Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />13090.1 <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />Mayor and City Council <br />Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator's <br />February 22, 1990 r r'* 0 I’’.‘H <br />SUBJECT: Park Dedication Fees <br />V r?' <br />Attachment: A. Park Dedication Fee Memo Date 1/3/90 <br />ISSUE - <br />1. Determine what changes Council desires in its dedication fee. <br />2, Determine any phase in schedule for making it effective. <br />INTRODUCTION - At the Council's January 8, 1990 Counci1 meeting <br />the issue of park dedication fees was discussed from the proposal <br />from the Park Commission together with comments by Mr. Alan <br />Carlson resident and developer in the community. Principal among <br />the concerns were: <br />A. Appropriate level for dedication. <br />B. Capital expenditure program. <br />C. Whether the fee is determined annually or on a per <br />application basis. <br />D. The proposed percentages would generate more in income <br />thin indicated in the examples based on values at which the <br />properties sold. <br />E. The means by which properties were to be valued, if it <br />were done on an individual basis. <br />F. Any appropriate phase in. <br />G. The effective date. <br />H. Public hearing prior ;o the institution of such fees. <br />DISCUSSION - The primary issues and alternatives for each of <br />those Issues are as follows: <br />1. Capital Expenditure Plan -. . . . . . . . . . <br />aT Require one prior to the fee becoming effective <br />b. Develop one based on available funds generated by <br />a fee <br />c. Table consideration of fee until one is developed <br />d. Request an estimate of needs without requiring a <br />full capital plan