Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 4, 2001 <br />Council work session agenda. Council directed staff to schedule a public hearing at the <br />May 9, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. <br />Public Services Director DeGardner advised the dollar figure indicating future park costs <br />does include the athletic complex. That figure may have to be adjusted in the future. He <br />stated the Park Board has indicated the park fee for commercial/industrial development <br />should not be eliminated. The fee should stay the same or even increase. <br />City Planner Smyser advised there is no data that supports a commercial/industrial <br />development park fee. <br />Council Member Carlson indicated she also feels the commercial/industrial development <br />park fee should not be eliminated because the majority of cities surveyed do collect fees <br />for commercial/industrial development and employee use is likely to increase. <br />City Planner Smyser advised state law requires justification for <br />commercial/industrial development. He indicated he will <br />Attorney. <br />a park fee for <br />ue with the City <br />Mayor Bergeson requested staff speak to the City to `'4 y re ing clarification of an <br />illegal park fee as opposed to a fee that is not jus <br />INTERSTATE 35W/LAKE DRIVE TRA NAL, JOHN POWELL <br />City Engineer Powell distributed <br />Drive. He read the memo noting <br />findings after reviewing the fil <br />action to recover the $125, <br />reasons: <br />a •= :ar. mg the traffic signal at 35W and Lake <br />d of the issue. He also reviewed the other <br />taff does not recommend pursuing legal <br />ied in the original letter of credit for the following <br />1. The Ci does not recommend recovery via a lawsuit. <br />2. The $125 00 amount is in excess of the benefit received by the <br />subdivision based on a traffic impact study prepared prior to the plat <br />approval. With this knowledge, the developer would not reasonable have <br />agreed to pay the entire $125,000. <br />3. The City can still recover the cost of signalization at this interchange by <br />identifying the benefiting area and assessing the costs. This would be <br />done as part of a public improvement project. <br />Mayor Bergeson advised there may be possible litigation relating to this issue. Therefore, <br />a closed meeting should be held with the City Attorney and the developer to discuss <br />options and the possibility of future negotiations. <br />6 <br />