Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Small Business Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs disbursing $80,000 to on-hold small businesses, reviews incubator repairs
Summary
Board reviewed the 2025 business-improvement grant round (30 applicants; 17 funded at $6,705.88 each), discussed funding the 12 on-hold applicants (would total $80,470.56), and considered repairs to a county-owned incubator building including a new garage door and bathroom.
The Emery County Economic Development Board on April 8 reviewed this year's business-improvement grant program and debated whether to allocate remaining funds to on-hold applicants or to reserve them for recruitment and other initiatives.
Board staff reported 30 applicants applied for 2025 funding; 17 businesses that had not previously received grants were funded at $6,705.88 each (total to businesses $114,000) and the chamber received $1,000 for administrative costs. One applicant did not qualify; 12 businesses that previously received grants remain on a hold list and, if funded at the same per-business amount, would require about $80,470.56.
Natalie said the board had $95,000 unallocated between this year and last and that funds can roll from year to year; the board also receives $200,000 each January going forward. "We can roll over from year to year," she said, noting the group does not have to spend the funds immediately.
Members discussed using some money for an incubator-site repair request (former Weed & Mosquito building owned by Emery County) to replace an unsafe 12-by-12 garage door and to add plumbing (sink and toilet). Jordan and others said two startup businesses occupy the facility: one that outfits camper vans and a local artisan maker; those tenants pay $250 a month plus in-kind work and currently rely on a porta-potty because the shop building lacks an available bathroom.
Opinions diverged. Some board members stressed the value of the small-business grants and suggested retaining a steady amount in the fund so local enterprises can continue to rely on it. Others argued that strategic investment to recruit larger employers would create more local jobs and expand the tax base. The board ultimately moved a recommendation for the county commission to hold the $95,000 and consider using it to retain a recruiter or contractor; members said unspent grant money could still be allocated later if recruitment efforts do not proceed.
Board members asked staff to obtain cost estimates before committing funds to building repairs and to provide lists of potential recruitment contractors and their track records. The board will revisit disbursement decisions as procurement and contractor research continue.
