Council Votes Against Incentive Plan For Columbia Crossing

Developer Terry Grewe, left, looks on as Alderman Mary Ellen Niemietz, second from right, poses a question during Monday night’s Columbia City Council meeting. Aldermen looking on are, left to right, Brad Oberkfell, Jay Unnerstall and Candace Hejna.

The Columbia City Council voted last night against two measures that would have paved the way for further exploration of the use of business incentives including tax rebates and tax increment financing in the area proposed for the commercial and retail development Columbia Crossing.

The votes took place following a three-hour, closed-door executive session that included Terry Grewe, a representative of Columbia Crossing developer G.J. Grewe. The votes were three in favor of each measure and five against. Mary Ellen Niemietz, Jim Agne and Eugene Ebersohl voted in favor and Jay Unnerstall, Brad Oberkfell, Candace Hejna, Fred Stumpf and Dan Row voted in opposition. The details of Grewe’s presentation regarding a potential tenant at Columbia Crossing have not been released by the council. A press conference has been scheduled for this afternoon to provide more information.

“I think we made the right decision,” Unnerstall said. “I could not support what he (Grewe) brought last night.”

Columbia Mayor Kevin Hutchinson said he was disappointed in the vote.

“At this point we have essentially told the developer we are not interested,” Hutchinson said.

In a master development agreement between the city of Columbia and G.J. Grewe, originally signed in 2004, the potential use of business incentives at Columbia Crossing was addressed. Most incentives are subject to guidelines set by the state and the city’s qualification for them had not yet been determined. Hutchinson said he spoke with City Attorney Tom Adams this morning and they do not believe last night’s votes will override the master development agreement.

After the votes, Hutchinson gave the opposition a chance to offer their reasons for voting against the measures. All five stated they are not opposed to commercial development, but are opposed to the use of TIF.

“The key in development is location,” Stumpf said. “We will develop that area more profitably without a TIF.”

“We have a great small town,” said Unnerstall. “I do not want to provide mass tax rebates to developers. Public funds should be used for serving the public’s needs. Based on the last election and referendum vote, we owe it to our citizens to respect that wish.”

Row pointed out that Columbia has always been a mainly residential community and that there are more commercial businesses than ever before. Hutchinson agreed there are more total businesses now, but pointed out residential areas are growing at a faster rate than the commercial ones. Hutchinson said over the past several years, Columbia has gone from 80 percent residential and 20 percent commercial, to 85 percent residential and 15 percent commercial.

Niemietz, who voted with the minority, challenged the aldermen who voted against the incentives, “You have said ‘no’ to all of our plans. What is the alternative?”

“Monroe County will continue to develop without incentive plans,” said Unnerstall. “We already have a TIF district and I do not see how that is paying off.”

“I ran my campaign on the basis of no TIFs,” Hejna said. “I will not propose massive tax incentives.”

Hutchinson then pointed out the cost to operate the city is increasing, with more money being spent on infrastructure, roads, water, sewer, employees, police, fire and the ambulance service.

“Our residential growth is not going to keep up with funding those expenses,” Hutchinson said. “We are telling the developer we don’t want to consider an incentive plan, even though all other communities use them to encourage economic development. How are we now going to bring in non-residential growth?”

Hutchinson also pointed out that Grewe may consider working with the village of Dupo on its development. Dupo, which lies in St. Clair County and is developing its own massive commercial center, recently requested to annex 350 acres inside Monroe County, on land that abuts the Columbia Crossing development area. A large portion of the Columbia Crossing area lies in unincorporated Monroe County and therefore is open to annexation by either community.

“There are five members of the city council that have poisoned the community with the word TIF,” Hutchinson said.

He added he remains hopeful a compromise can be made and an agreement can be reached with Grewe.

“We are not dead in the water yet,” Hutchinson said.

In a statement released Tuesday morning by G.J. Grewe, the company stated they have negotiated in good faith with the city of Columbia and performed their obligations under the agreements and ordinances passed by the city.

“The city’s new administration, elected in April, has failed to honor the agreements and ordinances made between the developer and the city,” said Grewe, who added they want Columbia to honor the city’s side of the agreement.

Grewe also pointed out the advisory referendum on the April 17 ballot that addressed the possible use of incentives for the commercial development was defeated by only 10 votes.

“All voices in Columbia need to be heard,” Grewe said. “There is a very vocal minority encouraging the newly-elected officials to default on the agreements and ordinances already in place. This action is a recipe for disaster.”

The next Columbia City Council meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 2. There is no word yet on if Columbia Crossing will be discussed.