Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Incentives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County reviews EDIF performance after decade of awards; about $1.5–2 million remains
Summary
Prince George’s County staff on Feb. 24 gave a retrospective on the Economic Development Incentive Fund (EDIF), which began in 2013 with a $50 million one‑time appropriation. Staff said roughly $48.5 million has been awarded and about $1.5–2 million remains; questions from councilmembers focused on project outcomes, clawbacks and transparency.
Prince George’s County staff presented a look‑back and way‑forward briefing Feb. 24 on the Economic Development Incentive Fund (EDIF), saying the fund — originally created in 2013 with a $50 million one‑time appropriation — has awarded roughly $48.5 million and has about $1.5–2.0 million remaining for new awards.
The presentation summarized the EDIF’s statutory purposes — encouraging locally owned business development, retaining and attracting businesses, creating or retaining jobs for county residents, and broadening the commercial tax base — and described the fund’s typical structure: conditional loans (conditional grants that are forgiven if recipients meet performance conditions) or conventional loans that the county approves or oversees.
Why it matters: Council members pressed staff about whether the fund’s awards matched its original local‑business intent, asked how often clawbacks or repayment waivers had been used when performance targets were not met, and questioned why the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) did not attend the briefing. Staff said many project‑level follow‑ups remain outstanding and that specific compliance and clawback data are being collected.
Details from the briefing
- Fund history and remaining balance: The EDIF was funded in 2013 with $50 million; staff cited about $48.5 million awarded to date and said roughly $1.5–2.0 million remains in the appropriation account.
- Conditional loans: Staff explained that conditional loans are structured as grants with conditions; awards are forgiven if the recipient meets hiring, local contracting or other agreed performance metrics. The council’s role in approvals was described: the county executive can make advances below $250,000 (with council comment), and advances or loans above $250,000 require council approval.
- Performance concerns and examples: Staff acknowledged there are mixed outcomes in the portfolio — some projects produced jobs and development while others, such as Good Foods and a project tied to Iverson Mall, did not meet expectations. Councilmember Hawkins noted past recipients that later failed (for example, KANE Construction); staff said some funds were recovered in certain cases but other details would be discussed in executive session.
- Oversight and data gaps: Councilmembers asked for detailed, district‑level lists of recipients and outcomes. Staff said a complete list exists and that several follow‑up questions (including clawback frequency and instances where the county waived repayment discretion) had been sent to the Finance and Economic Development Corporation (FSC/EDC) and to the county economic development department; staff said they were still awaiting some responses.
- Governance and strategic focus: Presenters urged the council to consider whether the fund’s strategic priorities should change — for example, to prioritize projects that produce resident jobs and tangible tax returns rather than projects brought to the county primarily to secure state matching funds.
Next steps and closing: Staff said they will provide the council with the recipient list and pursue outstanding responses from FSC/EDC, and indicated several topics would be addressed in executive session. Councilmembers asked staff to return with a more detailed compliance grid showing which recipients met performance metrics and the use of clawbacks or waivers.
