Fairview advisory committee reviews rewrite of urban renewal tenant-improvement grant

Fairview Economic Development staff proposed changes to the city's urban renewal grant program on a topic EDAC members described as aimed at speeding private occupancy of vacant storefronts. Sarah Sheldon, staff member, told the Economic Development Advisory Committee the staff recommendation is to create two distinct grant categories'one for tenant improvements to ready vacant commercial space for businesses and one for broader development assistance tied to new construction or site-level projects. "Staff is recommending that the urban renewal grant pay for up to 50% of the total project cost up to a maximum dollar amount," Sheldon said. The committee was asked to give feedback before staff presents the proposed changes to the Urban Renewal Agency next Wednesday and returns a draft set of program guidelines and an application form to the City Council for possible adoption in mid-October. Why it matters: Fairview has multiple vacant commercial spaces in Fairview Village and along the Halsey corridor that property owners and developers say depress rental income and can make financing new mixed-use projects harder. Committee members and local developers said clearer, predictable grant rules could accelerate occupancy and reduce the risk that applicants must revise budgets or re-bid projects after an initial council decision. Key proposals and details discussed - Two grant tracks: staff proposed separating grants into (a) tenant improvements (TI) for filling existing vacant commercial units and (b) development assistance for new construction or work that advances broader urban-renewal objectives. - Match and cap: the recommended structure is a 50% city match of project costs, with an upper limit of $100,000 per project. Sheldon said the Urban Renewal Agency currently has discretion on category breakdowns but staff recommends the simpler 50/50 cap for predictability. - Existing program rules to remain: staff noted that the Urban Renewal Agency now must approve any application requesting more than $20,000; staff is not recommending removing that requirement. - Category allocation: the existing guideline splits the $100,000 across categories (for example, construction and architecture/engineering). Some developers urged removing strict subcategory limits and leaving a single $100,000 maximum so applicants and the board can flex funds across budgets; others asked for an exception process to handle atypical engineering or permitting costs. - Allowable costs: committee members debated whether basic HVAC, electrical panels, restroom plumbing and fire suppression should be explicitly ineligible for grant funds or left within the TI bucket. Several members argued that excluding those costs would add complexity and could shrink the pool of eligible projects; staff said the ineligible-list had been added after a prior application where the landlord contribution appeared unusually small. - Business types and franchise limits: staff recommended keeping the list of broadly eligible business types unchanged to preserve flexibility for a hard-to-fill market, but suggested continuing to exclude national chains; staff proposed raising the local-franchise threshold (currently five locations) to up to ten locations to allow some regional chains to qualify. - Geographic focus: staff recommended focusing grant eligibility on the city's commercial core (Halsey Street and Fairview Village / Town Center Commercial zone) rather than the entire urban renewal area, with the option to expand to Sandy Boulevard or other corridors later if conditions change. What committee members and developers said - Dean, EDAC member, argued the program should prioritize converting the most difficult "vanilla shell" spaces into occupiable units and suggested the board should have discretion to weight grants toward those higher-cost buildouts. - Scott Clayton (property owner, Halsey Crossing) and Garth Everhart (developer and author of a submitted letter) provided feedback in writing and supported many of the recommendations, including keeping a $100,000 maximum and requiring meaningful landlord contribution. - Several EDAC members said program predictability is key: applicants want clarity on the maximum and whether architecture and permit fees will reduce the construction allocation. One committee member recommended retaining the current funding limits for the immediate cycle and using an exception or substitution process for edge cases. Discussion versus action This meeting was advisory. No formal policy change or vote on program adoption occurred at the EDAC meeting. Staff recorded the committee's feedback and will present the revised parameters to the Urban Renewal Agency for direction next Wednesday and, subject to that input, return a draft program and application to City Council for possible adoption in mid-October. Ending Staff asked EDAC members to review the forthcoming draft application and program parameters and noted another EDAC meeting will be scheduled in early October to give members time to review materials before the council packet is finalized.