CC_Minutes_2017_0515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 15, 2017 Page 27 City Attorney Gaughan advised that statute addressed that a subdivision application could not be held up if there was a dispute over park dedication, and since this may speak to that point, if an applicant disputes the city's position on dedication of an amount or other issue, the city couldn't hold up approval of the application but could proceed with a subsequent dispute resolution process. Mr. Gaughan advised that the city was mandated to provide due consideration to that part of the proposal in arriving at an appropriate city decision. Councilmember McGehee stated that she felt protected given the state statute and legal counsel's statements tonight in that the city would retain discretion as part of the negotiation with a developer. Since she didn't think anything better could be written that would be more direct than current language, Councilmember McGehee opined that current language should be retained as it provided authority for the city to make decisions as it had done in the past, with consistency but perhaps allowing for some flexibility in addressing connectivity issues. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she would lean toward retaining current lan- guage, perhaps with some tweaks to make it clearer and more functional. If the desire was to hold the city accountable with how those funds are used in filling and/or improving connectivity, Councilmember Laliberte suggested a City Council policy for consideration outside this code and as mandated by state statute. Councilmember Etten stated that he was in agreement with the majority of Coun- cilmember Laliberte's comments, with current code referencing the process with the Parks & Recreation Commission's recommendations to City Council. Coun- cilmember Etten expressed concern with proposed language focusing on state stat- ute by expanding definitions. While supporting connectivity, Councilmember Et- ten expressed concern that as soon as those funds moved outside existing park space or for expanding that park/open space, the money could disappear and not meet other needs in the parks in addition to the millions of dollars needed for pathway extensions and connectivity. Mayor Roe clarified that he was not suggesting that money from park dedication funds be used exclusively for pathways, but simply that building pathways was an important component of a subdivision project in lieu of or as part of land or dollars related to that subdivision. Mayor Roe clarified that it was not the intent to use the park dedication fund to fund numerous pathways. Councilmember Willmus offered his agreement with Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten, in that existing language was preferable. While realizing the intent of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Willmus noted that a future body may look at some- thing differently, and therefore, preferred the current language over that proposed.