Laserfiche WebLink
Office of: <br />JOSEPH G. CHLEBECK, Clerk <br />515 Little Canada Road <br />Little Canada, Minn. 55117 <br />484 -2177 <br />CITY OF LITTLE CANADA <br />RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Park Commission Members <br />FROM: Joseph Chlebeck <br />DATE: March 17, 1988 <br />RE: Park Charges <br />MAYOR <br />Michael Fahey <br />COUNCIL <br />Beverly Scalze <br />Bill Blesener <br />Rick Collova <br />Jim LaValle <br />It was unknown to Gardner Bros. that there was a park charge when <br />they divided a piece of property to Larry Lee. That is when the <br />question of the park charge came up. I reviewed some of the past <br />policies we used in park charges, namely Yorkton Phase I. We <br />agreed upon a park charge based upon the purchase of the property. <br />These park charges were levied against the entire acreage, and <br />never charged again when resubdivided. We had an appraisal made, <br />and $13,000 came from industrial property and the other $3,000 from <br />residential property. The $13,000 was placed against the building <br />permits for that development (See attachments to this letter). We <br />did the same thing with Yorkton Phase II. The property was <br />purchased for $542,583.19. The park charge was 5% of that, which <br />came close to $27,130. The commercial portion of Yorkton Phase II <br />was $20,830, that came to about $1,299.43 per acre. Those charges <br />were on the building permit. The average park charges in that area <br />are quite high. <br />As in Yorkton Phase I and II, of which the property is totally <br />developed, we do not know what the developers charged for the land <br />value in sales. The question I raise is "should we have been <br />charging park charges when the building was sold "? <br />Gardner Bros, is of the opinion that they should pay the park <br />charge based upon what they paid for the property. It appears that <br />is what was done with Yorkton Phase I and II. <br />JGC:kpv <br />Page 25 <br />