Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Revolving Loan Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee directs staff to further explore a revolving loan fund for Richland County small businesses
Summary
Committee members asked staff to evaluate revolving loan fund options — including EDA capitalization, Mecklenburg and Charlotte models, and third‑party servicers to limit county liability — and approved a motion for staff follow‑up and comparative materials.
The Richland County Office of Small Business Ad Hoc Committee voted on March 17, 2026, to direct staff to further explore options for establishing a revolving loan fund (RLF) to support small businesses, after a staff presentation and subsequent discussion about capitalization sources and risk mitigation.
Director Green summarized examples included in the committee packet (pages 16–18) and described three models: Miami‑Dade as a large county example, Mecklenburg County’s in‑house $2,750,000 fund with $75,000 caps serving roughly 48–50 businesses to date, and Charlotte’s approach using public/private partners and CDFIs for a $40,000,000 program. Green said many RLFs draw capital from federal grants (including EDA), private contributions, or a hybrid of sources.
"Based upon the conversations with EDA, the funds are there...they capitalize it at 80%, and the other 20% either comes by way of the county or there could be a portion of that that could be..." Green said, noting the 80/20 capitalization practice for some EDA awards and the political variables that could affect federal availability.
Committee members pressed on liability and default risk. Green recommended using a third‑party servicer or CDFI to underwrite loans, handle collections and minimize direct county exposure to charge‑offs. "The way to mitigate that...is why it was proposed in December is that we have a third party servicer...they're underwriting the loans. They are collecting," Green said.
Chairwoman Mackey urged members to consider budget timing, noting the county’s FY27 budget cycle and the need to budget staff or implementation resources in advance so the program could be implemented if approved. Members recommended staff prepare a comparative spreadsheet or matrix identifying limits, capitalization, start year and other uniform categories to help the committee select preferred elements before returning with a more detailed draft.
The committee approved a motion directing staff to continue analysis and provide the requested materials; no final funding decision or ordinance establishing an RLF was made at this meeting.
