Laserfiche WebLink
has brought some relief to the staffing level problem in Finance. The <br />departmen~.'ig in the process of converting to the new computer system and <br />Council should see a lot of improvements in the timeliness of financial <br />reporting, <br /> <br />g) Discuslsion regarding John Gobernatz minor subdivision - <br /> <br />Mr. John Gobernatz stated he initiated a minor subdivision in June to give <br />his son a lot; at that time, he was informed that park dedication wouldn't <br />be much; when he got final approval, he was informed that park dedication <br />would be 10% of the land or land value and that he will be required to pay <br />or give aKother 10% each time he subdivides another lot; if he gives each <br />of his children a lot, the city will own more of his property than he <br />does. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that Ramsey's ordinance indicates that each time a <br />property resubdivides, it will be subject to park dedication. For that <br />reason, it makes more sense to plat the entire piece of property at one <br />time. <br /> <br />Mr. Gobernatz noted that if he plats the entire parcel, the taxes will <br />sharply increase in 3 years, whether the lots have developed or not; he <br />won't be able to afford to keep his land. <br /> <br />Mr. Banwart noted that assessors state wide disagree with State law and <br />would prefer that tax values only go up as property develops. If the law <br />were amended, Ramsey could use it's park dedication requirement in a <br />favorable light. <br /> <br />Councilmamber Sorteberg noted that the new park dedication ordinance was <br />explained to Council as one that allows for taking a combination of land <br />and/or cagh; the potential for a parcel to pay park dedication many times <br />was not pointed out. <br /> <br />Mr. Banwart created a scenario of a large developer purchasing a parcel; <br />doing a mimor subdivision to create one or two lots and paying the park <br />fee; the developer could then plat the property to it's ultimate density <br />and not be required to pay any additional park fees while sharply <br />increasing the population in the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Banwart noted that without subjecting resubdivision to park fee <br />requirements, a developer could do a minor subdivison, pay the park fee, <br />reaubdivide the property to it's ultimate density and thereby sharply <br />increase the City's population on the one small contribution to parks. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka noted that 177th fronts on Mr. Gobernatz' property; the <br />alignment of it, aa it has been maintained for at least 15 years, is <br />partially on Mr. Gobernatz' property. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that unless the City wants to initiate an improvement <br />project, which would include realigning the road into it's correct <br />position, the City has the right to leave the road where it is. Mr. <br />City Council/November 29, 1988 <br /> <br />Page 10 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />