03/05/2001 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

03/03/99 15:44 LAW OFFICES 2140 4TH RUE -) 651 464 4568 NO.592 P05 • Mr. Todd Haas March 3, 1999 Page 4 not pass the second part of the test. I do not see how the flat fee charge can be seen as an "individualized determination" that the amount of the charge is roughly proportionate to the need created by the development. The statute makes clear that a dedication must be "reasonable" and must be "based on the fair market value of the land." I do not see how a unit dedication takes into account the value of the land or takes into account the impact of the subdivision upon the City's park requirements. I believe the City has to conduct a study that will allow the City to make a finding that the subdivision will create an increased need for park facilities. The City must then determine what amount the dedication is roughly proportionate to that impact. In doing so, the City must take into account the fair market value of the undeveloped land. The amount of the proposed unit dedication demonstrates my concern. At $ 1,350 per unit for single family residents, and assuming two units per acre, this is a park dedication requirement of $2,700 per acre. If we use the 10% figure from before, this means that the value of undeveloped land in Andover must be at least S27,000 per acre. I do not believe this is the case. • The trail dedication fee is a charge that is in addition to the park dedication requirement. The same law discussed above is applicable to the trail dedication fee. Assuming that a new subdivision creates an impact and a need for additional trail facilities, the City must still be able to demonstrate that the • amount of the trail dedication fee is roughly proportionate to that impact. A unit charge may be an appropriate starting point as it takes the element of density into account. However, it does not take into account the fair market value of the land or the impact on a trail system from the particular subdivision. Another problem 1 have with the trail dedication fee is that it is not a plat dedication fee at all. It is not a fee imposed upon the developer as part of the platting process but is a proposed to be a fee imposed upon the land owner at the time of application for a building permit. I see no authority for the City to impose this charge at the time of building permit application. The statute clearly authorizes the City to impose a trail dedication as part of subdivision approval. It is my recommendation that a trail dedication fee be a condition of plat approval and not a charge assessed at the time of a building permit application. • CONCLUSION. Minnesota law clearly authorizes a municipalities to require developers to dedicate a reasonable portion of their subdivisions for park and trail purposes. In order to sustain such a dedication, the city must prove that a relationship exists between the proposed subdivision and the city's requirements. That is, that the proposed subdivision will have an impact and increase demand upon park facilities. Second, the city must be able to prove that the amount of the dedication is roughly proportionate to that impact. In doing so, the city must make some sort of individualized determination that is based upon the fair market value of the land. I do not believe that the proposed per unit park dedication fee meets this legal standard.