Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks fee relief as telecom yard plans revive; council asks staff for fee comparison
Summary
A telecom/contractor company proposed a 26,000 sq ft satellite facility and asked the council to align Dayton’s development fee formula with neighboring cities; staff agreed to run fee comparisons while the council debated a possible code amendment and a concurrent TIF term-sheet for a related spec building.
Tim McShane, a development consultant for the applicant, described plans for a 26,000-square-foot building with about 45,000 square feet of outdoor storage and said the company planned to use class‑2 crushed granite for much of the exterior storage area to manage dust and heavy‑equipment wear.
McShane and the applicant’s representative asked the council to consider fee relief for the site because trunk and development fees calculated on gross acreage made the project’s upfront costs unusually high. John Roush, acting for the property owner, said the city’s fees for the parcel were roughly $529,000 under Dayton’s formula, and that identical development in nearby cities would cost far less: “Davis 95,000,” he said as an example in his comparison of other jurisdictions, and he urged staff to consider netting wetlands and steep slopes from trunk-fee calculations.
Planning staff and councilmembers discussed options for dealing with non‑developable acreage in fee calculations and whether to pursue a code amendment, a variance pathway, or conditional‑use permitting to provide predictable rules for future applicants. Staff agreed to prepare a comparative fee analysis with nearby cities and to consider running any code amendment discussion concurrently with the project’s preliminary plat or site‑plan review.
Separately, the council heard a financial overview for a possible tax‑increment financing (TIF) package on a related spec industrial building. Jason Arzevalt of Ehlers, the city’s consultant, said a pro‑forma review shows the project meets the statutory “but‑for” test and that an eight‑year TIF at about $740,000 (present value) would be a more reasonable assistance level than earlier proposals. Council members split on whether the city’s direct benefit justified TIF assistance; one developer representative asked the council to honor prior council action and consider the economic benefits (jobs, fees, property tax base).
Council action: staff will return with a city-to-city fee comparison and with options for an ordinance amendment or other pathways; no fee reduction or TIF was approved that night.
