trail (Sweetser)
$116,027.41
$200,000.00
RED OAK PARK
1994
Red Oak Park - Benches for Bridgeport Subdivision (In house)
$596.74
1994
Red Oak Pat- Picnic Tables for BrigepW (Game Time)
$3,997.57
2001
Red Oak Pat additional materiels
$102.40
2001
Red Oak Pat Playground (Tune Concrete)
$776.66
2002
Red Oak Pat McClinton Anchor
58,960.25
$14,433.62
SOUTHEAST PARK DISTRICT
BAVYARI PARK
2004 Bayyan Park
56,550.00
$8,550.00
HAPPY HOLLOW SCHOOL PARK
1992 Happy Hallow Playground (Diversified)
$3,000.00
1992 Happy Hollow Playground Ad (NW Times)
$27.27
1996 Happy Hogow School (Rex Playground). Matchthg Funds, School Installed -6 inground plc tables (WebCoat)
$3.321.49
1996 Happy Holow Scholl Rehnbursement for playground -
-$1,667.00
l997 Happy hollow Playground Ad for Bid 97-18 NWAT
$64.80
1997 Happy hollow School Park, Little Tykes, playground Nd village matching funds
$6,861.71
1997 Happy Hollow School Perk, Surface America, poured In place fall safe material. 1.850 Sal matching funds
$7,188.76
1997 Happy Hollow School, Beaver Lake Concrete, accessible sidewalk to play equip, matching funds, school labor
$410.51
•
$19.187.54
JEFFERSON SCHOOL PARK
1996 Jefferson School playground equipment (Iron Mtn ForgelDiverslged Rec) Matching Funds, Shod installed
$15,271.26
$15,271.26
ROOT SCHOOL PARK
1991 Root Playground bid Advertisement(NWA Times)
$54.54
1991 Root Playground shared with Root PTO and soNool maintenance (Diversified Recreation)
$2,799.24
$2,853.78
WALKER PARK
1990 Walker North (Les Rogers)Site preparation
$3,000.00
1990 Walker North Bid AdveNsement for (NWA Times)
$54.32
1990 Walker North Soccer (Les Rogers)Topsoll
$3,712.00
1990 Walker Park North Soccer Field survey (Jorgensen & Assoc.)
- $1,480.00
1990 Walker Park sand volleyball court (J&P Tascking)
$174.59
1991 Walker Park N.Soccerfbaseball field topsail placed and graded (Les Rogers)
$2,740.00
1991 Walker Pat soccer field dlriwork AdverLLsement (NWA Times)
$27.27
1992 Walker Park Waft Bridge (Multicraft)
51,592.86
1994 Walker Park Field #7 lighting and Intercom speaker pro7M (Multi Craft Contractor)
$6.500.00
1994 Walker Park Restrooms (551 Inc.)
$9.839.00
1994 Walker Park Restrooms Electricity and lighting
$2.063.08
1995 Walker Fence Field #4 Replace(Modem Fence)
$9,019.50
1998 Walker Park Parking Lot-J&L Construction
$23,000.00
1998 Walker Park Parking Lot -J&L Construction
$29,884.00
1998 Walker Park, AR Democrat Gazette Ad far Playground
- $29.60
1998 Walker Park, AR Democrat Gazette Ads for bids for playgrounds
$66.40
1998 Walker Park, NWA Times Ad for playground bins
$44.80
1998 Walker Park, Sturdisteel Co. Bleachers
$8,060.09
1999 Walker Park, Labor, equipment and materials for 5' sidewalk at 13th and Block ( Jerry Sweetser Inc)
$5,218.50
1999 Walker Park, restnpe and paint ADA spaces
$120.72
2000 Walker Park North. (BMX and Skate Park area) Drinking Fountain ( Most Dependable Fountains)
51,785.94
2000 Walker Park, Soccer goals, nets and freight I set (Prime Ships)
$2,06827
2001 Walker Park Plaque for Chamber of Commerce (Chamber of Commerce)
$491.97
2001 Walker Park Scoreboard Installation (MultiCraft)
$4,000.00
2001 Walker Park Skate Park- Purkiss Rose RSI
$19,155.66
20D2 Walker Pat Baskethall Goal, Post and Rims (Ark Playground)
$5,651.18
2002 Walker Park Electricity at N. Pavilion for Skate Pat and BMX (King Electrical)
$8,814.00
2002 Walker Park Post. Sleeves, Nets and Ground Anchors for Tennis Courts(Accurate)
$972.40
2002 Walker Park Skate Park (C-Tec)
$62,038.52
2002 Walker Pat Skate Park mall to C-Tec (Federal Express)
$35.81
2002 Walker Pat Skate Park Prokd(Southem Reprographics)
$35513
2002 Walker Pat Skate Pet Signage (Snodgrass Signs)
$298.03
2002 Welker Pat Skate ParkWTennis and Basketball Court Resurfacing Ad (Ark Democrat Gazette)
$382.50
2002 Walker Park Tennis Court Fendng(Modem Fence) -
$9,650.00
2003 Walker Pat Skate Park (CTEC)
$172,44925
2003 Welker Pat Tennis and Basketball Court Renovations(Eckco Inc) '
• $13,986.00
2004 Walker Pat Mrral Project
$1,348.61
2005 Walker Park Entry- Midland Construction
532,237.50
2005 Walker Pat hWral Project
$1,050.16
$463,415.76
WHITE RIVER BASEBALL COMPLEX
2000 White River Basebaf Complex, Ormking fountain at new concession (host Dependable Fountains)
$1,732.76
•
$1,732.76
SOUTHWEST PARK DISTRICT
BATES SCHOOL PARK
1998 Bates School Park (Diversified Recreation) school to Install Little Tykes Playground Equipment
$30,439.44
1998 Bates School Park. NWA Times Ad for olds
$31.05
$30470.49
FINGER PARK
1994 Finger Park Restrooms Electricity
$575.00
$575.00
GREATHOUSE PARK
2000 Greathouse Park, Basketball goal, post and nets (Meade Recreation Equipment)
$93348
2000 Greathouse Park, Bridge replacement and construction work (Tomlinson Asphalt) (Shared Cost)
$63000.00
2001 Greathouse Park Playground System (Little Tikes Comm Play System)
$12.688.45
2002 Greathouse Park Reclass tax pot741
- -$68845
$75,933.46
LEVERETT SCHOOL PARK
1990 Leverett apparatus bids (NWA Times)
$52.38
1990 Leverett playground equip. (Rex Playground)
$2,545.00
1997 Leverett School Par. Foldagoal (Gopher Sports) matching funds soccer goal nets
$128.52
1997 Leverett School Par, Miracle Recreation, 2 basketball poles, backboards, dbl rim goals - matching funds
$1,635.53
1997 Leverett School Par, one basketball backboard, goal and pole matching funds
$832.36
1997 Leverett School Par, Pam Richardson at the school paid for them to buy building supplies for 2 sm. Soccer goals
$30.25
1997 Leverett School Park, Rex Playground, Matching Funds 4 Regal Inground its tables and I ADA
$2,819.95
1997 Leverett School Park, Wheeler Metals, 2 large soccer goal materials matching funds -
$413.60
1997 Levaretl School Par, Wheeler Metals, 2 Urge soccer goal materials matching Funds Sales Tax
$26.88
1998 Leverett School Park - Credit from School PTO and Playground Company
-$4,364.95
$4,119.52
WILSON PARK
1995 Wilson Drinking Fountain Sales Tax (Most Dependable Fin)
$89.38
1995 Wilson Drinking Fountain (Most Dependable Fm)
$1,375.00
1995 Wilson Trail Change order (Sweetser Consi)
$9,299.86
1999 W Ilion Par, Big Tay Poured in Place (Westin Concrete Inc.)
$29.145.83
1999 Wilson Par, Installation of Pavilion (TNT Const)
$12,000.00
1999 Wilson Park, NWA Times Ad forbid! Big Toy
$72.90
1993 Wilson Park NWA Times Ad for bit Pavilion
$29.70
1999 Wilson Par, Pavilion Install brick floor (Jim Schneider)
$2,950.00
1999 Wilson Park, Pavilion Install brick floor payment from Junior Civic League
41.016.55
1999 Wilson Par, two T Picnic Tables for Pavilion (Diversified Recreation)
$1,016.55
2000 Wilson Park Caste Area, 2concrete benches (Eugene Sargent)
$2,300.00
2002 Wilson Park Picnic Pads (RJR Enterprises)
$11,800.00
2002 Wilson Par Picnic Tables (Ar Demb Gazelle Ad) •
$60.00
2002 Wilson Par Picnic Tables (Diversified Recreation)
$12.837.67
2002 Wilson Par Sal Arkansas Valley Irrigation
$45,000.00
2002 Wilson Park SONlnlgation (Ar Demo Gazette Ad)
$182.50
2003 Wilson Park Grills- Madtin Recreation
$449.76
2004 Wilson Park Basketball Court Resurfacing Project - McClelland
$845.00
2005 Wilson Park Basketball Court
54.521.00
$132,958.60
YOUTH CENTER
1990 YONh Canter gravel $ Sand
$414.63
1990 Youth Cantu landscape timbers (Meeks)
$147.58
1990 Youth Center picnic table (Meeks)
597.75
1990 Youth Center picnic table (Ozark Steel)
$146.19
1990 Youth Center playground (Meeks)
$94341
1990 Youth Center slide (Diversified Recreation)
$800.80
1993 Youth Center Picnic Tablelbench (Miracle Rec)
$488.84
1994 Youth Center Shrubbery for dev. of FYC (Fryers Tree Farm)
$89.68
$3,130.86
C,7,
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDEN
TO: City Council
Dan Coody, Mayor
An4
I^ ,4,03
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
CC: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
Connie Edmonston, Parks & Recreation Division Head
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney - ,(I
DATE: April 10, 2006
RE: Change in Park Land Dedication Ordinance
After reviewing my proposed code revision sections partly in accordance
with recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Connie
Edmonston sent me the attached memo requesting some further changes. I
have incorporated the changes she requested as much as possible.
Because the state impact fee statute requires a developer have a right to
choose land dedication rather than being forced to make a monetary payment,
subsection (d) Decision must provide a developer with this option. Therefore,
I did not believe I could legally make all requested changes without
endangering the validity of the whole park land ordinance. The changes I made
pursuant to Connie's memo are in bold on the attached Exhibit "A".
This
revised
Exhibit "A"
{with the included new wording (no longer in
bold)} will
be what
is before the
City Council for your
meeting.
Although there could be a time when property slightly under an acre in
an infill lot could be developed adjoining a proposed trail, the vast majority of
residential infill lots are.probably way too small for anything but a small house.
Therefore, if the City requires all residential infill on lots less than an acre be
subject to the park land ordinance, the developer will normally have no choice
about dedicating parkland (less than one 40`h of an acre per house), but instead
would have to pay park land fees. This would violate the state impact fee
statute grandfathering in our Park Land Ordinance. Thus, I cannot recommend
following this suggestion from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (who
were not at that time informed about the state statutory requirements).
Please remember that the two biggest changes you are being
asked to make in the Park Land Ordinance are:
1. The increase from $555.00 to $960.00 for single family house
park land fees; and
2. The elimination of the code section incorporating the
Neighborhood Park Ordinance (which ensured that the City Council is
aware and consents to any 100+ house development that does not want
to dedicate land for a neighborhood park within the subdivision).
Exhibit "A"
(K) Park land dedication.
(1) Subdivision.
(a) Dedication or fee -in -lieu. When a proposed
subdivision does not provide an area or
areas for a public park based on the
Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Plan, the
developer shall be required to make a
reasonable dedication of land for public park
facilities, or to make a reasonable equivalent
contribution in lieu of dedication of land,
such contribution to be used for the
acquisition and development of park land
that serves the subdivision or development.
(b) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
Prior to the submittal of a preliminary plat or
large scale development plan, the developer
shall submit to the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board a concept plat or plan.
(c) Planning Commission. The developer and
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
shall make a joint recommendation to the
Planning Commission as to the land
dedication or contribution in lieu of
dedication. In the event that they are unable
to agree, the developer and advisory board
shall make separate recommendations to the
Planning Commission who shall determine
the issue.
(d) Decision. If the developer proposes to
dedicate land for a public park after
consultation with the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board which the
Planning Commission determines is suitable
for park purposes, the proposed dedication
shall be accepted. Upon consent and
consultation with the developer and the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, a
developer may dedicate a portion of the
required park land dedication and make a
contribution of money in lieu of land
dedication for the remaining park land
dedication requirement. With consent of the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, this
monetary contribution may be used to
develop the park land in the development or
elsewhere within the quadrant consistent
with the Fayetteville Parks and
Recreation Plan.
(e) Approval. The Planning Commission's
decision must be incorporated into the
developer's preliminary plat or large scale
development plan prior to plat or plan
approval.
(t) Dedication ratios. Land shall be dedicated
at a ratio of .024 acre of land for each
single-family dwelling unit and .017 acre of
land for each multi -family dwelling unit.
(g) Fee -in -lieu formulas. A contribution in lieu
of land dedication shall be made according
to the following formula:
$960.00 for each single-family unit
$680.00 for each multi -family unit
based upon actual density. The Parks
Department shall review the contribution
formula every two (2) years and make
recommendations to the City Council
following such review.
(h) Dedication in excess. If a developer
requests to dedicates park land which
exceeds the requirement of this subsection,
the Planning Commission may grant the
developer a credit equivalent to said excess.
Said credit shall be applied toward the
developer's obligation under this subsection
for any subsequent development located in
the same park quadrant.
(2) Timing of dedication and/or contribution.
All dedications of land must be made before
final plat approval or large scale
development approval. A final plat shall not
be released for recordation until the deed for
a land dedication is received. Deeded land
is dedicated public park land and not subject
to any right of reversion or refund. A cash
contribution in lieu of required land
development shall be payable within 30 days
of final plat approval or large scale
development approval. With the approval of
the Planning Commission a developer may
pay such contribution in three equal
installments to be paid in full within one
year of final plat approval. If a developer
makes a cash contribution in lieu of land
dedication, the developer shall be entitled to
Exhibit "A"
a pro rata refund, together with the accrued
interest therefrom, in the event actual
density is less than the density used as the
basis for the developer's contribution;
provided, no refund shall be made unless
application therefore is made in writing to
the Zoning and Development Administrator
within one year from the date of final plat
approval. In the event actual density is more
than the density used as the basis for a
dedication of land or case contribution the
developer must make an additional land
dedication or contribution in lieu of
dedication.
(3) Applicability. The requirements of this
subsection shall apply to lot splits, replats of
subdivisions and large scale developments;
provided, said requirements shall not apply
to a lot split or replat which does not create
one or more vacant lots on which a structure
could be erected under the city's zoning
regulations.
(4) Zoning Requirements. Lots created for the
purpose of park land dedication shall not be
required to meet the standards for lot size,
bulk and area within any zoning district.
(5) Fee -in -lieu allocation. All money received
under this subsection shall be deposited in
an interest bearing account. Said money
together with the interest, shall be expended
within three calendar years of the last date of
the calendar year in which it was received
for the acquisition and development of park
land that services the subdivision for which
a contribution in lieu of dedication has been
made. If said money has not been expended
within the three-year period, said money,
together with the interest thereon, shall be
refunded to the developer who made the
contribution.
ARKANSAS
PARKS &
RECREATION
1455 S. Happy Hollow Road
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Interdepartmental Correspondence
To: Kit Williams, City Attorney
Thru: Gary Dumas, Operations Director
From: Connie Edmonston, Parks & Recreation Director
Date: April 10, 2006
Subject: Park Land Dedication Ordinance
I have a few concerns I would like to review with you concerning the new drafting of the
Park Land Dedication Ordinance. Sorry this is late, but I was unaware of the ordinance
being changed to this magnitude until I received the agenda packet.
1. For developments less than 1 acre, I believe the homes are creating an impact
on our parks system. The City charges an impact fee for water and sewer, as
well as fire and police, for these developments, then why can't. Parks charge.an •: k *y �.'-rz
impact fee. What if the infill project was a three or four floor high apartment
complex that might have room on their lot for a small pocket park or the land is
needed for our trails system.
2. K (d) Decision. I would feel more comfortable if the first statement adds "after
consultation with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board". Otherwise, I am
afraid the developers will try to skip the review process. I also prefer the wording
of the old ordinance in describing the word "suitable for park purposes". If at all
possible, I would like to leave in the statement of the old ordinance stating, "No
land dedication will be accepted as a public park unless it is determined by the
Planning Commission, after consultation with the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board, that the physical characteristics of the site, and its surroundings make the
site suitable for park purposes and the proposed dedication is consistent with the
Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Plan." The term consistent with the
Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Plan is important and should remain within this
section.
3. K (d) Decision. The last sentence under (d) needs to add that the park design
and equipment must be approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
Otherwise, our parks may not be developed to the standard required. We have
had developers say they would purchase a playground structure from Lowes,
which does not meet the safety standards for public parks.
90OZ/6/b LiuiXubgllpoq`gnpan3=PzO`•009XOZl=zs`Z'6I6l8Llg/dXg'9Z6£N/?P�/1au•xoiloolgnop'Pu//:dug
9002/6/b LIa?>IqX?uPoq`!lhga=Pio`•09X89bss`•£'6I6l8Llg/dXg'9Z6
I JO l QOud
iolouz lno pug of onq Xoil3
r
,i
4. K (h) Dedication in excess. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board approved for
the developer's request for banked land to be a written request. Because the
banked land is for future developments, the written request clarifies our records.
One question that might need to be clarified is does the credit for banked land go
with the developer for future development in that same quadrant, or can the
banked land be sold with the property.
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 17, 2006
To: Mayor Dan Coody and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Operations Director
From: Connie Edmonston, Parks & Recreation Director
Subject: Park Land Dedication Request - City Council Agenda New Business, Item #9
Several amendments to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance were approved by the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board (PRAB) and Planning Commission. Some of these amendment changes differ from the
amendments subsequently made by City Attorney, Kit Williams. I would like to explain the
recommendations of PRAB and their differences to simplify your review.
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and Planning Commission Recommendation
PRAB and Planning Commission recommend updating the average cost per acre for determining the
fees in lieu from $23,125 to $40,000. U.D.C. 166(K)(1)(g) This changed the fees in lieu of a land
dedication from $555 for a single-family unit to $960; and from $393 for a multi -family unit to
$680. The sale price from the Washington County Assessor was used to determine the average cost
per acre within the city limits. It was determined that using an average cost per acre city wide would
be the most equitable method.
City Attorney Recommendation
No change in the recommendation from PRAB and Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommendation is the same as the PRAB and Planning Commission recommendation.
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and Planning Commission Recommendation
PRAB and Planning Commission recommend requiring residential developments under one acre to
be subject to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance. U.D.C. 166(K)(3)
City Attorney Recommendation
This would be in violation of the impact fee statute (A.C.A. §14-56-103 (i)(3) which states:
"(3) In addition, a municipality with a park land or green space ordinance that has
been in existence for ten (10) years on July 16, 2003, and any amendments to the
ordinance, which allows the option to pay a fee or to dedicate green space or park
land in lieu of a fee, may continue to be administered under the existing
ordinance."
Quoted from the City Attorney's April 10; 2006 memo to City Council: "...Because the state
impact fee statute requires a developer have a right to choose land dedication rather than being
forced to make a monetary payment, subsection (d) Decision must provide a developer with this
option. Therefore, I did not believe I could legally make all requested changes without endangering
the validity of the whole park land ordinance.... Although there could be a time when property
slightly under an acre in an infill lot could be developed adjoining a proposed trail, the vast majority
of residential infill lots are probably way too small for anything but a small house. Therefore, if the
City requires all residential infill on lots less than an acre be subject to the park land ordinance, the
developer will normally have no choice about dedicating park land (less than one 40th of an acre per
house), but instead would have to pay park land fees. This would violate the state impact fee statute
grandfathering in our Park Land Ordinance. Thus, I cannot recommend following this suggestion
from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (who were not at that time informed about the state
statutory requirements)..."
Staff Recommendation
Parks and Recreation Staff, as well as the Planning Director, agree that developments less than
one acre must meet the requirements of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance. Infill projects are
becoming more common in our City. An infill project may be a two, three, or four story high
apartment complex; which might have room on the lot for a small pocket park or an extension of
the trails system. These additional homes create an impact on our parks system. The residents
of a development less than one acre have the same need for parks as residents of a 100 acre
development and should be assessed accordingly.
The City Ordinance currently requires compliance with the Park Land Dedication requirements
on all lot splits including those less than an acres, in §166.03 (K) (3)- Applicability of the U.D.C.
This may mean dedication • or money in lieu of a land dedication. In addition, the City charges an
impact fee for water and sewer, as well as fire and police, for developments less than one acre.
3 p Deletmgahe:
"Manu6ctured
Horne".:,Designatton
U.D
C:':166(Kj(1j(�)
.,�;.'
s
i.1" _ y
I%
City of Fayetteville
PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville. Arkansas 72701
Telephone: 479-444-3471 E-mail: 479-521-7714
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and Planning Commission Recommendation
PRAB and Planning Commission recommend deleting the manufactured home designation and
assessing the same fee as a single family residence.
City Attorney Recommendation
No change in the. recommendation from PRAB and Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommendation is the same as the PRAB and Planning Commission recommendation.
4Deletin•�'ihe , r.„' �.
Deleting Majoraeveli�pment :Section U.D.C.'16'6(K)tl)(g) ' ;,;,,,,, .`
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and Planning Commission Recommendation
PRAB and Planning Commission recommend deleting the major development section. Currently
the Ordinance requires a land dedication for developments containing 100 units or more, or 40 -acres
or more. A resolution by City Council is required to be approved if a development is not dedicating
the full requirement of land. This adds more time to the review process.
• All residential developments are evaluated by criteria approved by PRAB regardless of
their size.
• In determining if park land is needed in a development, Park Staff utilizes the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan, Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trails Master Plan,
and current park property service areas.
City Attorney Recommendation
Quoted from the City Attorney's April 10, 2006 memo to City Council: "I have drafted the
replacement § 166.03 (K) ..., as proposed by the Parks Department with the assumption that the
City Council may wish to abandon its automatic review of a decision that a large neighborhood
subdivision does not need a neighborhood park. If an alderman believes such as review may still
be'beneficial, the old subsection may be inserted by amendment. As this is a policy decision, I
cannot and will not take any position on the merits of removing or retaining this subsection."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommendation is the same as the PRAB and Planning Commission recommendation.
S Requirement of a Written Request' to Bank l;and.for,Future,Development ' .t=':'
U'.D.C:166 K �. x
..
l
City of Fayetteville
PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Telephone: 479-444-3471
E-mail: 479-521-7714
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and Planning Commission Recommendation
PRAB and Planning Commission recommend adding the requirement of a written request to bank
land for future development. If a developer wishes to dedicate more land than required, he may
request to bank the excess land and obtain credit on future developments located within the same
park quadrant. A written request will minimize any confusion when future development is
reviewed and banked land is requested.
City Attorney Recommendation
The City Attorney's amendment states a developer must make a request to bank land.
Staff Recommendation
PRAB and Planning Commission approved the requirement for a developer to make a written
request to bank land for future development. A written request to bank land for future
developments clarifies and provides a document of the request. Future land banks can be difficult
to keep up with if the bank is not used for a period of time. This is very similar to K (2) Timing
of dedication and/or contribution section, in which a request in writing must be obtained within
one year if the actual density of the development is less than documented on the final plat.
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and Planning Commission Recommendation
This change in the Park Land Dedication Ordinance was not discussed by PRAB and Planning
Commission.
City Attorney Recommendation
Ordinance was changed to the following under U.D.C. 166(K)(d) Decision:
If a developer, proposes to dedicate land for a public park after consultation with the Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board which the Planning Commission determines is suitable for
park purposes, the proposed dedication shall be accepted.
Staff Recommendation
This section previously stating "No land dedication will be accepted as a public park unless it is
determined by the Planning Commission, after consultation with the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board, that the physical characteristics of the site, and its surroundings make the
site suitable for park purposes..." is a stronger statement. There have been problems with
developers wanting to dedicate park land that is unusable for their development, has a major
drainage issue, or that is too small for a park. Staff recommends the following language in bold
be added to the proposed amendment to help our City continue to acquire usable parks,
greenspace areas and trails into our system.
City of Fayetteville
PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Telephone: 479-444-3471 E-mail: 479-521-7714
7
U.D.C. 166(K)(d) Decision. If a developer proposes to dedicate land for a public park, after consultation
with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, which the Planning Commission determines the
physical characteristics of the site, and its surroundings make the site suitable for park
purposes and the proposed dedication is consistent with the Fayetteville Parks and
Recreation Plan, the proposed dedication shall be accepted.
Changes in iJ:I).C 166(k)(d*)6De6ision.- Mwe.lnr
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and Planning Commission Recommendation
This change in the Park Land Dedication Ordinance was not discussed by PRAB and Planning
Commission.
City Attorney Recommendation
Additions to the Ordinance. under U.D.C. 166(K)(d) Decision were made as follows:
Upon consent and consultation with the developer and the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board, a developer may dedicate a portion of the required park land dedication and make
a contribution of money in lieu of land dedication for the remaining park land dedication
requirement. With consent of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, this monetary
contribution may be used to develop the park land in the development or elsewhere within
the quadrant consistent with the Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Plan.
Staff Recommendation
The above section is a new addition to our existing ordinance. This change was not discussed
during the public meeting process or with PRAB. Parks Staff has concerns if the developer will
develop the park utilizing the same standards used throughout our parks system. Staff does not
want any sub -standard parks for these neighborhoods. These are parks that our City is
responsible for and will inherit to maintain; therefore, the new parks must be developed with
safety, durability and ease of maintenance in mind. There are many safety regulations and design
standards that should be maintained universally throughout our system. Staff recommends for
the sentence below in bold be added to the ordinance.
U.D.C. 166(K)(d) Decision. With consent of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, this monetary
contribution may be used to develop the park land in the development or elsewhere within the quadrant
consistent with the Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Plan. The park design and improvements must be
approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Parks and Recreation Staff.
If you have any questions, please contact at 444-3473 or cedmonston ci favetteville ar us.
5
City of Fayetteville
PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Telephone: 479-444-3471 E-mail: 479-521-7714
From: Clarice Pearman
To: Edmonston, Connie
Date: 5.8.06 1:15PM
Subject: Ord. 4864
Connie,
Attached is a copy of the above ordinance passed by City Council, May 2, 2006 amending 166.03(K).
Thanks.
Clarice
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS EDITION
•
Benton County Daily Record
P. O. BOX 1607
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702
PHONE: 479-571-6415
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, Maria Attaway, do solemnly swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Arkansas
Democrat Gazette newspaper. Printed and published in Benton County
Arkansas, (Lowell) and that from my own personal knowledge and
reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of:
Ordinance 4864
Was inserted in the Regular Editions:
May 12, 2006
Publication Charge: $245.28
Subscribed and sworn rnto before me
This/\day of ��� 2006.
Notary Public
Sharlene D. Williams
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: State of Arkansas
My Commission Expires
October 18, 2014
""NOTE"" Please do not pay from Affidavit.
Invoice will be sent.
RECEIVED
MAY 18 210.;
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLe
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
. VNUINANCE NO. 4064
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND § 166.03 (K) PARK a e evi le
LAND DEDICATION OF: THE UNIRED IFlED DEVELOP-
MENT -
CODE Y
NOW, THEREFORE* BE IT ORDAINED BY ARKANSAS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:.
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby repeals 1166.02 (K)
Park land dedleetlon and enacts a new 1188.08 (K) Park land dedicationattacfihld as
Exhibit "Ain its stead. -- - ''I
and APPROVED this 2nd day of May, 2006.
ATTEST
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
Exhibit
(K) Park land dedication.
(1) Subdivision.
(a) Dedication or fee-In•Ilau. When a proposed subdivision does not provide an area or areas
for a public park based on the Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Plan, the developer shall be
required to make a reasonable dedication of land for public park Facilities, or to make a reasonable
equivalent contribution in lieu of dedication of land, such.contribulion to be used for the acquisition
and development of park land that serves the subdivision or development.
(b) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Prior to the submittal of a preliminary plat or large
scale development plan, the developer shall submit to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board a
concept plat or plan.
(a) Planning Conanlaslon. The developer and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board shall
make a joint recommendation to the Planning Commission as to the land dedication or contribution
in lieu of dedication. In the event that they are unable to agree, the developer and advisory board
shall make separate recommendations to the Planning Commission who shall determine the issue.
(d) Decision. If the developer proposes to dedicate land for a public park after consultation with
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board which the Planning Commission determines is suitable for
park purposes, the proposed dedication shall be accepted. Upon consent and consultation with the
developer and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, a developer may dedicate a portion of the
required park land dedication and make a contribution of money in lieu of land dedication for the
remaining park land dedication requirement. With consent of the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board, this monetary contribution may be used to develop the park land in the development or else-
where within the quadrant consistent with the Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Plan.
(a) Approval. The Planning Commission's decision must be incorporated into the developer's pre-
liminary plat or large scale development plan prior to plat or plan approval. .
(1) Dedication ratloo. Land shall be dedicated at a ratio of .024 acre of land for each single-fam-
ily dwelling unit and .017 acre of land for each multi -family dwelling unit.
(g) Fesdmlleu formulas. A contribution in lieu of land dedication shall be made according to the
following formula:
$960.00 for each single-family unit
$680.00 for each multi -family unit
based upon actual density. The Parks Department shall review the contribution formula every two (2)
years and make recommendations to the City Counul following such review.
(h) Dedication In excess. If a developer wishes to dedicate park land which exceeds the
requirement of this subsection, the developer shall make a written request to the Planning
Commission who may grant the developer a credit equivalent to said excess. Said credit shall be
applied toward the developer's obligation under this subsection for any subsequent -development
located in -the same park quadrant. -
(2) Timing of dedication and/or contribution. All dedications of land must be made before
final plat approval or large scale development approval. A final plat shall not be released for recor-
dation until the deed for a land dedication is received. Deeded land is dedicated public park land
and not subject to any right of reversion or refund. A cash contribution in lieu of required land devel-
opment shall be payable within 30 days of final plat approval or large scale. development approval.
With the approval of the Planning Con -mission a developer may pay such contribution in three equal
installments to be paid in full within one year of final plat approval. If a developer makes a cash con-
tribution in lieu of land dedication, the developer shall be entitled to a pro rata refund, together with
the accrued interest therefrom, in the event actual density is less than the density used as the basis -
for the developers contribution; provided, no refund shall be made -unless application therefore is
made in willing to the Zoning and Development Administrator within one year from the date of final I
plat approval. In the event actual density is more than the density used as the basis for a dedica-
tion of land or case contribution the developer must make an additional land dedication or contri- I
bution in lieu of dedication. 1
181 ApplIcabiliy. The requirements of this subsection shall apply to lot splits, replats of subdivi- I
sions and large scale developments; provided, said requirements shall not apply to a lot split or
replat which does not create one or more vacant lots on which a structure could be erected under
the city§ zoning regulations.
141 Zoning Requlrerrrents. Mots created for the purpose of pare land dedication shall not be
required to meet the standards for lot size, bulk and area within any zoning district.
IS) Fee -In -lieu allocation. All money received under this subsection shall be deposited in an
interest bearing account. Said money together with the interest, shall be expended within three cal-
endar years of the last date of the calendar year in which it was received for the acquisition and
development of park land that services the subdivision for which a contribution in lieu of dedication
has been made. If said money has not been expended within the three-year period, said money, 9yyyyy'
Iol7adhi with the Interest thereon, shall be'refunded to the developer who made the conMbutlbn. 3 R�r1 I tl`, tyf.�.. om®
"AY 18 200O
GUY OF GUY CLUR SOFFIIGE