Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rdc Revolving Loan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danville business owner asks council to explain RDC-linked loan, questions who can access funds
Summary
At the town's first 2026 meeting, resident-business owner Jim Stevens asked the council to explain how a recent revolving-loan-related project moved forward and whether it was carried out as an RDC project; councilors said the item had been discussed and voted on at prior RDC and council meetings and encouraged proposers to bring proposals to RDC.
Jim Stevens, a Danville business owner who gave his addresses as 392 West 11th Street and 2822 East Main Street, used the public-comment period at the Town Council’s first meeting of 2026 to press councilors for clarity on a recently announced revolving-loan project. "We're simply here. We're not here with anger. We're not here with outrage or anything. We just are looking for some clarification," Stevens said.
Stevens asked whether the project had been handled as a Redevelopment Commission (RDC) project, how it had been presented, and whether RDC funds had been repurposed in a way that freed town funds. "Our understanding ... is that RDC essentially is using RDC money for police vehicles," he said, adding that such steps appeared to have made funds available for a council resolution. Stevens said he was not alleging illegality but sought transparency about how decisions were made and how other business owners could apply for similar assistance.
Council members answered during and after Stevens’s remarks, saying the project had been discussed at both RDC and council meetings and that agendas and votes had been advertised in advance. One council member said, "We go overboard in trying to be transparent about what we're doing and making the public having the public access to what we're doing," and urged business owners with proposals to bring them to the RDC or to the council. The council’s responses focused on process and access rather than directly confirming the specific mechanics of the fund flows Stevens described.
Several council members also acknowledged broader concerns raised by the turnout at the meeting, including preservation of a downtown building some speakers said might be at risk of collapse. One councilor said investing in that building to preserve town character "is well worth it," and said the council would consider a more standardized process for reviewing and routing proposals so more businesses could pursue assistance.
No formal action was taken in response to Stevens’s questions at the meeting. Councilors repeatedly directed interested business owners to prepare proposals and bring them to the RDC or to a council meeting for consideration.
The council’s next regular procedures included multiple appointments and votes on annexation and budget items; those motions were approved during the meeting.
