2007_0827_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mayo�r, Council Mernbears and City Manager August 20, 2007 Pagc 2 The Ciiy, as a municipal entity, has only those powers that are ex�ress�y conferred by statute, or irnpliedly necessary in order to exercise exp�ess powezs. Consequently, the pc�wear to impose a F'ILOT agreement on an entiiy ar�ust exist �omewhere in statute. Currenily, there is x�o siatu�e fihat expressly confers on Rose�ille ihe pawe�' ta impose PIL4T agreemenis on non-taxable enfiities. There are speci�c pror�isians i� sta�e law tha� do aXlavv for PILOT payx�e�ts, brxt apply only in very specif c cireuz�astancus. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. Section 477A.� 2{DNR payment to counties for wildlife refixge �a�d); Minn. Stat. Section 97A.06 �, ��bd. 3(DNR payment to countzes �ar goose managerneni cropland}. In addition, there axe varied staiutes which requir� gavern�nent eniities therriselves to remit payments as "�ayment� in li�u o�'ta�.es" zn certain situaiions. For example, municipalities are required to remit a certain portion of rental payments when �hey lease property ta a faxable entity. MnDOT is arequired �c� remi� a certain portion of rent rec�zved on excess real estate acquxrec� for trunk hi�hway �urposes. The philosopl�y a� PZLOT agreement� is simiiar to that of impact %e�: that c�nsumers of governmeni s�rvices should make a eontribuiior� to iheir cost. How�v�r, for quite a nuanaber of years there have been e�£o�s by municipaliiies and consortiums of municipalities to get such authority i�.to s�atufie, albeit unsuccessfully. Th� League of Minnesota Ciiies in it,s legislative platform has P�L4T a�d impact fee initiatives as ongoing items from year to year. �n short, we do no� believe the Ciiy has the authority �o ua�ilatera�ly impase a P�L4T ag�eement, in a vacuum, on a non-taxable ea��ity; �c�wever, �he analysis changes somewhat, and at �east provides further argunrients, where the PILOT agreement is �art af a�and use app;rnval process. Under Mi�nesota law, a municipality has the autho�iiy to impose condiiions Qn land use app�aval, �ar example conditional uses, where the condition has a nexus to the use and the "harm" that �night arise from such use. In t�.e coniext of Northwe�teac-an. Callege, �h� City Zoning Ordinance provides that the land use appravals would take t�e form o� a Planned Unit Develnpment Agreem�nt. A PUD is a vehieTe, generally, by which the parties to the agreement �ego�iate on the terms and conditions of a given �and use. Here, the College is seeking appraval o� a Master Plan for the build-out o�'the campus over, we understanci, the next 20 years. The P�azz wzll provide far tk�e constr�ction of new buildings, a�d th� renovation of existing buildings, a11 of which wiil, in iheary, inerease enrollrnent, and create a greater demand far City se�vices. Under the above circums�ances, we believe that the cancept p� a PIL4T agreement is at Ieast colorab�e enaugh to �resent it to the College as something, priar to land �se approvals,