Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge action and accountability on $10 million TIF allocation for 3rd Ward revitalization
Summary
Multiple residents urged University City officials to deploy or account for a $10 million TIF allocation for 3rd Ward revitalization, criticized small pilot home‑improvement funding, and pressed the council for clearer action; council members reiterated long‑term community involvement in the project.
Several residents used the public comment period to press University City leaders on the pace and scale of 3rd Ward revitalization, raise questions about Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds, and urge the council to adopt more ambitious home‑improvement programs.
Rosalyn Williams told the council she believes $10 million from TIF was set aside for the 3rd Ward and said the city has not used those funds effectively. "There is $10,000,000 that's supposed to go to the 3rd Ward from the TIF," Williams said, and she criticized a proposed $15,000 home‑improvement pilot as insufficient to address the neighborhood's needs. Williams said she participated in the TIF Commission and council decisions that allocated the funds and offered to volunteer her decades of experience to help staff design a more comprehensive program.
Other speakers reinforced themes of recognition and neighborhood engagement: Patricia McQueen asked the public record to acknowledge that the Market at Olive project advanced through collaborative efforts involving Paulette Carr, Rosalyn Williams and Councilman Duane Smotherson; Charles Price described neighborhood organizing in the Raby Park area and thanked Alderman Smotherson for assistance that brought $1,500 to a local block event.
Council context: Councilmember McMahon delivered a detailed account of multi‑year work on the 3rd Ward revitalization, emphasizing that the project was a community effort beginning in 2016–17 and noting the role of multiple council members, the TIF commission and community stakeholders. He reiterated the council’s commitment to moving the revitalization forward and framed the work as long‑term and collaborative rather than the achievement of any single person.
What was not resolved: Residents asked for clearer accounting and faster action regarding the TIF allocation; staff did not provide an immediate line‑item accounting in the public comment period and no vote or directive reallocating the $10 million occurred at the meeting. The concerns were recorded during public comment and will require staff follow‑up to verify the TIF accounting and to outline any actionable plan for leveraging those funds.
