Village considers fee waivers, checklist for developers

By Dave Fidlin

Correspondent

Initial consultation costs for applications and other incidental fees could be waived for developers in Waterford as part of a proposal described by several village officials as “pro-business.”

Village President Tom Roanhouse requested the board discuss waiving select fees for business owners interested in developing in the community.

Discussion ensued Oct. 13, and Village Administrator Rebecca Ewald was directed to develop a document within the next month that will outline the process for granting a waiver to a prospective developer.

Roanhouse said he is concerned about possibly exorbitant costs that might deter from building within the village.

“I think (the fee policy) needs to be qualified a bit,” he commented. “In effect, it’s a blank check right now.”

One issue of concern, from Roanhouse’s view, is the fees assessed for a preliminary review of a construction project.

“I’m saying maybe we need to review the process,” Roanhouse said. “Some people might not be willing to pay that.”

Ewald and Village Attorney Marcy Hasenstab discussed a proposal that could potentially entail the village incurring the costs of Hasenstab’s services during the initial consultation of a development project.

If implemented, the scenario means Hasenstab’s attorney fees during the initial review would be passed on to the village, rather than the developer.

Reflecting on recent incidents, Hasenstab said there have been instances where a review — a necessity to ensure proposed developments are in line with state statutes and village ordinances — has been seamless.

But Hasenstab said there have also been other cases where the exact opposite has been true.

“If you give me something that conforms to (village) code … it’s not going to take me long,” Hasenstab said of her reviews. “But I’m not going to give my services away for free, especially if people aren’t going to take the time (to comply with the code).”

To ensure the consultation fee waiver would be as effective as possible to all parties involved, Ewald suggested creating a checklist that village staff and developers can review as preliminary steps in the planning process take place.

“I think we need to document what our expectations are,” Ewald said. “We need to be as transparent as possible. It will be a work in progress. We’ll make changes and tweaks along the way.”

No formal action was taken by the board, but several trustees agreed with Roanhouse’s assessment of the fees.

“I do think we need a method that’s more in favor of the developer,” Trustee Don Houston said. “(Developers) should know what the costs will be. As a village, we need to be pro-business.”

Roanhouse said he believes the proposal is in the best interest of all parties — village staff, taxpayers and developers.

“Everyone will be on the same page with the consultation meeting,” Roanhouse said of the checklist that Ewald is developing.