City Hall, 6 E. Sixth St.

Another public body has identified concerns with City Commission-prompted changes to incentives Lawrence provides for new developments and incoming businesses.

The Public Incentives Review Board met Tuesday to provide input on proposed requirements and fees added into policies that govern economic development incentives. Board members said some of the changes were “not flexible,” “tying the hands of staff unnecessarily,” “putting the cart before the horse” and “shooting ourselves in the foot.”

The board was asked to put together advice for city commissioners and forward their recommendations on the changes, but — after an hour of listing problems with the new policies — instead decided to hold more meetings on the issue.

“I think there’s laudable goals, but work needs to be done on this document,” said board member Aron Cromwell. “I think some more time would be required to actually craft some language. … We’re not talking about a couple of lines; there’s a number of things here that need work.”

Cromwell will chair a five-person committee that will meet twice to discuss how the proposed changes should be revised. The full Public Incentives Review Board will then meet to hear the committee’s ideas and vote on its recommendations to the City Commission.

Mayor Mike Amyx said he wants the City Commission to have all of the input and debate the topic by the end of 2017 budget discussions. The commission will pass a budget in August.

Some of the changes talked about Tuesday were: capping tax rebates through the Neighborhood Revitalization Act at 50 percent over 10 years; requiring residential developments receiving incentives to set aside units for low-income households; and instituting an analysis to see whether applicants for industrial revenue bonds could complete their projects without them.

About the 50 percent, 10-year cap on tax abatements, which go to those projects qualifying for the Neighborhood Revitalization Act, Cromwell said: “When I first heard about that particular policy, I really was pretty dumbfounded.”

Typically, Economic Development Director Britt Crum-Cano would analyze a project up for an NRA, and the Public Incentives Review Board would look at the findings and vote to recommend a certain tax rebate percentage.

“We don’t know what possible wonderful project might come down the line, if there will be a chance to revitalize a part of our town that needs (to be) revitalized,” Cromwell said. “And now a policy is in place where we’re not going to even look at it. It’s providing a real disservice.”

Amyx said he worried that naming a percentage outright would limit the city’s negotiation power.

City Manager Tom Markus told the board the 50 percent, 10-year maximum should maybe be an “aspirational goal.” However, if a project were to meet the new affordable housing requirement, developers should receive a higher rebate, he said.

Some board members worried the affordable housing provision would stop developers from moving forward with projects.

The new policy would require any residential development receiving public assistance to offer some units for households making 80 percent of the area’s median income. For residential developments with four to 49 units, the requirement would be 10 percent of units. Developments with 50 or more units would have to provide at least 35 percent of them to low-income households. The units would have to be maintained as low-income for a minimum of 15 years.

City Attorney Toni Wheeler has said that, at first look, new legislation limiting rent control would not affect this provision. Wheeler said she’d provide more analysis on the bill if it’s signed by Gov. Sam Brownback. It was sent to Brownback on May 9.

“That does not sound flexible to me,” board member Linda Jalenak said of the requirement. “I think we’re shooting ourselves in the foot. I understand the need, but I’m not sure this will accomplish the goal if people just don’t build anything.”

Markus conceded 35 percent was “pushing the limit pretty good.”

Cromwell suggested affordable housing be an opt-in measure to receive more incentives and not required of every development.

Markus said something could be worked into the policies to give developers the option of either including affordable housing or making a payment to the affordable housing trust fund.

The affordable housing provision would start Lawrence down the path of easing tension between the development community and social service organizations, Markus said.

“I’m a proponent of this,” he said. “It creates affordable housing opportunities and a dialogue in the city to help mend this unnecessary tension between how we grow the economy and how we improve the city’s social justice issues. This brings polarized views together to create this nexus. It builds potential for bringing the community together.”

In response, Cromwell said: “I don’t see this document as mending that. I see this document here as increasing that divide.”

Lastly, board member Bradley Burnside questioned the requirement for a “but-for” analysis for projects seeking industrial revenue bonds. Cromwell said it would “disqualify small applicants” who couldn’t afford to pay for an analysis.

Douglas County commissioners are scheduled to discuss the proposed changes Wednesday at their regular meeting, starting at 6 p.m. at the county courthouse, 1100 Massachusetts St.

The Joint Economic Development Council, which first reviewed the changes earlier this month, is planning another meeting June 6 to put together a more formal response to city commissioners. The council meets at 3 p.m. at the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, 646 Vermont St.