My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Parks Packet 11.17.21
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Parks
>
Parks Commission
>
Parks Commission Agenda/Packets
>
2021
>
Parks Packet 11.17.21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/5/2022 9:02:51 AM
Creation date
1/5/2022 8:57:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
11/17/2021
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Commission Name
Parks
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
3. Park Dedication Fee Research <br />Denaway presented staff research of park dedication fees in other cities, park dedication fees received <br />with recent developments and the evaluation of Hugo's developable acres and park needs in the <br />Comprehensive Plan. Staff used 2020 Census information of city populations and growth rates to <br />develop a list of cities that are comparable to Hugo in those aspects. Staff then compared park <br />dedication fee rates and methods of calculating those rates used by the chosen cities to Hugo's current <br />rate and calculation method. Denaway then presented information on park dedication fees collected <br />since 2015, monetary and land, and parks that had been constructed since 2015. Lastly, Denaway <br />discussed future park needs outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. <br />Open floor discussion included consideration of the Greenway Corridor Plan, what portion of park <br />dedication fees collected are monetary or land and the need to ensure a proper balance of land and <br />monetary collection. Commissioners all felt that increasing the park dedication fee would be appropriate <br />and discussed different ways of implementing an increase, including how much of an increase was <br />desired and whether to increase the fee one time or incrementally. Tennyson favored an increase that <br />would make the fee comparable with other cities, and St. Pierre added that the fee should be <br />comparable, but remain competitive with other cities. Schmid expressed a concern that too large of an <br />increase would encourage more land donation. Schmid suggested a system where the fee coincides with <br />property values, increasing or decreasing the fee in concert with increasing or decreasing property <br />values. Clarke inquired as to what information Council would need to approve an increase, and stressed <br />the need to have a logical and defensible rationale. Tennyson suggested an increase of $1000.00, St. <br />Pierre and McGinnity expressed agreement with that suggestion. <br />Clarke made a motion, Schmid seconded that Council be presented with a recommendation to increase <br />the park dedication fee by $1000.00, with a preference for a one-time increase, but open to an <br />incremental increase if that is what Council prefers. <br />All ayes. Motion carried. <br />4. Adjournment <br />Tennyson made a motion, Schmid seconded to adjourn at 8:43 PM. <br />All ayes. Motion carried. <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />Parks Commission Minutes <br />September 15, 2021 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.