Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers offer to build village park upfront and ask Plain City to consider waiving park fees
Summary
Developers proposing the Converse Crossing and Alder Oaks developments described a donated 8.8‑acre village park and said they could build a majority of the amenities immediately; they asked the council to consider waiving subdivision park fees because the developers would 'spend it upfront'. Council members asked staff for fiscal data before deciding.
Developers presenting preliminary plans for adjacent developments on Commerce Road proposed donating roughly 8.8 acres for a village park and constructing much of it as part of the initial phases.
Gary Smith, representing the developer teams, said the construction package the developers could provide includes a pavilion with restrooms, parking, playgrounds, walking paths, landscaping, and stormwater ponds — work the applicants estimated would cost about $1.1–$1.3 million. "The park fees only cover about 0.333 of the cost of all of this," Smith said, arguing that building the amenities now is equivalent to paying the impact fees earlier in the process.
Several council members voiced support for having the park available to new residents from day one, saying it helps market the new neighborhoods and avoids complaints that amenities arrived after houses. At the same time, other members cautioned that park fees also fund other village amenities (including the pool and future parks) and emphasized the council's fiscal responsibility to current and future residents. One council member said, "I would not be in favor of waiving the park fee because we have it in place and we need that every— we have to be fiscally responsible for our tax dollars and for future residents." (transcript paraphrase reflecting recorded council concerns).
Developers said some amenities (pickleball courts, basketball courts, fishing pier) might require additional funding or later public investment; they also proposed that the homeowners association maintain the ponds while the village would own the park land. The council asked staff to return with a cost-per-resident calculation and suggested any fee waiver or reduction be captured in a development agreement that specifies scope, maintenance and funding responsibilities.
The transcript does not show a final decision on the park‑fee waiver; developers characterized their contribution on the record, and the council left the question open pending staff follow-up.
