My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-08-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1990-1996 Microfilm
>
1990
>
01-08-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/17/2024 2:18:12 PM
Creation date
12/17/2024 2:15:48 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
373
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
PHASE IN - If the Council does not desire an immediate imposition <br />or a certain dollar amount, there is a possibility that it could <br />be phased in over a 3 to 5 year period. <br />ADMINISTRATION - Presently the schedule is relatively easy to <br />calculate. The new system would involve determination of value <br />which is subject over to some "dispute" depending on the proposed <br />value. As presently proposed it does place the Council in the <br />position of being the final arbiter of value on each subdivision. <br />An alternative would be to either base it on the last market <br />value for tax purposes or base the annual rate on a "Typical <br />value" property to be set at the beginning of the year. <br />PARK DEDICATION POLICY - The City's Comprehensive Plan felt that <br />park development was appropriate in the urban areas but because <br />there were 2 acre and 5 acre in the rural zone, that there was <br />less of a need for park facilities. To the extent that parks <br />were viewed strictly as open space, there is less of a need for <br />such open space in the 2 and 5 acre zones. However, those do not <br />lend themselves to other uses of parks such a organized sports, <br />significant playground equipment, etc. <br />USE OF FUNDS - The expenditures in the park areas have been on an <br />"as need" basis, with no programming for these funds. It would <br />be appropriate in conjunction with or as a follow up to this that <br />the Park Commission be directed to develop a plan for utilization <br />of these funds. An initial need has been the desire for <br />implementation utilizing these funds for implementation of the <br />Bike Hike system previously presented to the Council. No <br />estimate has been made of the cost of this system and there is a <br />need to review the use of park dedication funds for such ideas as <br />Bike Hike trails. <br />As you will note Attachment B was transmitted to the Planning <br />Commission, but no responses have been received. <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />1. Accept the proposal as is. <br />2. Table for further discussion. <br />3. Concur with the idea of a change however, table for <br />consideration of specifics. <br />4. Take no action. <br />RECOMMENDATION - Given the fact that there has been no adjustment <br />in the park dedication fees for 15 years it would be appropriate <br />that a change be made. The extent of the change however, should <br />be tabled until the Council's meeting in February. <br />PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council <br />agree to change the fees, however, delay specifics for the change <br />until its February 12, 1990 Council meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. <br />cc: Park Commission members <br />John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director <br />Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.