Deputy Mayor Mary Gilbert asked the City Council on Aug. 14 to explain why two mobility-fee credit agreements on the consent agenda showed sharply different percentages — one around 14 percent, the other about 51 percent — and whether the city should standardize credits.

Melissa Dunklin, the city’s director of community development, said the projects are handled case-by-case. Tammy Rekke, mobility and special projects manager, explained the lower percentage reflected remaining credits tied to work the developer had already completed under an earlier county agreement before the property annexed into the city. “When they were in the county, they had two different agreements…a lot of that work has been completed already,” Rekke said. The larger credit percentage related to projects where work or credit had not been previously expended.

Planning and transportation staff told council that tri-party agreements with the county can carry previously awarded credits into city administration when an area annexes, so the apparent disparity can reflect different development timelines and what work has already been completed. Council members asked staff to provide a clearer, percentage-based presentation in future packets so council and the public can compare fee credits consistently across projects.

No formal vote was taken; staff agreed to produce clearer breakout tables and suggested policy review for future annexations where county credits roll into city accounts.

Why it matters: Mobility-fee credits reduce what developers pay into a city’s transportation-impact funding; large, unexplained variances in credit percentages drew concern from an elected official and could shape future policy on annexations and developer incentives.

Direct quotes are drawn from the Aug. 14 meeting and attributed to the staff members who spoke on the record.