Laserfiche WebLink
prior to development. Section 2.E.(4) establishes a minimum cash <br />dedication is inconsistent with existing case law. <br />In regard to Section 2.F., the existing dedication statutes provide <br />for dedicating land for public streets at the time of platting. If <br />at some time in the future the city determines the need for other <br />roadways the city is required to purchase land easements from the <br />respective property owners. To go back and ask for a park dedication <br />fee after the property has been platted just because it is currently <br />vacant is similar to taking an easement which the city would <br />otherwise have to purchase. There is no foundation under Minnesota <br />Statutes that we are aware of that would allow cities to require a <br />dedication after a plat has been recorded. Instead of a dedication <br />this would appear more like an easement or taking which would require <br />compensation by the city rather the the reverse. We find no <br />foundation for this type of practice. <br />In conclusion, it woulu be important for the City of Orono to <br />investigate other community's park dedication ordinances that might <br />be available for review. Also, as a guidance and a useful tool, the <br />city might consider contacting Joel Jamnik, who is the League of <br />Minnesota Cities legal consul. Joel has been involved in park <br />dedication issues and might have some comments and sugo"^stions for <br />your city. <br />As an organization we have been involved with assisting cities and <br />working closely with them in their park dedication and similar types <br />of ordinances. We would be glad to offer our expertise and any <br />information to assist in this particular project. This ordinance was <br />brought to our attention by several of our members that do develop in <br />your community and we look forward to representing them on this <br />issue. <br />ban M. Archer <br />xecutive Vice President <br />0