New Search
le <br />Hammitt, Bob <br />From: <br />Medlin, Johnny <br />To: <br />Etter, John; Morgan, Dick <br />Cc: <br />Lyle, Les; Hammitt, Bob <br />Subject: <br />RE: Field of Dreams <br />Date: <br />Tuesday, July 19, 1994 1:07PM <br />John, to me this issue is this: <br />1. We can't authorize any expenditure of SDF out of our capital accounts until the policy is adopted and the <br />specific project is reviewed under the policy criteria. I believe this will need to be our position in all instances. <br />2. Since this is one of the parks Chris took to exec's and they said go ahead, you can tell Donna Stiegner that <br />we are willing to take ownership of the undeveloped parkland. <br />3. If they are proposing to do development in lieu to SDF, then we need a specific proposal to respond to. I <br />understand you have given them some guidlines of what we are nor in a position to accept as improvements at <br />this time, but we still need a proposal to react to. Then I'd want to make sure the SDF calculation they will owe <br />and are working against (in lieu) is correct and reviewed. The amount of review and if it needs to be "PUBLIC" <br />would be determined when we knew what was being proposed. <br />4. 1 understand they have scraped the idea of credit for them donating land for park purposes which they would <br />be required to have anyway for open space due to their greater than normal proposed density. <br />Thanks Johnny <br />From: Etter, John <br />To: Morgan, Dick; Medlin, Johnny <br />Subject: Field of Dreams <br />Date: Tuesday, July 19, 1994 8:46AM <br />I recall a park improvement impact analysis form for Field of <br />Dreams, but have not heard for sure that we will accept it as <br />a city park. We were leaning toward such a recommendation, as <br />I recall. The Planning Division is sitting on the final <br />approval of the subdivision, wanting to know for sure which <br />way this is going. <br />I am clear that this is okay to take in terms of park planning <br />criteria. The unresolved issue for me is the funding for <br />construction. I am comfortable with SDF's, either in an <br />amount to the charge to be paid for 47 units (about $16,260), <br />or based on the percentage of the new development to the total <br />build -out of a realistic service radius, which is <br />substantially less than the normal 1/2 mile due to several <br />street barriers. The latter method would yield substantially <br />less (no calculation yet) assuming that a portion of each fee <br />were earmarked to go toward the variety of improvements listed <br />in the SD methodology. <br />SD methodology apparently allows us to dedicate funding in <br />disproportionate ways so that we can end up with parks of <br />Page 1 <br />