Mercer County board postpones SRF consulting memorandum after members question who would pay and whether consultant would be independent

The Mercer County board deferred action on a proposed memorandum of understanding with SRF Consulting after members said they did not have enough detail about what SRF would be contracted to do and who would pay for that work.

Jen, the presenter, urged caution about letting project applicants pay for work that informs ordinances and planning decisions, saying, “I don't want the taxpayers to have to pay for this, but I also don't think that any organization that's going to benefit from this should be the one paying for it, as I feel it's a way for them to control what goes into this ordinance.” Board members discussed alternatives including the county paying up front and recouping costs through permit fees or splitting costs with applicants.

A questioner asked whether the MOU would simply allow SRF to represent an applicant or whether SRF would perform additional drafting and research; board members said the work product needs to be clearly defined (deliverables, fees, and whether SRF would draft ordinance language). One member said SRF had provided a 70-page copy of materials previously circulated; members asked staff to request SRF—or an applicant representative—attend the next meeting in person or by Teams to explain the differences between the MOU and any separate consulting or conditional‑use application support.

After discussion, at least one member announced an intent to vote against approving the memorandum as presented. The board decided to put the MOU back on the agenda for the next meeting so members could review clearer documentation of SRF’s role, costs, and the intended work product.

What happens next: staff was asked to seek SRF participation at the next meeting or to provide supplemental materials clarifying scope and fees. The item will be revisited when that information is provided.