Denver council sponsors seek formal Bio Fund to support small businesses hit by long construction

Councilmember Sawyer proposed formalizing Denver’s existing business-impact program into a permanent Bio Fund to help small businesses along corridors hit by long horizontal construction such as Colfax and Santa Fe. Sawyer told the Budget & Policy Committee the fund has existed in various forms since at least 2013 and was formally named the Bio Fund in 2019, but it currently operates only through internal Department of Economic Development procedures rather than ordinance.

The proposal responds to data sponsors cited showing sales-tax revenue declines on affected corridors; sponsors said a special fund would help preserve small businesses that underpin the city’s sales-tax–dependent general fund. "If we want strong cities, we have to have strong businesses," Councilmember Sawyer said, urging a predictable funding mechanism rather than temporary grants.

Why it matters: Sponsors argued that the city’s general fund relies substantially on sales tax revenue and that losing small businesses during multi-year construction projects reduces future public revenue while imposing long-term neighborhood harm. Council members and sponsors outlined two funding options: (1) an ordinance that ties a percentage (proposed examples included 1.0% or 0.5%) of project funds to the Bio Fund, and (2) a layered approach combining an ordinance with targeted tax rebates and a revolving loan fund to provide more flexible relief.

Administration officials and legal staff cautioned that the mechanics matter. Carolina Flores, a Department of Finance representative, told the committee that capital dollars typically cannot be used for operating expenses and highlighted potential constraints under TABOR and other state law. Chris Lowell of Denver Economic Development said DEDO has run a bio-type program through 2026 and that the agency sees value in continuing mitigation for corridor-impacted businesses but wants to avoid an unfunded mandate.

Council members pressed practical questions: how to define eligibility, whether leftover funds should roll to other projects or return to the original project, whether bond admin caps or special-revenue funds could be tapped, and how the fund should balance grants, loans and rebates. Sponsors described proposed eligibility criteria that would require documented losses (a 10% decline over a consecutive 30‑day period compared to pre-construction sales), and would target businesses with annual gross revenues between $30,000 and $5,000,000.

Several council members emphasized speed and equity. Councilmember Paul Cashman said he would rather overfund than underfund the program, and others highlighted immigrant- and minority-owned businesses that have received too-small emergency grants in prior years. Sponsors warned that without formalization the program could lapse in 2027 and urged colleagues to consider budget amendments in the April–May budget process if the administration cannot identify a workable financing path quickly.

Next steps: No vote or ordinance was taken at the meeting. Sponsors asked colleagues to forward business-improvement districts and other stakeholders to staff via email and directed DEDO, the Mayor’s legislative office and the Department of Finance to continue negotiating options and return with feasibility details; sponsors also said they will explore whether a special revenue fund, rebate mechanics or admin portions of bond projects could provide legal funding pathways.