Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Sponsorships Small Business Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EDC tables budget item after questions over sponsorships, mini-grants and revenue
Summary
The South Carolina Economic Development Corporation board delayed action on a draft budget item after members asked staff for clearer sponsorship and grant rules and a breakdown of unclear revenue figures.
The South Carolina Economic Development Corporation (EDC) board on an unspecified meeting date tabled consideration of a budget item after board members requested clearer documentation on sponsorships, the small-business grant program and several unexplained revenue line items.
Board members said they want a formal sponsorship application, clearer limits on mini-grants and a full breakdown of “other revenue” before approving the item. A motion to table the budget item passed (motion made and seconded; “all those in favor say ‘aye’”).
Board members described recurring issues: applications and sponsor benefits are not standardized, and attachments promised with the draft packet were not included. One board member urged development of a sponsorship application that would require applicants to describe how the EDC would be promoted at events and what tangible benefits the EDC would receive. Staff confirmed the mini-grant program uses a $2,000-per-application cap for the mini-grant category; the total funding allocation for mini-grants was discussed but not specified in the packet.
Several members questioned specific lines in the draft financials. One asked about a revenue line the packet labeled as “additional revenue of $1.00 7” and a separate item described as an operating transfer of “negative 92.” Staff said the packet was preliminary and that they would provide breakdowns and attachments for the board to review.
Board members also requested that future meeting packets include agenda attachments when the packet is distributed so members have the backup materials in advance. A board member referenced the 72-hour public-posting expectation for meeting materials when asking that attachments be provided along with the agenda.
After questions and requests for additional detail, a board member moved to table the item; the motion carried. The board then entered an executive session later in the meeting (see separate article on executive session outcomes).
The board did not adopt the budget item during the public session and directed staff to return with revised materials and additional financial detail at a future meeting.
