Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Incentives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EDC discusses small-business retention fund and recruitment incentives; directors debate scope and metrics
Summary
BCDC staff proposed a small-business retention reimbursement fund and a larger recruitment/relocation incentive program; directors debated program size, eligibility, return-on-investment metrics and precedent, and staff noted state law requires performance agreements for larger incentives.
At the March 25 workshop, Chelsea (staff member, planning/economic development) presented two incentive ideas: a small-business retention reimbursement program and a larger recruitment/relocation incentive to be used selectively to attract tenants or buyers for commercial vacancies.
Chelsea described the retention option as a small, fast-turnaround reimbursement program that would not require council approval if individual awards remain under $10,000. She proposed an initial pilot allocation of $20,000 with reimbursements in a $1,000–$5,000 range for items such as building upgrades, employee training, equipment or marketing; recipients would be required to submit receipts and an application and the board would approve awards. Chelsea said larger relocation or recruitment incentives — designed to attract a business into a vacant space — would require council review and a formal application process and suggested a larger pool be earmarked for those uses.
Directors raised competing policy questions. Some directors expressed concern that using public funds to subsidize tenant improvements could amount to “picking winners” and that market or building-owner decisions sometimes explain vacancies; others argued targeted incentives can remove blight, spur employment and generate sales tax. John (director) said the city should evaluate return-on-investment metrics and suggested thresholds tied to job creation or measured sales-tax leakage mitigation. Carly (staff member) and Chelsea noted statutory guardrails: staff reminded the boards that state law requires performance agreements for expenditures over $10,000 and that EDC promotional spending is subject to a statutory 10% limitation that affects some promotional activities.
Staff and directors discussed the LaSalsa/Rosie’s property as a case study. Chelsea said the Rosie's site recently listed for $5,000,000 and acknowledged the site’s owner and lease status complicate options: “it is not the market on that particular building,” Chelsea said, noting ownership or lease terms can block immediate reuse without acquisition. Staff recommended that any incentive policy include measurable metrics (jobs, payroll, performance agreements) and recovery language if recipients fail to meet targets.
No incentives were approved at the workshop. Staff will include incentive-program options, thresholds and statutory requirements in the draft strategic plan and requested direction from directors and council members on program scale before preparing formal policy recommendations.
