Laserfiche WebLink
w..- -.-‘V. <br />F <br />I- <br />.vVl'.'r- <br />[f/V*v:.-. <br />■. <br />I :■". <br />*F'.:. <br />Wr <br />te <br />f- <br />;-f :■c->.?:- <br />~-j <br />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 oarcel 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 tne 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 />Vongrles 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 I ike assessing 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 />:.>r