Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 10/09/2003

Home

He added that for the residential portion of the 322-acre plat the cash due (if there is no land credit) ~ $1,800 per unit is $4,248,000and the Trail Fee due @ $475 per unit would be $1,121,000. As for the commercial, the cash due (if there is no land credit) ~ $2.00 per square foot is $445,052 and the Trail Fee due would be ~ $100 per acre is $10,217. Mr. Brian Olson explained they have been negotiating this agreement for months and the exhibit they received was nothing more than a trail through the site and it is nothing they expected. They have agreed to agree in the development agreement. They will take another run at it and see what they come up with. They know there will be park dedication credit as part of the development. They will see how the negotiations go tomorrow and they hope to see something relatively soon. Commissioner Olds asked if they would end up doing a cash payout. Mr. Olson indicated they need to take a stronger stance because a cash payout will not result in what they want done. The developer t old him t hat h e w ill b e putting a 1 ot m ore i n t he p ark development than what is on paper but they want to see a park .plan and things change on a daily basis. They need:to se-e something before they made a final decision. Chairperson Johns stated she thought they gave .good priorities and something should be coming out o f that. Parks/Utilities Supervisor Pdverblood concurred with Chairperson Johns. He advised that they needed to set up a meeting to assign numbers to the priorities and look at the numbers and projects and scheduling of things. Commissioner Olds noted that part of the problems with the Commission is they have ideas but they do not have any idea what the cost will be. Parks/Utilities Supervisor R iverblood stated t hat collecting t he information for costs is staff's job. Commissioner Ostrum noted if the developer thinks they have stuff they want to put in there, the Commissions priorities c an b e worked into that along with what the normal process is. The developer needs to know the Commission is willing to work with him on this project. Parks/Utilities Supervisor Pdverblood asked Commissioner Ostrum if he was proposing a meeting to prioritize what they want in the park. Commissioner Ostrum indicated he was. Chairperson Johns inquired if they needed to have another meeting sooner than later in order to get the developer going on this. Parks/Utilities Supervisor Riverblood advised that he thought they needed to do this but the Commission needed to prioritize first on what fits there and what the costs will be. Not assign priorities on the cost but on what is needed there. Park and Recreation Commission/September 11, 2003 Page 3 of 8