Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-26 EDA MinutesEconomic Development Authority Meeting Minutes April 5, 2026 Chairwoman, Ms. Cox called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. and asked for a roll call. Marlin Reeves- Absent Collette Hash- Absent Sabrina Cox- Aye Jeffrey Worrell- Aye Peter Huber- Aye Christopher Conner- Aye Lisa Webb- Aye Adoption of March 3, 2026 Meeting Minutes The motion was made by Mr. Worrell and seconded by Mr. Conner to adopt the minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Financial Review The members noted that, to their knowledge, there were no outstanding debts owed to the board or organization. The motion was made by Mr. Huber and seconded by Mr. Worrell to approve the financial review. The motion passed unanimously. Discussions Business Incentives- Shannon Ainsley, Economic Developer Ms. Ainsley introduced the second phase of the board’s discussion regarding business incentives. She explained that the packet distributed to the members contained the incentive ideas previously discussed at the prior meeting and that the purpose of this session was to allow members time to reflect on those ideas and suggest additional concepts or modifications. She encouraged open discussion, asking members whether they had any new ideas, questions, or concerns about the proposed incentives. Ms. Ainsley stated that the group would review each incentive individually, discuss the goals behind them, and evaluate whether the incentives aligned with the community’s needs and economic development objectives. Mr. Huber raised the idea of providing incentives not only for businesses but also for individuals renovating or “flipping” houses. He noted that residential redevelopment appeared to be making a visible difference in the community, specifically referencing improvements along Washington Avenue entering town. According to Mr. Huber, the condition of many homes had noticeably improved and contributed positively to the town’s appearance. Ms. Ainsley clarified that the suggestion related to residential renovation and redevelopment incentives. She explained that the town was already working on related initiatives through “Project Revitalize,” an effort aimed at addressing blighted and unsafe properties throughout the community. She stated that the Town Council was expected to discuss the project later that evening. Under Project Revitalize, the town was identifying severely deteriorated homes that posed safety hazards. In some situations, the town was taking ownership of these properties and working with developers by providing them opportunities to redevelop the sites. The goal was to incentivize redevelopment and eliminate blight. Mr. Huber clarified that his concern also included helping homeowners renovate existing houses before they deteriorated to the point of demolition. Ms. Ainsley agreed that incentives encouraging rehabilitation and preventative improvements could also be explored. Ms. Ainsley explained that the town already had several incentives in place, although they were not heavily promoted because officials felt the programs were outdated and no longer aligned with current development priorities. She reviewed existing incentives contained within the town code, including a rehabilitation real estate tax abatement program for structures at least 30 years old. Under that program, property owners could receive a 100% tax abatement on increased assessed value for five years following rehabilitation. Structures located within the commercial historic district that involved investments of at least $750,000 could receive an additional two years of abatement. Another existing incentive involved building permit fee waivers. Projects involving a minimum investment of $50,000 could receive fee exemptions up to $1,000. Ms. Ainsley asked the board members whether they believed these existing incentives remained useful and should continue. Board members generally expressed support for retaining incentives that encouraged redevelopment and rehabilitation efforts. Ms. Cox stated that continuing the type of revitalization previously discussed made sense, even if the board had not fully determined what the best structure should look like. Ms. Ainsley also referenced the town’s existing meals tax incentive program, noting that it likely needed revision and would be discussed further as part of the updated incentive proposals. Ms. Ainsley introduced a new set of proposed incentives and emphasized that they were suggestions open to revision. She explained that the town had identified several overarching goals for the incentive programs: revitalization, attracting new businesses, and retaining existing businesses. She asked board members whether there were additional goals they believed should be incorporated into the program framework but indicated that the listed priorities represented the town’s primary focus areas. The first proposal reviewed was the “Pulaski Downtown Business Growth Rebate Program,” which was designed primarily to encourage new business development. Ms. Ainsley described it as a type of welcome package aimed at making the town more business-friendly and reducing startup barriers for entrepreneurs. Ms. Ainsley detailed several components of the proposed program. One element would waive the certificate of occupancy fee, a required inspection and approval fee handled by the building and fire departments for businesses operating storefronts. The current fee was approximately $51. Another component involved providing Chamber of Commerce memberships to new businesses. She noted that the town already informally supported such memberships when requested by the Chamber, but she wanted the practice formalized as a recognized incentive so businesses clearly understood the benefit being offered. The proposal also included rebates on business professional and occupational license (BPOL) fees. Under the draft structure, eligible businesses would receive a 75% rebate during the first year and a 50% rebate during the second year. Ms. Ainsley indicated the percentages could be adjusted downward if necessary but explained that the overall goal was to provide modest startup assistance without creating excessive financial loss for the town. She compared the proposal to the town’s current meals tax incentive program, which had only been utilized by four businesses due largely to its restriction to the small historic district area. A map was distributed illustrating the limited geographic scope of the district. Ms. Ainsley explained why she believed the meals tax incentive should be discontinued for future applicants. The current structure provided participating restaurants with 100% meals tax rebates for the first two years, followed by gradually reduced rebates over a five-year period. She described this as a significant revenue loss for the town and argued that it potentially created poor financial habits for businesses by allowing them to become accustomed to not paying meals taxes initially. She also relayed concerns expressed by Manager Day, who believed the incentive effectively resulted in taxpayers subsidizing businesses because collected taxes were ultimately refunded back to them. The proposed BPOL rebate program was intended to replace the meals tax incentive while broadening eligibility beyond restaurants to include other small businesses. Ms. Ainsley clarified that the program would apply only to small businesses and not to large retailers such as Food City or Bealls. Ms. Cox asked whether existing businesses already participating in the meals tax incentive would be affected if the program ended. Ms. Ainsley clarified that current participants would continue under the existing arrangement, but no new businesses would be added to the program. Mr. Huber expressed appreciation for the new proposal because it reduced upfront costs for new businesses. He then suggested the possibility of offering a flat cash incentive, using $1,000 as an example, for businesses that would fill gaps in the local market rather than duplicate existing establishments. Using restaurants as an example, he explained that encouraging multiple businesses of the same type, such as several Mexican or Italian restaurants, could create excessive competition without broadening the community’s offerings. Instead, incentives might be better targeted toward businesses introducing something new or unique to the area, which could diversify the local economy and potentially encourage entrepreneurs to engage with town officials about opening in Pulaski. Ms. Ainsley agreed that the town could and should be strategic in determining which industries or business categories qualify for incentives. She cautioned that becoming overly specific about certain cuisines or individual restaurant types could become complicated, but explained that the town could instead focus on broader categories or community needs. Examples discussed included recruiting a coffee shop, entertainment-oriented businesses, or businesses that maintain later operating hours to help increase downtown activity after normal business hours. Ms. Ainsley emphasized that she supported a strategic approach to economic development incentives and believed the town should intentionally identify the types of businesses it hoped to attract. She also reiterated her view that the current focus on the historic district was too limiting. Rather than relying solely on historic district boundaries, she suggested creating a more flexible and adaptable incentive strategy that could change from year to year depending on community needs and development priorities. Mr. Huber clarified that the earlier example about restaurants was simply illustrative and mentioned that a hardware store could also represent a desirable type of business that currently fills a community need. Ms. Ainsley agreed and stated that she hoped the board would eventually create a formal list of targeted business types. Ms. Ainsley then introduced another proposed incentive program focused on business retention. Unlike the previous rebate-oriented incentives, this proposal involved direct cash assistance for existing businesses. She explained that town staff frequently receive requests from businesses seeking help with improvements such as new signage, upgraded point-of-sale systems, website redesigns, marketing efforts, or other operational enhancements. To address these requests, the proposed retention incentive would provide a $500 grant to qualifying businesses. Eligibility for the program would require businesses to have operated continuously for at least three years. The incentive was described as a “milestone incentive,” meaning businesses could apply once within a designated period following their third anniversary. Under the draft proposal, applicants would need to apply within a 90-day window after reaching that milestone, although Ms. Ainsley noted the timeline could be adjusted if desired. The conversation returned briefly to the earlier suggestion of offering larger upfront cash incentives to new businesses. Ms. Ainsley expressed concern about providing substantial amounts of money to startup businesses due to the high failure rate among new enterprises. She noted that many businesses fail within their first year, and even more fail before reaching three years of operation. She referenced previous experiences with the town’s sign program, where businesses received assistance for signage improvements but closed shortly afterward, limiting the town’s return on investment. Board members generally acknowledged the need to balance encouraging entrepreneurship with protecting public funds and ensuring the town’s investments produced long-term benefits. The board then revisited the issue of geographic eligibility for incentives. Mr. Worrell pointed out language in the proposed program that still referenced businesses locating within the downtown district and questioned whether that restriction was appropriate. Ms. Ainsley acknowledged that the draft language could be changed and explained that she had included the historic district map mainly to illustrate how limited the current incentive area was. She pointed out that several businesses, including Toscano’s, the steakhouse, Ginza, Compadres, and Doghouse, either fell outside the district or required special exceptions under the existing meals tax program. Mr. Worrell argued that the town had historically focused too heavily on downtown while commercial growth had steadily moved northeast over the decades, from the original Valley Street, to Main Street, then Route 99, and more recently Memorial Drive. He questioned whether the town should shift more attention toward newer commercial corridors rather than remaining centered on downtown revitalization alone. In response, Ms. Ainsley distributed a map of the town’s enterprise zone, which encompasses a much larger commercial area. She suggested the enterprise zone could potentially replace the historic district as the basis for future incentive eligibility. The enterprise zone included most of the town’s major commercial corridors and shopping areas, including Memorial Drive. The board discussed the advantages of this broader approach while also emphasizing the need to avoid making the program so expansive that large businesses could improperly benefit from incentives intended for small businesses. Ms. Ainsley agreed that any expanded district would require carefully defined eligibility standards. Board members observed that many small businesses already operate outside the historic district and should not be excluded from assistance simply because of their location. Several participants agreed that the historic district boundaries had become too restrictive for modern economic development needs. Discussion shifted toward the interstate corridor and long-term growth patterns. Mr. Worrell expressed enthusiasm about the possibility of extending economic development efforts closer to Interstate 81, arguing that the interstate represented an important opportunity for future commercial growth. He suggested the town may eventually need to work collaboratively with the county on infrastructure improvements, possible boundary adjustments, or other partnerships that could encourage development near interstate exits. Ms. Ainsley clarified that much of the land near the interstate currently falls outside town limits and is under county jurisdiction. However, she agreed that cooperation with the county to encourage redevelopment and economic growth in that area could be beneficial. Participants noted that the stretch between the interstate and town currently feels underdeveloped because there is relatively little commercial activity along the corridor, even though the distance itself is fairly short. Ms. Ainsley pointed out that downtown is only about three miles from the interstate, but the lack of visible development makes the drive feel longer. The board returned to the proposed retention incentive program and reviewed examples of eligible improvements. Ms. Cox asked whether outdoor seating improvements could qualify for funding under the storefront improvement category. Ms. Ainsley confirmed that outdoor seating was specifically one of the intended uses for the program, particularly in light of new sidewalk improvements that have encouraged businesses to consider expanding outdoor dining or gathering spaces. She stated that the incentive could help businesses offset the costs associated with those improvements. Mr. Huber raised concerns about the timing of the proposed retention incentive, arguing that businesses often need assistance most during their earliest months of operation rather than after surviving for three years. He suggested reducing the waiting period and making businesses eligible for assistance after six months instead. He acknowledged the risks associated with startup businesses failing but argued that the town should be prepared for some unsuccessful investments if it truly wants to support entrepreneurship. They suggested implementing a review process requiring applicants to present a realistic business plan with sound marketing and operational strategies rather than simply relying on optimistic projections. Ms. Ainsley clarified that the retention incentive being discussed specifically applied to businesses after three years of operation. However, she noted that the separate Downtown Business Growth Rebate Program already provided immediate assistance to new businesses through fee waivers and Chamber support. The discussion then turned toward potentially adding a direct monetary component to the new business incentive package. Ms. Ainsley proposed that if the board wished to provide cash assistance upfront, the town might consider removing the BPOL rebate and replacing it with a flat cash grant while keeping the certificate of occupancy waiver and Chamber membership incentives intact. Board members debated what amount would be reasonable and whether startup incentives should exceed the retention incentive provided to established businesses. Ms. Cox stated she would rather invest more heavily in businesses that had already demonstrated staying power and commitment to the community. While acknowledging the importance of helping new businesses get started, she expressed concern that offering larger incentives to new businesses than to existing ones could create resentment among long-established business owners. Mr. Huber compared the issue to practices used by cell phone companies, where new customers often receive attractive promotional offers while loyal long-term customers receive little benefit. The conversation ended as the board continued discussing the balance between supporting new business growth and rewarding existing businesses that remain in operation over time. The board continued discussing the balance between supporting new businesses and responsibly managing public funds. Ms. Ainsley reminded members that there was an important distinction between offering a business license fee rebate and providing direct cash incentives. She explained that business license rebates essentially return a portion of fees already paid by the business, whereas direct cash incentives would require actual expenditures from either the Economic Development Authority (EDA) budget or potentially the town’s economic development budget. She emphasized the importance of recognizing that cash incentives would represent direct spending by the town and would therefore require careful consideration. The board then began discussing possible dollar amounts for both startup and retention incentives. Members considered structuring the programs with different funding levels depending on the stage of the business. One suggestion involved offering a smaller amount, possibly $300 to $500, for newer businesses, while increasing the retention or milestone incentive to somewhere between $800 and $1,000 for businesses that had already demonstrated long-term stability. The discussion evolved into a possible compromise structure in which new businesses would receive existing startup assistance such as certificate of occupancy fee waivers and Chamber of Commerce memberships immediately, followed by access to a $500 cash incentive after operating successfully for six months. Members agreed that providing the cash incentive after an initial operating period would allow businesses time to demonstrate viability while still offering assistance relatively early in their development. The board also discussed whether restrictions should be placed on how businesses could use incentive funds. Several members agreed that any cash assistance should likely be tied to activities that directly help attract customers or strengthen the business, such as marketing, promotions, or other customer-facing improvements. Ms. Ainsley stated that she would revise the proposed incentive structures based on the board’s feedback and circulate updated drafts before eventually presenting recommendations to Town Council for consideration. Ms. Ainsley then introduced another proposed incentive titled the “Pulaski Vacant Building Revitalization Incentive.” She explained that the program was designed to address two primary goals simultaneously: attracting new businesses and revitalizing vacant commercial properties. The concept involved incentivizing owners of vacant buildings to renovate and improve their properties, with the expectation that those savings would ultimately benefit tenants through more affordable lease arrangements. The proposed mechanism would provide property owners with a temporary reduction in taxes tied to the increased assessed value resulting from building improvements. Under the draft proposal, participating property owners would receive a 50% tax exemption on the increased assessed value during the first year and a 30% exemption during the second year. Board members noted that the proposal closely resembled one of the town’s existing incentive programs and suggested that the town might simply need to refine and modernize the current ordinance rather than create an entirely new structure. Ms. Ainsley acknowledged that the current language in town code was fairly vague and could likely benefit from clarification. One portion of the proposal required property owners to secure tenants with leases lasting at least three years. Ms. Cox questioned whether that requirement might discourage potential tenants, especially startup businesses hesitant to commit to lengthy lease obligations during uncertain economic conditions. Several participants expressed concern that requiring a three-year lease could unintentionally intimidate new entrepreneurs who fear being locked into long-term financial obligations if their business struggles. Ms. Ainsley acknowledged the concern and agreed that the lease requirement could potentially be shortened or removed altogether. Ultimately, the group leaned toward simplifying the requirement so that the property owner would simply need to secure a signed lease rather than requiring a specific multi-year term. Members observed that property owners are generally already motivated to fill vacant buildings and maintain occupied spaces, particularly after investing in renovations. Ms. Ainsley next introduced a new proposal, a “Transition or Stabilization Grant” program. She explained that recent situations involving local businesses had revealed a need for a formal mechanism to help businesses relocate or stabilize when unexpected disruptions occur. Ms. Ainsley emphasized that certain types of businesses, particularly restaurants, face major challenges when relocating because suitable spaces with existing kitchen infrastructure are limited and expensive to prepare. The proposed stabilization grant was intended to assist businesses facing disruptions caused by building sales, fires, floods, or similar circumstances. Ms. Ainsley explained that one of the businesses currently being assisted was not yet located within town limits but was being encouraged to relocate into town, making the program potentially beneficial for both business retention and recruitment purposes. Board members discussed the importance of having a program in place proactively rather than waiting until businesses are already in crisis. M. Conner specifically asked whether the proposed timeline would allow a current business, such as Downtown Grub, to potentially qualify for assistance in the near future if necessary. Ms. Ainsley responded that eligibility would depend on the final timeline and guidelines established for the program but acknowledged that the proposal was being developed partly in response to current business situations. The board then turned to the question of appropriate funding levels for the proposed stabilization grants. Members acknowledged the difficulty of determining amounts without fully understanding the costs businesses may incur during relocations or transitions. The draft proposal included a possible range of $2,000 to $5,000 in assistance. Board members generally agreed that the program should include a funding cap and perhaps use a scalable formula tied to the size or demonstrated success of the business. One suggestion from Mr. Conner, involved reviewing a business’s sales history over several years to help determine both eligibility and funding levels. Members felt that requiring evidence of sustained business performance would help ensure public funds were invested in stable businesses likely to continue succeeding after relocation. Ms. Ainsley stated that she believed the proposed funding range was reasonable and noted that the town would likely use the program only occasionally for particularly impactful situations. The conversation then broadened beyond forced relocations to include growing businesses that may need to expand due to success. Mr. Huber referenced a local mechanic shop, LSW, located near the Exxon station, describing how the business had become so busy that vehicles overflowed onto Bell Avenue because the shop had outgrown its available space. He suggested that expansion-related relocations or growth pressures could also serve as qualifying circumstances for stabilization assistance. Ms. Ainsley noted that the mechanic shop itself had previously been forced to relocate when its former property near the car wash was purchased, making it another example of a business affected by property transitions. She agreed to further evaluate how expansion scenarios could potentially fit within the stabilization grant framework and stated that she would continue reviewing possible applications and structures for the program. The discussion continued regarding how to properly structure the proposed transition and stabilization incentive program to ensure it would be used appropriately and not abused. Board members emphasized the importance of clearly defining the circumstances that would trigger eligibility for assistance. One suggestion from Mr. Huber involved using measurable business performance indicators already collected by the town, such as gross sales reported through business license tax filings. Members discussed using demonstrated increases in gross sales as evidence that a business was growing or operating successfully rather than simply attempting to take advantage of available incentives. Board members expressed support for tying incentives to business growth and operational success, noting that the proposed stabilization or expansion incentive represented a meaningful amount of funding and therefore required accountability. Mr. Worrell stated they preferred focusing the program on helping successful businesses expand rather than primarily assisting businesses displaced by property sales, although they acknowledged both situations could occur. Ms. Ainsley responded by explaining that the town was currently monitoring several businesses facing uncertainty due to building sales, including a hair salon whose property was currently on the market. While she agreed that forced displacement does not happen frequently, she noted that it does occur when property owners have other plans for a building or decide to sell to new ownership groups. The board also discussed how the proposed program could have applied in previous real-world examples. Mr. Huber referenced Compadres, explaining that when the restaurant originally expanded from a smaller space into its current larger footprint, that type of business growth could have potentially qualified under the proposed framework. Members agreed that encouraging businesses to expand and remain in town was an important economic development goal. The conversation then shifted significantly toward the possibility of structuring certain incentives as low-interest loan programs rather than direct grants. Mr. Conner suggested that loans could provide businesses with needed support while also allowing the town to preserve and recycle its funds over time. Using the example of a displaced business, Mr. Conner proposed a system in which loan repayments could be deferred until after the business became operational in its new location. Similarly, expansion projects involving successful businesses could potentially qualify for loans that support growth without requiring outright grants. Ms. Ainsley explained that before bringing the incentive discussion to the Economic Development Authority (EDA), town staff had already discussed the concept of small business low-interest loans. She noted that while larger financing programs exist elsewhere for substantial investments, it is often difficult for small businesses to secure relatively modest financing amounts such as $5,000 or $10,000 because lenders are reluctant to process smaller loans due to administrative burdens. Board members began developing a potential hybrid structure that would combine smaller grant amounts with larger low-interest loan opportunities. One idea involved offering a business a modest direct grant, perhaps $1,000 or $2,000, paired with eligibility for low-interest financing up to $5,000 or $10,000. Participants discussed how loan eligibility and limits could potentially be tied to business performance indicators such as gross sales. Mr. Conner explained that a scalable structure would allow businesses to borrow only the amount they truly needed while preserving public funds for future projects. Several board members expressed strong support for the loan concept because it would allow money to be recycled back into the program as loans were repaid. Members also believed requiring repayment would ensure that business owners maintained “skin in the game” and approached the program responsibly. The discussion also touched on marketing and public communication. Mr. Huber cautioned that while detailed qualification formulas may make sense administratively, overly complicated requirements could make the program difficult to advertise and harder for businesses to understand. Simpler messaging, such as advertising low-interest business expansion loans up to a certain amount, would likely generate more interest and participation. The board generally coalesced around the idea of a fixed-rate low-interest loan program, with several members suggesting a 3% interest rate as an attractive but sustainable option. Participants noted that many standard low-interest commercial loans currently operate around 6%, meaning a 3% rate would provide a meaningful advantage for local businesses. Ms. Cox proposed a structure involving a $2,000 grant component paired with loan eligibility up to $10,000, while emphasizing that the discussion remained conceptual and subject to revision. The board then discussed the EDA’s available financial resources and its capacity to support the proposed programs. Members confirmed that the EDA currently held approximately $100,000 in available funds and that there were no known outstanding obligations or loans reducing that balance. Mr. Huber emphasized that while he did not consider himself a reckless spender, the organization needed to think seriously about how to actively use those funds to stimulate economic growth rather than simply allowing the money to sit unused. He argued that the challenge was finding effective ways to “get that on the streets” in a manner that produced measurable community benefits. The group discussed the possibility of establishing annual spending caps for incentive programs, although Mr. Huber argued that avoiding strict annual caps would make the incentives easier to market publicly. The fewer caveats and limitations attached to the programs, the easier it would be for businesses to understand and respond to them. Ms. Ainsley reiterated that the ultimate goal of the incentive package was to create a set of programs the town would feel confident actively promoting. She explained that the town’s existing incentives were outdated and not well aligned with current development goals, which is why officials had been reluctant to advertise them aggressively. Once the revised incentives were finalized, she planned to create a comprehensive promotional packet highlighting the Town of Pulaski’s business incentives and begin actively marketing those opportunities. She also stated that she intended to coordinate with county officials to ensure the town’s incentives complemented existing county economic development programs and potential partnership opportunities. Mr. Huber again highlighted the advantages of the loan concept, noting that repayment structures would allow the EDA to stretch its resources further while reducing the risk of businesses simply taking advantage of grant funding. As the discussion concluded, Ms. Ainsley summarized her next steps. She stated that she would review all notes from the meeting, revise the proposed incentives based on board feedback, and develop updated maps showing recommended incentive areas. She confirmed that any proposed loan structure would likely use a fixed interest rate, with 3% remaining the leading concept discussed by the board. Ms. Cox then returned briefly to the earlier conversation about expanding the geographic area eligible for incentives. Ms. Ainsley explained that she planned to use the existing enterprise zone map as the foundation for a broader incentive district because it already encompassed the town’s major commercial corridors. She noted that the enterprise zone map includes primarily commercial areas and avoids most residential neighborhoods. Because enterprise zones must remain geographically contiguous, some portions of the map appear irregular in order to connect separate commercial corridors. Mr. Conner specifically emphasized the importance of ensuring Memorial Square and similar commercial areas are included in the final incentive district because many small businesses locate there but currently do not qualify for existing incentive programs. Ms. Ainsley acknowledged that recent revisions to the enterprise zone map may not yet fully include all desired commercial areas and agreed to review and adjust the boundaries accordingly. Mr. Huber added that aligning town incentives with the broader enterprise zone framework would strengthen both programs by demonstrating that the town itself is actively investing in economic development alongside county and regional initiatives. It was noted that by integrating town incentives with existing enterprise zone benefits, the town could market both local and state incentive programs together as one comprehensive package. Rather than requiring businesses to navigate multiple disconnected programs with varying geographic restrictions, the town could present a unified and easier-to-understand incentive system. Ms. Ainsley also stated that she planned to prepare a list of targeted business sectors and industries the town hopes to attract. This would allow the board to continue refining its earlier discussion about strategically targeting incentives toward specific types of businesses that would best serve the community’s long-term economic goals. Mr. Huber then raised the possibility of incorporating tourism-related advertising assistance into the incentive package. He referenced a former Virginia Tourism Corporation matching advertising program and suggested that if similar programs still exist, they could be incorporated into the town’s strategy at little or no direct cost to the town. The discussion evolved into the idea of cooperative advertising campaigns promoting Pulaski as a destination rather than focusing solely on individual businesses. Examples included encouraging visitors to attend local ballgames, visit the brewery, participate in car shows, and explore the broader community. Members discussed targeting nearby markets such as Blacksburg and Radford to draw more regional visitors into town. The board also discussed ways new businesses could automatically become incorporated into the town’s existing promotional efforts during their first months of operation. Mr. Huber suggested that the town could include new businesses in broader advertising campaigns to help connect them with other businesses and integrate them into the community’s economic ecosystem. Ms. Ainsley explained that Pulaski already participates in a billboard advertising program similar to the concept being discussed. She noted that the town currently maintains a billboard near Food City displaying “Rediscover Pulaski” messaging and highlighting new developments in the community. Because the billboard can be updated periodically, she suggested it could potentially be adapted into a cooperative marketing tool featuring multiple businesses or promotional themes. Board members acknowledged that advertising today extends far beyond traditional billboards and emphasized the growing importance of digital and electronic media, especially for younger audiences. Ms. Ainsley then discussed existing tourism marketing grants available through the Virginia Tourism Corporation. She explained that certain grants exist for small tourism-oriented businesses and that many businesses can potentially frame their operations within a tourism context. She suggested the town could incorporate grant assistance into the incentive package by helping businesses apply for these programs as part of a broader “red carpet” business support process. Under this approach, town staff would guide businesses through permitting, licensing, and incentive programs while also helping them pursue outside grant opportunities. Ms. Ainsley noted that the tourism grants are relatively straightforward compared to more complex federal grant programs and could be manageable for town staff to assist with. Mr. Huber asked whether the town itself might be eligible to apply for such grants directly. Ms. Ainsley responded that she would research the eligibility requirements, including whether applications must be submitted through a designated destination marketing organization (DMO). She stated that even if the town itself could not apply directly, collaboration with the DMO could still allow the community to benefit from those programs. As the discussion wrapped up, Ms. Ainsley thanked the board members for their engagement and participation throughout the lengthy incentive discussion. She stated that the conversation had generated many productive ideas and that the board was making meaningful progress toward creating a stronger economic development strategy. Board Member Comments Mr. Huber commented positively on the collaborative nature of the discussion and expressed appreciation for the way members were building on each other’s ideas constructively. Mr. Conner emphasized that once the incentive package is finalized and professionally assembled, each EDA board member should serve as an ambassador for the program. He encouraged fellow board members to actively share information about the incentives with community members and businesses that could benefit from them and help direct interested parties to Ms. Ainsley’s office for assistance. Reminder of Next Meeting Date The next regularly scheduled meeting had been set for Tuesday, June 2, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., but Ms. Cox informed the group that she would be unavailable that week. Members also noted that the Chamber membership luncheon was scheduled around the same time period. Board members discussed several options, including canceling the meeting unless urgent business arose, delaying discussion until July, or rescheduling to an earlier date in order to maintain momentum on finalizing the incentive package. Ms. Ainsley explained that the primary issue requiring discussion would likely be reviewing and finalizing the revised incentive proposals before presenting them to Town Council. Ms. Cox expressed concern that delaying until July could slow the project’s progress and suggested meeting earlier if necessary to keep the process moving forward. The board discussed whether any action could be taken electronically by email, but members acknowledged that official decisions required an in-person meeting. After reviewing schedules, members tentatively agreed to move the meeting to May 26 at 10:00 a.m., provided other absent members could attend. Ms. Ainsley stated that she would distribute revised incentive drafts to board members ahead of the meeting so everyone would have time to review the materials and prepare questions or comments in advance. The board also agreed to notify absent members, including Ms. Hash and Mr. Reeves, about the proposed rescheduled meeting date and the board’s intention to finalize the incentive package. With no further business, Ms. Cox adjourned the meeting at 11:10 a.m.