Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />5 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />�� <br />12 <br />13 <br />�.4 <br />l5 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />zo <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />City Co��c�l Study Session <br />1Vlonday, August 20, 2007 <br />Page 24 <br />m. D�scussion — Discuss Payment in L,ieu a� '�axes from Northwest� <br />ern College <br />Counciimember Ihlan presented her researeh �nd a request for discus- <br />sion on a Payment in Lieu of Tax (PTLOT) program, specifically re- <br />lated to the proposed expansion of Northwestern Co�l�ge. Council- <br />me�mber Ihlan provided an analysis done for the City of Springfield, <br />1VIA; and City At�orney Anderson providec� a��al agr�ements re- <br />ceived earlier that afternoon from the Czty of �����y, and �he City <br />o� Falcon I-�eights. ,,���. <br />Councilm�mh�r Ihlan opined that <br />gotiate with Northw�stez-� Co11eg <br />and other impacis oi the�� p�opo:�: <br />Development Amendment (P ,= ���: <br />cilmembex Zh�an referenced recen <br />tax exempt propex�ies purchasin <br />community, and the impacts to �h <br />ers. Councilm�mber �hla� a1so. r <br />City Aitorn�y �e�ated to ..op�ion� <br />opined tha� t��.�Gi�ty had ra�t�onale <br />��� �� <br />o�iaiions�;:�° t�iis����, and �u e: <br />s�ion o?���ie Northv�estern Co1 ege <br />� � �� <br />ate w��h�`ih� appl�c�nt. <br />- �n �ne c��� <br />that the C <br />program, <br />: munztz�s, <br />o�` a PU� <br />tzon; <br />this�,�va��a goo� ��ortunit� to ne- <br />� a���a�ldxt�ona� �nf���trueture costs <br />� ��. <br />rc� exp�sion, prio� to�P,��i�ned Unit <br />�nd M� ter Plan appr�val. Coun- <br />���nz�a�n� Rand �Ie rash and <br />�� � Y Y P � <br />; ���exemp� proper�ies within a <br />� C�t `��ax base and o�:hear taxpay- <br />�- �'�- ` <br />�ference � ��inmun�cation from the <br />�'a�r;.,nego�zat�ng PILOT issues; and <br />�nd a legitixnat� basis to attempt ne- <br />ting' ho�ding pff on making a deci- <br />PUD until sta�'f had time ta negoti- <br />e��Pust recognized the instruct�ve ir��'onnation provided <br />�� <br />�c�a��y ryQ�pinion references; however, expressed conc�m <br />�ounc�i�had not had a for broad-based use of a PILO'�` <br />whe�ie�r it would include a�1 non-profits and faith com- <br />what type o�' expansian a� land use issue, in the context <br />�u1d activa�e a PILOT or exempt them from considera- <br />33 City"Attorney Anderson suggested that �he City Council have a policy <br />34 discussion; opining that h�s �ega1 opinion hopeiul�y p�ovided n�got�a- <br />35 tion po�nts to consider in land use approva�s; however, cau�ioned that <br />36 he had not completed suffcient reseaxch and analys�s to determine use <br />37 of PILOT's in o�h�r contexts, and equal protcciion arguments, casc <br />38 �aw, and implzcat�ons. <br />39 <br />