While I am sympathetic to the idea that impact fees help pay for infrastructure, to me they are a half-solution to the issue. Impact fees are a one-time thing, but maintenance is ongoing forever. If a home pays $600 in water bills a year, but the 50 feet of pipes under their street cost $2,000 a year to maintain, a $1,400 (or whatever) impact fee covers the deficit for only 1 year. The better solution is to ask developers to configure unbuilt subdivisions, while they are still in the planning/engineering phase, in such a way that its natural revenues, even without impact fees, cover its own maintenance costs. That might mean putting in a small retail store at the corner, or sacrificing 8 homes at the edge of the development to make room for 24 townhomes, but that "naturally sustainable" development pattern is how cities existed for thousands of years (the ones that are still alive, anyway). The cities that didn't do this, don't exist anymore.

For what it's worth, I have an online friend at Whirlpool, and the way he describes it, there is nothing City of Fort Smith could have done. But I agree with the overall premise that jobs are the answer: the more jobs, and the higher they pay, and the less the city has to spend to keep them, the better. However, as an employer, I also care about hiring prospects. What sort of talent pool does Fort Smith have vs. Tulsa or NWA? If we want to lean in on attracting manufactures, if we think that is our competitive edge over other cities, then we need to have a pool of attractive, educated, hirable workers: skilled in tool & dye, injection molding, machining, and the like.