Laserfiche WebLink
Chair Cook stated, within commercial fees, the City charges a percentage of the market value of the <br />property. He inquired that if they were going to raise the rates per individual dwellings, would they wish <br />to raise the percentage of market value on commercial property as well. <br /> <br />Park/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated, at present, the percentage is computed at 5 percent of market <br />value, or per square foot. He stated he would not recommend an increase in this area, as the <br />City is currently spending a considerable amount of money to promote commercial and industrial <br />development, which contributes favorably to the tax base. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johns stated that the per unit basis provides for a flat fee, and market value land prices <br />can increase and fluctuate, therefore they would recoup a bit more regardless. <br /> <br />Park/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated this was correct. He explained that they infrequently obtained the <br />market value, and that was why the . per square foot cost had been put in place. He noted that the <br />determination of the market value of property had been a very controversial issue in the past. <br /> <br />Chairperson Cook stated he heard developers express their concerns regarding the expense of developing <br />residential properties, and that nothing is being done to increase the fees for the commercial lots that are <br />sold within the City. <br /> <br />Park/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated that generally, residential properties require more service than they <br />return in tax dollars, than commercial and industrial properties do. <br /> <br />Park/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated there were presently three matters to be considered. The first item <br />is the recommendation to increase park dedication and trail fees for each dwelling unit. He stated <br />another issue, which has not been controversial at staff's level, is that there would no longer be a <br />distinction between urban and rural rates. He explained this was based upon the recreational usage of <br />urban and rural families, and that there is no difference related to lot size, and the fees they pay in park <br />dedication. <br /> <br />Written comment provided by absent Commissioner Rolfe: "Any increase in park dedication is long <br />overdue. I think the new fee should be $1,500. per lot to parks and $400 per lot to trailways. Why <br />should we have an average fee: Let's be towards the top. The new homes will still come and <br />development must pick up most of the park expansion costs. Aider, all, park expansion is needed <br />because of development." <br /> <br />"Modifications of the Recreation Districts is needed. There should be a community park in each district, <br />and only as many districts as we have community parks. Also, developable land should be divided up <br />evenly among the districts so they all benefi't." <br /> <br />Park/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated another issue is that some municipalities have a sliding scale, <br />wherein apartments would have a smaller park dedication per unit than residential properties. He stated <br />in some ways this was akin to the rural vs. urban question. He explained that this was based upon the <br />determination that the recreational needs of those who reside in apartments and those who reside in <br />homes wilI, at some point in time, be the same. <br /> <br />Park and Recreation Commission/September 9, 1999 <br /> Page 6 of 14 <br /> <br /> <br />