Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates who pays for fiscal-impact reviews and developer subsidy rules
Summary
Councilors questioned a policy requiring applicants to pay part of consultant fees for fiscal-impact reviews, discussed differences between small-business applicants and large developments, and received staff clarification about developer deposits and a $25,000 code threshold.
University City councilors spent substantial time on May 12 discussing how the city pays for fiscal-impact analyses used to evaluate subsidy requests and whether the current approach treats small businesses equitably compared with larger developments.
Council member Smotherson said developers of smaller projects are disadvantaged by a flat review fee: "There should be a distinction between these multimillion dollar developments opposed to a small business man because $2,000 makes a difference out of their pockets opposed to even the 25,000 or whatever amount that could be asked of some other business." Several council members said they want full financial information from applicants before approving any subsidy.
City Manager Greg Rose and other staff explained the current practice: applicants who request subsidies pay a portion of consultant review costs; the city covers the remainder. The city manager said this partial-fee approach "makes it less popular, I would guess, to just walk away from the deal," and that if a developer declines to proceed after the analysis, the city may still be responsible for incurred consultant costs.
The city attorney said the Market at Olive developer had entered a preliminary funding agreement under which the developer deposited funds in a special account and the finance department drew from that account to pay consultant fees as they were incurred. The attorney noted smaller funding agreements exist for projects under a $25,000 code threshold and that such provisions are common in other cities.
Council did not take a new formal vote on a policy change at the May 12 meeting; several members asked staff to review distinctions by project scale and to return with recommendations. Council members emphasized the need for documentation when applicants claim prior investments—receipts, lien releases or canceled checks—to justify subsidy requests.
No specific new fee amounts or ordinance amendments were adopted at the meeting; the discussion focused on process, fairness across project sizes, and next steps for staff review.
