FAIRMONT — The Fairmont Economic Development Authority earlier this week resurrected the subject of tax abatement to spur the development of multi-family housing in the city.

The board unanimously approved a citywide 10-year property tax abatement program Aug. 12, but when the issue came up for a Fairmont City Council vote on Oct. 14, the measure ran into opposition from Councilman Tom Hawkins, who also serves on FEDA, where he had voted for the abatement.

Prior to the council vote, which failed because of a 2-2 tie and one abstention, Hawkins lobbied for using the abatement only in targeted areas, not the entire city, and wanted the Fairmont Planning Commission and the Comprehensive Use Plan Committee to vet the abatement proposal. At the time, Linsey Preuss, Fairmont economic development coordinator, noted that neither of those entities has the authority to oversee abatement programs such as the one proposed.

When FEDA renewed the abatement discussion Monday, Hawkins again voiced his concerns, specifically about the amount of land in the city that is zoned for multi-family housing.

“This is a concept we would like the City Council to support,” said Andy Noll, FEDA president. “Every single project would have to stand on its own.”

“The point is, why I was objecting to this, this would automatically give every multi-family housing (construction project) an abatement,” said Hawkins, urging a delay until the best places to incentivize could be determined. “In my opinion, based on education from other people, we have a lot of property platted for multi-family housing, way more than we’ll ever develop in 300 years. We don’t want to incentivize every single square acre. There might be areas where they want to do it (build), but we don’t want to incentivize it. We want to identify the most important areas.”

“So you are circling back, saying this is contingent upon planning and zoning (commissions) approving where it should go or not,” Noll said.

Hawkins said the discussion of where to incentivize construction of multi-family housing should come from the city’s planning and zoning boards and the policy, as presented, would make every piece of property in this down eligible for the abatement.

“You can’t really turn them down,” he said.

“That’s not really an accurate statement,” said Amy Long, FEDA vice president.

“Yes, it is,” said Hawkins, who continued to dismiss any contrary viewpoints.

“It would require (council) approval. It would require a public hearing so if there’s a reason, a valid reason to not build on a property, one would hope it would come out during those checks and balances,” Long said.

Hawkins rejected her statement saying, “We want to focus our incentives for multi-family housing in these areas of town.”

“Do we?” Long asked.

“Yes,” Hawkins said.

“Who’s ‘we?'” Long asked.

“I don’t know. We may not want to do that, but we need to have the discussion because people a lot smarter than me at planning are saying there’s way too much multi-family housing,” Hawkins said.

He did not name any individual or board as the source for his statement.

Long said that if there is excessive property zoned for multi-family housing in the city, then the proper boards should rezone some of the land to reduce the amount.

“In other words, why halt this to do something that is within their scope to do every day?” she asked.

Hawkins insisted he wasn’t halting the proposal but was adamant about not incentivizing all the property zoned for multi-family housing.

Preuss said every developer will have an idea of where, what and when they want to build.

“Every project is going to be different,” she said. “There’s so many variables that we don’t want to narrow it down and say, here’s five pieces of property that we’ll incentivize on.”

She said workforce housing, with a low 2 percent vacancy rate, is a major issue for area employers.

“We want to get it going. We don’t want to put it off,” she said.

Hawkins said once the council passes the abatement proposal, no one could be turned down if they wanted to build “on one of those pieces of property we might not want to do it on.”

“Which begs the other question, where don’t we want multi-family housing built and why?” Noll said.

“All I’m saying is, we need to have the discussion,” Hawkins said. “There’s people who are a lot smarter than any of us about planning have an opinion that’s different. I think we just need to hear them out.”

“We need to be very careful saying this is a blanket approval because it’s not,” Long said.

“That’s why it says application will need to be made to the city of Fairmont and approved before the project begins any construction,” Preuss said. “All applicants will require a public hearing as state statute requires that the city approve each project individually.”

“But there’s no restriction as to where it is,” Hawkins said. “Your policy says any property in town is available.”

“We don’t have a policy that says every property in town is available. This is not a policy,” Preuss said.

Hawkins said a representative from the city’s bond counsel said it was a policy.

Preuss said that is why she changed the proposal from the draft originally approved by FEDA and denied by the council.

“Is this different?” Hawkins asked.

“There was two-plus pages, and now it’s three paragraphs,” Noll said. “The idea is to gain support here and with the City Council so we can say, here’s the scope of the abatement if it is approved. If someone makes an application, it still has to get approved all the way up to the City Council.”

“It appears that the city can go ahead, but I think we have to let people know that just because they have property for multi-family housing, doesn’t mean it will be approved,” said Hawkins, after reading the revised draft. “This doesn’t tie the council’s hands.”

“So do you support it?” Preuss asked.

“I apologize. I thought this was the same as before,” Hawkins said.

He agreed to support the proposal but added that it could be stopped again at the council level if he detected issues with it later.

“But I don’t want it stopped,” Preuss said. “The problem is housing. I want people to know we’re being progressive with housing.”

“I don’t think I’ll have an issue with this here, but I’ll have time to figure it out,” Hawkins said.

Noll said each applicant should be given serious consideration, regardless of where the project would be built.

Hawkins said a project could be turned down because of a property’s location, “based on direction from planning and zoning.”

Noll said if the planning and zoning commissions want to control where multi-family housing is built, those boards should alter the city’s zoning map to reflect the best areas for such construction.

“And not write it into this program,” Long said. “If you don’t want something built, then change the (zoning) map.”

“If planning and zoning thinks those areas are not appropriate, have them change it,” said Councilman and FEDA board member Bruce Peters.

“Oh, we will,” Hawkins said. “We just want to have some concrete direction.”

On a motion from Peters and a second by Hawkins, FEDA unanimously approved the abatement draft proposal.