Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Business Assistance Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westborough EDC debates stricter pass/fail screening, ROI reporting and clawback removal for business assistance grants
Summary
The Town of Westborough Economic Development Committee reviewed a proposed two-step grant process—staff pass/fail screening followed by committee rubric scoring—discussing removal of a clawback clause, easing lease requirements for applicants, and adopting simpler ROI reporting (9–12 months) for grant recipients.
The Town of Westborough Economic Development Committee spent the bulk of its meeting debating revisions to the business assistance grant program, including a proposal to institute a staff-led pass/fail eligibility screen and a revised rubric for award scoring.
Committee members and staff described the two-step approach as a way to reduce the number of incomplete or ineligible applications brought before the committee. "Once the committee agrees on this, staff would look at this, and if they don't meet these requirements, the pass/fail thing, we wouldn't even bring it to the committee," a committee member said during discussion of the proposal.
Several members urged changes to specific requirements. Sandy Coakert said the program should avoid asking for confidential company sales figures: "Instead of asking for confidential sales and revenue numbers, we may wanna look at the last 2 to 3 years of trends and get percentages," she said, recommending trend percentages as a less intrusive metric. Coakert also called the grant clawback clause "a big headache" and recommended its removal if the eligibility screen is made sufficiently rigorous.
Committee members questioned whether a three-year lease requirement should be mandatory for new businesses. "I think it should say multiyear, not not 3," one member suggested, arguing that a points-based approach (crediting longer leases) could be fairer to applicants whose leases are shorter for reasons outside their control.
The committee discussed reporting and metrics for return on investment (ROI). Suggestions included a simple post‑award form and a single follow‑up at nine months to 12 months so businesses have time to show concrete results. "I think 9 months is probably appropriate," one member said, adding that a short written testimonial could also help the town market the program.
Members stressed the need for administrative clarity and transparency. Staff described how the current application process historically emphasized completeness over stringent eligibility checks; under the proposal, staff would be directed to apply the agreed pass/fail criteria before presenting applications to the committee. Several members recommended that all committee feedback be routed to the economic development coordinator so staff can prepare a consolidated draft for the next meeting.
Next steps: staff will prepare an updated application form and internal review checklist, and committee members were asked to submit written comments to the coordinator for consolidation. Several members suggested delaying roll‑out until the July fiscal cycle to allow time for committee review and one full grant cycle under the revised process.
Votes and formal actions on the grant guideline changes were not taken at this meeting; the item will return after staff compiles comments and the committee reviews a revised draft.
