Board debates major revisions to Montgomery Development Fund; staff to redraft after feedback

Village staff reviewed proposed updates to the Montgomery Development Fund (MDF) at the Jan. 27 meeting, detailing recommended changes to three programs aimed at supporting commercial rehabilitation, downtown hospitality, and low‑interest business loans.

Staff said the changes were informed by applicant feedback and to align the MDF with the village’s new strategic plan. The key staff proposals included renaming the current forgivable loan program to the Montgomery Commercial Improvement Program, increasing the maximum reimbursement from $10,000 to $20,000 (reimbursement after completion), allowing interior tenant build‑outs to qualify, and turning the program into a dollar‑for‑dollar reimbursement rather than an upfront forgivable loan. For downtown hospitality uses, staff proposed renaming the program, increasing the fund cap up to $200,000 for qualifying projects, requiring a five‑year operating commitment for recipients and converting to a reimbursement model. The low‑interest loan program would remain a loan product but the application fee would increase and the application itself would be simplified, staff said.

The discussion became substantive and, at times, pointed when trustees debated governance and safeguards. Trustee Geier said he opposed ceding final approval authority to the MDF committee and preferred board review and vote on awards. “If we’re dispersing funds from a fund or something associated with the village, I think it needs to be the village board,” he said. Several trustees echoed that view and said the board should remain the final decision‑maker for taxpayer funds.

Trustee Maraszek and others questioned removing loan documentation requirements for smaller grants, saying that without agreements the village would lack recourse if a business failed before the required service period. Staff said removing complex loan documents would streamline the process for relatively small awards, but acknowledged a trade‑off with enforceability. Staff proposed keeping other MDF programs subject to prevailing‑wage requirements and raising application fees on certain programs to $500 to help cover administrative and legal costs.

Trustees also pressed staff on prevailing‑wage implications; staff and legal counsel told the board that because MDF awards are public funds, prevailing‑wage rules could apply and would increase project costs for applicants. Trustees said they wanted clear application language so applicants understand that accepting public funds can trigger prevailing‑wage and certified‑payroll obligations.

Board members asked staff to redraft the three program documents to reflect trustee feedback — specifically: retain board approval for awards (not delegate final authority to the MDF committee), preserve simple enforceable documentation for awards or grants, clarify prevailing‑wage requirements up front, and reconsider application fees.