Cibolo EDC debates scope, caps and safeguards for new small-business retention grant

Cibolo Economic Development Corporation directors reviewed a draft Small Business Development Retention Grant on a proposal from staff to help local brick-and-mortar businesses with improvements, unexpected equipment failures and permitting costs.

The board heard that the draft mirrors the city’s existing “big grant” program in form and process but adds two new grant types and special-circumstance language. Clancy, an EDC staff member who briefed the board, said the document is "just a draft" and is intended for review, retooling and return to the full board once a full board is seated.

Board members focused first on eligibility and whether to allow applicants to “double dip” — that is, receive both the new citywide BRE grant and the existing Old Town/ FM 78 Corridor grant. One board member said they personally opposed double dipping; staff recommended clearly defining Old Town and the FM 78 corridor in the grant materials (address ranges and an exhibit map) so applicants know which program applies. Clancy said the map will be included as an exhibit and staff will add a written definition of the boundaries.

Directors discussed the proposed award size. Staff sought direction on whether the program should match the existing big grant’s maximum award. The board instructed staff to change the draft to set the maximum at $15,000 (matching the big grant) rather than the $10,000/50 percent figure in the packet. Board members also asked that language allowing an undefined, unlimited “maximum may be adjusted” be revised so the board would review any higher award and that awards above the board’s approval authority would follow bylaws and city-council review.

The board and legal counsel discussed “special circumstances” language that would permit higher awards for extraordinary, unplanned costs — examples given included a required fire-suppression upgrade, an unexpected vent-hood replacement for a restaurant, or other items that an insurance policy or standard business plan might not cover. Several directors said staff should collect data (permitting and conversion permit counts) before expanding eligibility to allow code-driven conversions in historic structures.

Board members asked for additional applicant safeguards: a contract to be signed by successful applicants (the draft will use the same contract form used by the big grant), proof of contractor insurance and an added requirement for proof of business operational insurance in some cases, and the option to request profit-and-loss statements as part of the application to assess viability.

The board also directed staff to remove the requirement that applicants supply three contractor quotes. Directors said the EDC should not police vendors’ pricing choices for privately procured work but asked staff and legal counsel to add recapture and debarment language to the grant contract so the corporation could seek repayment or bar applicants/vendors if the EDC later finds fraud, material misrepresentation or other violations. Frank, identified as legal counsel, said the EDC can include recapture language and recommended short, direct contract provisions covering fraud or misrepresentation.

Other operational details discussed and to be added in revisions: a 365-day waiting period before an applicant may reapply after an award, submission deadlines (30 days before a board meeting) and the option to defer or cover certain permitting or impact fees at the sole discretion of the EDC. Staff told directors the initial funding for the BRE grant would come from existing budgeted grant funds that are currently underutilized; any further budget amendments would be brought forward as required.

Clancy said staff will revise the draft to (1) define the Old Town and FM 78 areas in writing and attach a map exhibit; (2) change maximum award language to reflect board direction; (3) add proof-of-insurance and recapture/debarment language; (4) remove the three-quote requirement; and (5) return with a full packet (final guidelines, application and draft contract) at a future meeting. The board did not take a formal vote on the grant draft at this meeting.

The discussion concluded with staff saying they would bring a revised packet back to the board in a few months for formal consideration and possible adoption.