Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> Qev�i REQUEST FOR ACTION <br /> ,1 <br /> TO ITEM NUMBER <br /> Economic Develo went Authori Finance Committee <br /> AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY <br /> June 20, 2013 Clay Wilfahrt,Assistant Director of <br /> Economic Development <br /> ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By <br /> Discuss the Microloan Policy and recommend changes Brian Beeman, Director of Economic <br /> Develo ment <br /> REVIEWED 13Y <br /> Jeremy Barnhart,Deputy Director <br /> Community Operations and <br /> Development <br /> ACTION REQUESTED <br /> Discuss the Microloan Policy and recommend changes. <br /> BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION <br /> The stated purpose of the microloan policy is to encourage private sector investment, create jobs, and <br /> rehabilitate buildings. The Microloan is broken down into three categories,an Industrial Incentive Program, <br /> Downtown Revitalization Program, and Energy Efficiency Program. The attached policy has details on each <br /> of the programs. <br /> In the past several months, staff has become aware of several issues with the Microloan Program including: <br /> eligibility of non-profits, funding workng capital and other expenses,percent of the loan to be used for <br /> energy efficiency, and defining energy efficiency. Staff has conducted research via surveys and discussions at <br /> meetings in order to gather input and information to help direct the future of the policy. In December of <br /> 2012, staff collected 30 surveys asking a variety of questions regarding the microloan policy. <br /> 73% of the respondents were aware of the program, and only 27 were not. 50% of all respondents said that <br /> they would be willing to make energy efficiency improvements in order to get a microloan. 40% of <br /> respondents said that there were ineligible expenses that would prevent them from seeking a microloan. <br /> Several people listed working capital and residential improvements as ineligible expenses that they would <br /> consider financing if they were eligible. <br /> 27% of the respondents said that they were excluded because of business eligibility. Exclusion of non-profits <br /> was mentioned a couple of tunes, as was the geographic restriction to downtown. <br /> Of the 30 respondents, 14 said that they have no concerns working with the city on a microloan. Several <br /> noted that the approval process seemed longer than necessary, several noted eligibility concerns, and a few <br /> more feared that changes in administration could affect their loan. <br /> Staff presented information about the Microloan to the Energy City Commission (E CC) and asked for input <br /> on the program and any recommendations for changes. The ECC brought up that non-profits are not <br />