Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Incentives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oswego EDC seeks clearer rules for downtown incentive grants, signals support for limited parking-lot funding
Summary
Oswego Economic Development Commission discussed clarifying which property improvements qualify for its downtown incentive program, reviewed program history and budgets, and indicated a consensus to allow parking-lot improvements with limits while treating roofs as maintenance ineligible for full funding.
The Oswego Economic Development Commission on Thursday reviewed its downtown economic development incentive program and asked staff to draft clearer eligibility rules for the village board’s consideration.
Commissioners and staff traced the program’s history — created in 2014 as a façade improvement program and broadened in 2018 — and discussed which property work should be considered permanent, market-enhancing investments and which should remain the responsibility of property owners as maintenance.
“The two big purposes of the program is to 1, enhance the value of downtown real estate, which in turn positively impacts the TIF district…and then number 2…improve the overall marketability of our spaces,” Commission member Carrie Hansen said, describing the program’s intended outcomes.
Why it matters: The commission’s guidance will shape how roughly $77,000 currently available in the fund is spent this calendar year and inform how the village board uses an additional $100,000 it allocated earlier in the year. Clarifying eligible work affects whether grants are used for visible, permanent improvements that attract tenants (for example, grease traps, kitchen hood systems and ADA accessibility upgrades) or for routine maintenance (for example, roof repairs) that staff says should generally remain the owner’s responsibility.
Discussion and staff recommendations
Staff outlined examples that the program currently funds — new awnings and signage, tuckpointing and brick repair, grease-trap fees tied to kitchen work, ADA restroom upgrades and tenant-fit infrastructure that remains with the property. Commissioners raised a recurring concern: the program’s language creates a “gray area” around maintenance items such as parking-lot repairs and roofs.
One property owner who spoke during the packet preparation stage had asked to include parking-lot work; staff noted that precedent has treated parking lots as ineligible while tuckpointing and certain brickwork have been allowed. A staff member summarized the commission’s emerging view: “So it sounds like we have a consensus to allow for parking-lot items,” while also recommending limits or caps so the grant fund is not consumed quickly.
Budget and precedent
Commissioners reviewed recent program funding: the grant fund historically had a $40,000 annual baseline, was increased to $80,000 after strong interest, exhausted by February this year, and the village board subsequently allocated another $100,000. Staff reported about $77,000 remains available now.
Several commissioners urged clearer language and caps for high-cost items. Suggestions included allowing parking-lot work but with per-project or per-grantee maximums (examples discussed in the meeting included partial cost shares and per-project dollar caps), and treating roofs consistently with parking lots (i.e., typically maintenance and therefore ineligible for full funding).
No formal policy change was made at the meeting. Instead, the commission asked staff to draft specific policy language and recommended limits and conditions — including possible maximums for roof or structural work — before the village board considers amendments.
Other program notes
Commissioners and staff noted that the program’s stated priorities target eating-and-drinking establishments, specialty food, general retail and commercial services, and that the village board specifically asked the EDC to prioritize new restaurants when it provided the additional $100,000 earlier this year. Staff also described recent uses of the fund, including a $5,000 grant the village board approved last month to help My Sister’s Little Donut Shop install a new awning (the business also invested in parking repairs, painting and bollards as part of the match).
Ending
Staff said it will prepare a memo with recommended eligibility clarifications, proposed caps or percentage limits for higher-cost items, and draft language for the village board to consider. The commission’s feedback will be included in that report and returned to the village board for final action.
