Agenda Packets - 2004/04/12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The current version of the City’s ordinance contains a formula by which the dedication amount is to be determined. While having a standard formula is a convenience, it is open for challenge and must be justified. In order for a specific park dedication requirement to be upheld there must be a factual basis for the City’s determination that it constitutes a reasonable exaction as it related to the subdivision in question. As the court in Collis noted “subdivision with lots of different sizes may bring in different numbers of people. A high-rise building or small-lot development might create a greater need for parks and recreational space than a large-lot development.” The percentage of total acreage is not necessarily a rational measure. Conclusion The provisions of Chapter 1204 authorizing park dedication appear to be consistent with the law. At the same time, I would suggest the following changes: 1. Section 1204.02, subdivision 1 (a). Delete the requirement that a market value must be based on the undeveloped land. This was included in the earlier version of Section 462.358, but the current law is “fair market value of the land.” This will avoid potential disputes of what constitutes undeveloped or developed land. 2. Section 1204.02, subdivision 4. The current formula by which the City determines the appropriate portion for the dedication would not necessarily be found invalid. However, keeping in mind the caution articulated by the court in Collis that a flat percentage may be arbitrary as a matter of law if it does not consider the relationship between the particular subdivision and recreational need in the community, it might be better to avoid the establishment of a rigid formula. Instead, the City may make a finding in their ordinance that up to 10% dedication requirement is reasonable, but that the exact amount would be determined by the City based on the following factors: (1) the market value of the land; (2) the need for open space generated by a subdivision; (3) the existence of the land dedicated for public use within the subdivision; (4) other factors unique to a particular subdivision which would suggest that it should pay more than the “standard” fee. The bottom line is that any dedication fee may be open for challenge. However, if the City justifies the imposition of a fee with evidence to support particular circumstances of the proposed subdivision (not a particularly high standard), the burden is on the developer to show that the dedication requirement was unreasonable. 3. Determination of the fair market value. The City’s current practice of using county assessed values should be changed. The statute neither defines a “fair market value” nor requires the assessment to be done in any particular way. Using an appraiser might be a better practice for the City in order to ensure that the value of the land for dedication purposes correlates with the true market value of the land in question. This also appears to be the general practice in other cities.