The only first reading bill presented on the February 23, City Council Agenda:
COUNCIL BILL 2009-034. (Manley) A special ordinance authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, on behalf of the City of Springfield to enter into an agreement with the City of Battlefield to amend the boundary established for annexation areas and for the City of Springfield to accept the amount of $50,000.00 from the developer as payment in lieu of some future tax revenue.
Seems pretty run of the mill. Only a handful of questions, immediately, came to my mind, who is the developer? Does it matter?
From the bill:
"...the developer has agreed to a lump sum payment of $50,000 to the City. This payment is being made to help reduce the amount of sales tax Springfield will forego over the short-term because it may be some time before the southeast corner develops. This payment will be made after the developer has secured his construction loan or at the end of three years, whichever comes first."
Questions:
> Who is the developer?
> What is "the amount of sales tax Springfield will forego over the short-term before the southeast corner develops?"
Let's wait and see what we can find out Monday night. Patience, patience, patience.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6 comments:
I am simple minded so please bear with me. What happens to the proposed boundary changes if the developer doesn't get his funding for the proposed project? Do you suppose this question will be answered at City Council?
arainbo
You aren't simple minded. ;)
I wondered about that too but, I don't know that there will be an answer to that, any more than there'll be an answer to how much sales tax will be lost in the short term.
I just thought it was interesting the way the bill was worded, as if the reduction in sales tax revenue (for the short term) was an established amount, that's why I noted it and asked about it. 1. How can sales tax be lost on undeveloped property, and 2. How can the City know what sales tax might have been lost if a different developer wanted to develop it, a developer who might be able to get financing quicker? There's no real way to know, is there? Or, maybe we're both "simple minded!" :)
Another question to be considered while we're "what iffin'," if the developer gets the financing and the development proposal is approved by the City of Springfield, will he or she receive tax abatement and if so, how much tax abatement will the developer receive? It may be there will be little sales tax revenue gained by the City for many years to come anyway.
But, regarding your question, specifically, I'd think, if the developer isn't able to get the financing for development, maybe he or she will try to sell the property or perhaps, the land will sit there in limbo undeveloped for eternity. Who knows?
I read this to be that the 'developer' would rather be in Battlefield than Springfield and he (the developer) was going to pay Springfield $50,000 for that act.
$50,000 being the amount of sales tax "The City" would have received over a period of time if the developer's property had remained within Springfield City Limits.
The question may be phrases as, "How much do I got to pay you guys to let me get out of the city?"
Does Battlefield's zoning, building, tax, etc, etc, equal to Springfield's? Is it cheaper to do business in Battlefield than it is in Springfield?
Who is the developer?
I told you you ask too many questions. They don't like that.
"This payment is being made to help reduce the amount of sales tax Springfield will forego over the short-term because it may be some time before the southeast corner develops"
southease corner of what?
"I read this to be that the 'developer' would rather be in Battlefield than Springfield and he (the developer) was going to pay Springfield $50,000 for that act."
I think you are probably right and that's the way I took it at first, but, at least to me, the way it is written is confusing.
It's a good thing Ralph Manley has "experts" to decipher it for the Council.
Read the staff comments on the bill-- "Staff believes this modification ultimately benefits Springfield because the NE corner should support commercial uses that could generate the same of possibly more sales tax than the area that is being exchanged with Battlefield."
Northeast corner of FF and Battlefield.
Post a Comment