Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
La Marque council debates payment plan and cap for Medium PACE LLC permit fees
Summary
Council considered a payment arrangement for Medium PACE LLC after the company paid $12,000 toward permit fees; members debated using a temporary certificate of occupancy, adding 1% interest, capping the arrangement, or tabling until plans determine exact fees (estimates on the record ranged up to $48,000).
The council discussed a proposed payment arrangement for Medium PACE LLC’s permit fees at its Feb. 23 meeting. Staff reported the company had paid an initial $12,000 and proposed paying the remaining balance in 12 equal monthly installments once plans are submitted.
Fire and code staff said the city does not as a standard practice issue temporary certificates of occupancy (COs), but they identified circumstances where they have done so and described the temporary-CO option as a mechanism the council could authorize to allow limited occupancy while payments are completed. One staff member recommended placing a cap on any authorization because fee amounts could vary widely depending on submitted plans.
Councilmembers argued both for and against moving forward without an exact fee amount on the record. One councilmember recommended tabling the item until the developer submits plans and the city can determine the precise permit fee; others argued for a capped approval to attract business and highlighted prior precedent of fee waivers tied to large development projects. Staff attorney advised a 1% per year interest provision (comparable to tax-code past-due rates) and noted tax-lien remedies if payments are not made.
Why it matters: The item concerns how the city balances economic development goals with protecting taxpayer interests and ensuring permit costs are covered. The choice between tabling, capping, or granting a payment plan with conditional occupancy could affect a project’s feasibility and the city’s revenue collection.
What’s next: Council members asked for clearer fee numbers based on submitted plans and discussed tabling the item until that information is available; no final vote on the arrangement was recorded during the segment.
