Belton City Council members on Aug. 20 debated whether emergency repairs should be treated as eligible for tax-abatement certification under the Old Town Belton redevelopment plan and considered four project amendments for properties on Main Street and East Walnut. The council approved three first readings and rejected one after a contentious public hearing about preapproval work and possible appearance-of-preferential-treatment.

The discussion centered on whether work already begun — notably roof repairs at 408 Main Street and 410 Main Street — could be counted toward the 10-year tax abatement. Staff explained the redevelopment program’s cost-certification requirements and said work begun before council approval generally cannot be certified; applicants and staff described separate, informal email exchanges that prompted confusion about whether emergency work could proceed prior to final approval.

The council approved first readings for the 406 Main Street project and the 410 Main Street project and for a residential project at 401 East Walnut; the first-reading vote on the 408 Main Street project failed after a roll call. City staff said they will prepare any required memoranda and deeds for projects that move forward and will bring a budget amendment and potential policy clarifications back to council.

At issue was both the technical eligibility of preapproved work for the abatement and the appearance of fairness when an applicant is closely related to an elected official. Applicant testimony and repeated staff explanations focused on the redevelopment board’s current practice and the limits of the city’s ability to certify “self‑help” labor and work done before final approval. Staff described their cost-certification process: receipts, paid invoices, licensed-contractor verification, phone calls to confirm payment and work, and, in limited cases, certified payroll. Staff said undocumented self-performed hours typically cannot be certified.

Applicant Michelle Mellinger, representing 408 Main Street, told the council that she submitted the application on July 21 and paid fees on July 23, and that roof damage and lender delays forced hurried repairs. “I turned in the entire packet, every piece of everything that he needed,” Mellinger said. She asked the council to accept the expenditures already incurred because work began when a roofer became available and, she said, city staff had given informal assurances in email about emergency situations.

Mike (staff) described the cost-certification standard: “We require all of the receipts, paid invoices, any other costs that were incurred during the lifetime of the entirety of the project, have to be turned in to the city.” He added that undocumented self-help hours without prior coordination with staff generally cannot be certified because auditors would not accept a handwritten hours log.

Council members and board members said the redevelopment policy has been applied with some flexibility in the past but agreed the program lacks a clear, written emergency exception. Several council members said that creates perception and process problems; others said staff and the redevelopment board should tighten definitions and improve communication between building permits, code enforcement and the Old Town Belton Redevelopment Corporation.

Outcome and next steps: the council voted to approve first readings of the 406 Main Street, 410 Main Street and 401 East Walnut projects and denied the first reading for the 408 Main Street application (vote on 408: yes 2, no 5; motion failed). Staff said it will prepare the memorandum of understanding, deeds and tax certificates for projects that proceed and recommended the redevelopment board and staff draft clearer emergency-work definitions and a process for verifying self-help labor.

The council repeatedly cautioned that informal staff emails cannot substitute for formal approval and urged that future communications explicitly state that council approval is required before work should be performed if an applicant wants cost certification. Several council members also asked that any revisions be brought to the redevelopment board and then returned to council as a policy amendment.