Laserfiche WebLink
a <br />April 25. 1990 <br />"MAY 1 1990Mr. Jim Grabeck <br />3050 Jamestown Poad <br />Long Lake, MN 55356 <br />Dear Jim: <br />It seems to roe that any reasonable reading of the <br />statutes and case law leaves some serious questions as to the <br />validity of the recently enacted Park Dedication Ordinance. <br />I am firmly behind park land acquisition and development, but <br />am strongly opposed to any ordinances that may not be legally <br />defensible. <br />I would like an explanation of the apparent <br />incompatibility between the ordinance and the statutes and <br />case law. I have noted the statute language and ordinance <br />language by reference number. <br />1) The statute has no provisions for park dedication <br />for previously divided or platted lands. <br />'i;,'■'2) The statute does not allow for park dedication funds <br />to be used for development or maintenance. This provision <br />was included prior to 1980 but was repealed in 1981 by the <br />Minnesota legislature. <br />3) The preponderance of case law and the statute are <br />'very clear that the amount collected, if cash is collected, <br />must be directly related to the impact of the affected <br />subdivision on the overall park system. I have highlighted a <br />few areas to support this argument. <br />Many cities that have adopted Park Dedication Ordinances <br />that seem to be consistent with the statutes have first <br />determined their land acquisition costs, estimated the total <br />potential residential units and divided to obtain the costs <br />per unit and thus assessed this flat fee per unit as <br />development occurs. Your response to these concerns will be <br />appreciated. <br />Sincerely, <br />^4^ <br />C.E. Van Eeckhout <br />CEV/sjc <br />12.0 BitOuJAj ^3. <br />Ijoajci -5^552? <br />1 <br />5 M *£»Ti\Tuni: <br />2-b <br />CoLU\% 1/5 rb(J <br />8'lo Sup. /Nsso uurruiz. <br />/