Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After weeks of debate, council votes to remove parkland dedication fee; Park District to retain DRT seat
Summary
Following hours of public testimony and cross-examination of funding trade-offs, the council voted to accept the LDO text amendment as presented and direct staff to develop a resolution ensuring the Minot Park District a seat at DRTs; the decision removes the park dedication fee language and passed 5–2–2.
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The council’s public hearing on changes to the land development ordinance (LDO) included a lengthy exchange among the Minot Park District director, builders, neighborhood residents and council members about whether to keep the parkland dedication language and associated fees. Ellie Deloiers, executive director of the Minot Park District, told the council the park foundation currently holds about $208,000 and stressed the importance of planning and a seat at the table: "At this point... these fees come in and they go into our park foundation... $208,000 in that line," she said, adding that the new 0.5¢ sales tax is expected to generate roughly $6,500,000 per year.
Builders and some residents urged removal of the fee, calling it a hidden special assessment and arguing it increases development costs. Developers and some aldermen warned that the fee can add thousands to the cost of a new home; one builder said the fee amount combined with other charges increased project costs substantially. After extended debate and amendments, the motion to accept the LDO text amendment as presented and to direct staff to write a resolution ensuring the Park District’s participation in the development-review-team process passed by a recorded vote of 5 to 2 to 2, with dissent from Aldermen McMartin and Padraigula. Supporters said removing the fee will reduce upfront costs for new housing and help development; opponents warned it could hamper long-range park planning and reduce a dedicated local funding stream.

