When it comes to approving tax breaks and other economic development incentives, operating on a case-by-case basis rather than with rigid city policies is the best course, city officials were told on Wednesday.

The community’s Joint Economic Development Council crafted a recommendation that expressed concern about a host of proposed changes to how the city grants economic development incentives. Several members on the economic development board said they worried the new policies could back city commissioners into a corner and force them to vote against some projects that they otherwise would support.

“The case-by-case approach is still an important test,” said Larry McElwain, president and CEO of the Lawrence chamber of commerce and a member of the economic development council.

McElwain advocated for the case-by-case approach because he said each economic development deal is unique, and it is difficult for a government to come up with a policy that covers every scenario.

“We believe maintenance of maximum flexibility is critical,” the board’s recommendation to the City Commission reads.

City commissioners are set to consider a set of proposed changes to how the city offers economic development incentives. Among the changes are a requirement that residential projects — like the multistory apartment buildings being constructed downtown — enroll a certain percentage of their units into an affordable housing program in exchange for receiving a tax break.

Another proposed change is related to companies that are seeking a sales tax break for construction materials used to build their projects. The city has issued millions of dollars in sales tax exemptions — a process that involves industrial revenue bonds — over the last several years. The new proposal would require that companies pass a “but for” test, meaning that they would have to show the project could not proceed but for the sales tax break.

A majority of members of the economic development board balked at that suggestion, though there was significant back and forth on the issue.

“This reads like we won’t be treating all applicants the same,” said Melinda Henderson, a member of the economic development board in response to a suggestion that city commissioners have the discretion to waive the but for test. “It seems like we should do it for everyone or we don’t do it at all.”

Cal Karlin, a member of the economic development board, said there are situations where the City Commission may want to offer an incentive to a company even if the company doesn’t pass the but for test.

“We just want to give commissioners the ability to use good judgment,” he said.

Henderson ultimately ended up voting for the recommendation that said the but for test should be applied with discretion. Rebekah Gaston was the only board member to vote against the recommendation, although half a dozen members also were absent from the meeting.

“I believe it should be smart economic development,” Gaston said. “If we are giving (a residential project) economic development incentives, they should provide some affordable housing.”

Ultimately, city commissioners will decide whether to implement the changes to the economic development practices. Economic development incentives were a hot issue during the last City Commission campaign, with several commissioners running on platforms that commissioners had gone too far with tax breaks in the past. City Commissioner Lisa Larsen is on the economic development board. She abstained from Wednesday’s vote on the recommendation.

The city’s Public Incentives Review Committee is scheduled to make recommendations about the possible incentives changes later this month. Then the issue will await a vote by the City Commission.