Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 <br />PARR COMMISION COMMENTS CONTINUED <br />see if a park dedication fee has already been paid. It also <br />requires that the fair market value of the property be determined <br />not at the time the building permit is issued but rather at the <br />time the subdivision occurred. This means possibly going back 20 <br />years in records. The City Attorney has expressed concerns over <br />the legality of the ordinance. The State Statute under which the <br />park dedication fee is adopted provides that at the time of <br />subdivision land or money can be taken for park purposes. The <br />Commission is recommending that this provision be deleted. Staff <br />also feels the revenue lost will not be substantial since most <br />property in Orono has had a park dedication fee paid with it or <br />will have at the time of subdivision. <br />PARR DEDICATION FEES <br />ORDINANCE #89, 2ND SERIES <br />It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Peterson, <br />to adopt the amendment to Ordinance #82, to eliminate Section 2 <br />(F) relating to the development of land previously platted. <br />Motion, Ayes -4, Nays -0. Motion passed. <br />PARR COMMISSION COMMENTS CONTINUED <br />The question of how to value a property that has an existing <br />• structure on it is another matter in respect to the park <br />dedication fee schedule. The value of the existing structure <br />should not be taken into account. Should the value of the lot on <br />which that structure is located also be excluded? More knowledge <br />of previous actions is required before the Park Commission can <br />make a recommendation. <br />4. Bike /Hike Trail. This was a high priority by most <br />residents in the Parks Survey of Orono residents a year ago. The <br />Park Commission had hoped to "piggyback" on work being done by <br />the County to construct a bike path at the time the County <br />improves roads within the City. This is more difficult than <br />originally envisioned. John Gerhardson, Dick Flint, Tad Jude and <br />Pat Murphy, the Director of Public Works for the County, met to <br />discuss County Road 6. The County is requesting a wider right - <br />of -way. Could there be a place to work in a bike path? The <br />rural roads require a ditch, thus making a total of 80' needed <br />for the road. One option would be to use the shoulder of the <br />road and mark it as a bike path. This would be unsatisfactory <br />for children going to school as there would be traffic on one <br />side and the ditch on the other. The other option would be to <br />give the County a wider right -of -way, however the County could <br />just forget about the bike path and use the extra footage for <br />a wider road, etc. The Park Commission has concluded it would <br />be better to have control over the bike path outside of the ditch <br />area. This can be done by asking for a fee interest at the time <br />• of the development or by asking for an easement at the time of <br />development. <br />4 <br />