Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1992 <br /> CLIFF OTTEN SUBDIVISION - CONT. <br /> Chair Flint agreed and noted that if the park dedication fee were <br /> collected today, it would be based upon current valuation rather <br /> than valuation at the time of future subdivision . Flint then <br /> reviewed the ordinance and point out it states that "any land which <br /> is further subdivided shall be subject to the requirement of the <br /> ordinance then in effect and credit shall be given for any charges <br /> previously imposed upon the land if the subdivider can prove the <br /> fees were previously paid" , and therefore additional money could <br /> be collected on a future subdivision . <br /> Johnston suggested a trade-off of land on another parcel to be used <br /> for bike trail in lieu of park dedication on this property, or a <br /> trade for park improvements. He suggested that the park dedication <br /> ordinance be amended to include Class I subdivisions . <br /> Chair Flint thought Class I subdivisions have been included within <br /> the park dedication ordinance and directed Gerhardson to review the <br /> original ordinance to find out exactly what type of subdivisions <br /> the ordinance pertains to. <br /> Bradley stated he was not convinced that it was fair to assess 8� <br /> of the valuation on agricultural land . He noted the intention of <br /> the park dedication fee was to pay for parks when use or need has <br /> increased because of an increase in population due to development <br /> in the area. <br /> Vongries point out that the assessor assigns a valuation , and each <br /> parcel will have a different allotment as they all have different <br /> uses . <br /> Gerhardson noted Parcel A is not a part of the consideration for <br /> park dedication fees . <br /> Johnston felt they should require park dedication for Parcel A <br /> also. <br /> Bradley felt assessing Parcel A was like assessing 8% sales tax to <br /> a property . <br /> Johnston stated that 8% of the valuation for the entire property <br /> would be approximately $25 , 000, and felt this would deter the <br /> applicant from continuing with the process but felt the City was <br /> entitled to the funds . <br /> Chair Flint suggested they exclude Parcel A. <br /> Johnston reminded they that Parcel A has never paid a park <br /> dedication and should pay now. <br /> 6 <br />