Politics & Government

Hopkins Parks Face Deficit

Without additional help, the park improvement fund could run out of money as early as 2013.

Hopkins will need to find some other way to pay for its parks, according to projections the Park Board talked to council members about Tuesday.

Those projections forecast that the park improvement fund will run out of money as early as 2013—raising another tough discussion about whether residents should pay more for city amenities.

The fund is stretched because significant portions of the play equipment and park structures were built more than two decades ago—shortly after Hopkins voters approved a park renewal referendum.

Find out what's happening in Hopkinswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The fund recently received a $380,475 infusion from the Excelsior Crossings and Marketplace & Main developments, and planners expect an $80,000 deposit from the Klodt development on Eighth Avenue.

But even with those dollars, the fund is on track to be depleted by 2013—the second fund in less than a year to face that possibility. In June, city leaders discussed what to do with the equipment replacement fund to keep it from going in the hole.

Find out what's happening in Hopkinswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The Park Board suggested three possible solutions to bolster the park fund:

  • The city could increase its park dedication fees, which are payments developers make to cities that go toward local parks. A November study that Roseville commissioned found that Hopkins’ $800-per-unit residential fee was the lowest of the 24 cities surveyed. The next-lowest fees were nearly twice as much, and the average was $3,933. Park dedication fees for commercial developments were more comparable to other communities.
  • Hopkins could also submit another park renewal referendum to voters like it did in 1989. The city spends about $50,000 to $90,000 per year on park improvements and would need about that much just to maintain the status quo.
  • Finally, the city could direct money from its general fund to park improvements.

“I think we just recently came to the realization that, crap, we’ve got to do something about it, so these were just the first three things we came up with,” Park Board member Tom Jenny said.

All three have possible downsides, though.

Higher fees could deter the development that Hopkins planners are working so hard to attract, and developers often ask the city to waive those fees. Park dedication fee money also comes in waves subject to the current building environment—making them less reliable than steadier sources of funding.

But residents struggling to deal with the slow-to-recover economy won’t necessarily be happy about paying more in taxes to ensure those steady funding streams.

Councilwoman Kristi Halverson zeroed in on the central dilemma city leaders face: “I just don’t like fee-ing everybody to death, and I don’t like raising everybody’s taxes.”

The three Park Board options aren’t the only ways forward—as the members themselves conceded. Council members and city staff brainstormed a variety of options ranging from naming rights in city parks to diverting excess tax increment financing to the fund. They could even use a mix of solutions.

Whatever happens, any increases would likely be proportionately moderate. A $75,000-a-year increase—near the midpoint of annual park-improvement spending—would raise Hopkins’ tax levy by about three-quarters of a percent. And even if Hopkins increased its fees by half, they’d still be well below those in neighboring communities.

“People are OK paying for things if they know what they’re getting,” Councilwoman Cheryl Youakim said.

Public Works Director Steve Stadler said the city will formulate a question for an upcoming resident survey about people’s willingness to pay for parks. City Manager Mike Mornson said Hopkins already plans to work with its financial planner to evaluate whether city fees are at the appropriate level.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here