The lack of a clear set of criteria to determine which private businesses downtown receive city (public) money for new or expanded projects and why, was raised during last evening’s Board of Supervisors meeting. The Supervisors write those checks.
On the agenda was a request by Doppelgangers, owned by the Carson Nugget Adams family, for $100,000 in “incentive” money. Supervisor Shelly Aldean was clearly uncomfortable with the prospect of handing over $100,000 to what has to be one of Carson City’s wealthiest families who would have, and actually did acquire and renovate the old Lucky Spur Casino without any incentives. Only after the project was complete and open for business did Doppelgangers request the “incentive” money. Aldean reminded her fellow board members that such incentive monies are supposed to be awarded to developers who otherwise would not pursue a project–the infamous “but/for” rationale that lies at the heart of proceeding with any redevelopment project. Aldean strongly suggested the “but/for” criteria was clearly not in play here.
Mayor Marv Teixeira, detecting a sensitive moment, jumped into the debate saying that the Adams family had taken over a business that was in financial trouble (Stew’s) and threw in a million dollars of their own money. He said “I don’t have any heartburn with their request.” Owner Alan Adams chimed in saying there was a financial “surprise” during the renovation construction – having to move a power company junction box near the property which “cost a lot of money.” Teixeira added that the $100,000 was really only $20,000, since the Stewart family was forced to rebate $80,000 to the city as part of the original $100,000 incentive check he got from redevelopment years earlier. Teixeira said it was a bargain based on a global view of the situation.
However it raised the question of why the city lacks a clear set of criteria for awarding “incentive” monies, especially when recent recipients of those monies are among the wealthier businesses in town who, it can be argued, didn’t really need the money. Some have said such awards are “attaboy” checks instead of “incentive” checks.
Supervisors agreed that a clearer policy for such redevelopment awards is needed and instructed Business Development Director Joe McCarthy to prepare an agenda item for board review in the near future.
In the meantime, Alan Adams has his $100,000 and a verbal thank you from the Board of Supervisors for saving the old Lucky Spur building from what they feared was another prolonged period of time that the Lucky Spur would have remained a dark vacant building in a highly visible spot in downtown Carson City.
But the question remains, who is getting redevelopment funds and by what criteria? Should it be a company who approaches the city with a project that otherwise would truly not be built without incentives, or is there also possibly a justified public policy that could be used beyond the traditional “but/for” criteria? What would that policy look like and how would it operate? And how would those criteria be handled and applied? In a closed room or during an open, public meeting?
It is the public’s money in that these redevelopment funds are skimmed off the top of new projects’ property taxes within redevelopment areas and plowed back into new projects and new general improvements within those redevelopment areas. Those monies are therefore not available for other city duties like cops, fire, streets, parks, library, etc. But to be fair, those new redevelopment projects are supposed to generate greater economic activity in the redevelopment areas in the form of sales taxes, which ARE the life’s blood of city finances.
In short, it’s complicated. The Board of Supervisors is supposed to determine if any particular city redevelopment investment WILL generate more sales taxes (and other collateral economic benefits) worthy of the investment.
We’ll see what Business Development Director Joe McCarthy comes up with as far as an incentive policy goes, and what the Board of Supervisors declare, in public, how that policy should drive specific future decisions on who gets incentives, and who doesn’t.
Recent Comments