County outlines economic development push: recruitment, market studies, 'Desert Kitchen' and GRT-sharing incentives

Doña Ana County administrators asked the County Commission for feedback on a package of economic development initiatives that includes recruitment for a new economic development director, market and parks planning RFPs, a potential commercial kitchen at the fairgrounds, and options for gross-receipts-tax (GRT) sharing to incentivize business investment.

Jonathan Macias, Assistant County Manager, said the county reposted the economic development director position and added a $20,000 sign-on bonus payable after a one-year probationary period. Macias said a recruitment brochure and a set of RFPs are live; RFPs mentioned in the presentation include a market and retail analysis (closing end of the month) and a parks, recreation and community centers master plan (scope closes April 30) that would include implementation steps at five-, 10- and 15-year intervals.

Stephen Lopez, Assistant County Manager, described a proposal to convert the fairgrounds’ Quonset-hut kitchen into a short-term-rental commercial kitchen, dubbed "Desert Kitchen," that could be rented for batches of food production and used as a teaching kitchen by Cooperative Extension. Lopez said the space would include multiple burners, sinks and soon electric kettles, and that Cooperative Extension was already planning programming for future spring and summer sessions.

Lopez also outlined a GRT-sharing incentive concept for capital investments that generate new gross receipts. He described a model in which the county rebates a portion of locally generated GRT to developers after project completion. "If somebody wants to make an addition to a restaurant, to a small mom and pop grocery store ... 50% seems like a good place for us to start if the Board is supportive of that," Lopez said, referencing the State’s approach to large projects. county staff said the unincorporated-area tax rate is about 6.5 percent and that the county’s local share is about 1.9 percent; under the proposed model the county would rebate roughly half of the county’s share (about 0.95 percent of construction value) to eligible projects.

Lopez and Macias gave a numerical example: a $100 million construction project in the unincorporated area would generate roughly $6.5 million in local GRT; the county’s 1.9 percent share of that would yield about $1.9 million, of which a 50 percent county rebate would be roughly $950,000. Lopez said larger state-participation programs have historically required very large projects (the presentation cited a $350 million threshold for the state’s large-project program) and that the county can also design smaller, local incentives for projects that do not qualify for state participation. He argued that converting vacant properties into taxable development and increased payroll typically generates more long-term revenue than the short-term rebate cost.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about how rebates would work, whether the county had used this tool previously (staff said they had not), and whether incentives should be limited to targeted industries or linked to a loan program for smaller firms. Several commissioners favored a mixed approach: encourage large catalytic projects while also exploring small-business tools (low-interest loans, lease incentives, partnership with economic partners such as Arrowhead and local chambers). Commissioners discussed using county-owned properties (including underused fire stations) for incubator or maker-space uses, and suggested coordinating with Chambers of Commerce and Arrowhead (small-business support organization) to package loan and technical-assistance resources.

Macias said the administration will return with a formal package for commission votes if given directional feedback. The board did not vote on policy during the work session; commissioners voiced general support for pursuing the ideas, asked staff to continue outreach, and suggested the administration bring back more detailed proposals and draft RFPs for consideration.

Ending: Staff asked for a "temperature check" and for commission feedback on whether to pursue GRT-sharing and other tools; commissioners generally supported further study and directed staff to keep working with stakeholders and to return with concrete program proposals for board action.