ST. LOUIS 鈥 The board of the city鈥檚 economic development arm on Thursday endorsed giving $12,500 grants to more than 150 additional businesses and nonprofits even as the agency struggles to vet hundreds of entities that have already been approved for funding under the program.
The additional grants are aimed at businesses and nonprofits that unsuccessfully applied for funding in an earlier round of the $37 million North 50度灰视频 City Small Business and Non Profit Grant Program, which is funded with federal pandemic aid money.
Neal Richardson, chief executive of the 50度灰视频 Development Corporation, acknowledged that applicants who did not make the initial round of funding have been unhappy and said the new awards are intended to reimburse them for their effort.
鈥淭his is to provide support to these businesses that have dedicated, in some cases, up to three years to this program, and may have you know, again, diverted time from their ongoing businesses every day to participate in order for them to receive some support here,鈥 Richardson said. 鈥淚 think it will help us continue to build that trust.鈥
People are also reading…
Tameka Stigers is one of the businesses in line for a $12,500 grant after SLDC rejected her initial application to expand her Delmar Boulevard hair salon, Locs of Glory. She has been helping to organize other rejected businesses and has been a vocal critic of the process, questioning why large nonprofits such as the Urban League were approved for $2 million in grants, using large shares of the money while many small businesses were denied.
She plans to use this new round of money to pay down some business debt. But she still had questions about the program鈥檚 funding decisions, and she won鈥檛 be able to expand her business with $12,500.
鈥淚 can鈥檛 even get my windows replaced for $12,500,鈥 Stigers said.
The additional funding, paid in part with $1.5 million from money earmarked to administer the program, comes after weeks of criticism from business owners left out of the initial round of funding and mounting complaints from some aldermen. The Post-Dispatch recently highlighted several grant winners who claimed businesses in abandoned buildings or were even based outside of the city. Transparency advocates, meanwhile, have questioned why SLDC has refused to release applications for some of the largest winners, some of whom have nebulous plans for grants of $500,000 or more.
Richardson and SLDC say those awards have not actually been paid out despite authorization from the board and are still undergoing a vetting process. City attorneys claim that makes them contracts 鈥渦nder negotiation鈥 that exempts them from the Missouri Sunshine Law. SLDC has said they will release the applications after final documents are signed authorizing funding.
In an email to his board Monday, Richardson doubled down on the need to keep the applications confidential, saying 鈥渟ensitive personal, financial and confidential business information may have been submitted and therefore cannot be disclosed.鈥
Most public agencies redact personal information such as social security numbers and bank accounts when releasing documents submitted to the government and requested under the Sunshine Law, which requires public agencies to release the public portions of records even if they contain some material exempt from disclosure.
The latest round of small grants, too, still have to undergo final vetting, Richardson said.
Alderwoman Cara Spencer, an SLDC board member who is also running against Mayor Tishaura O. Jones next year, questioned the order of those steps.
鈥淚t seems like we could do that vetting process first before we vote to award these businesses,鈥 Spencer said. 鈥淚t seems like we鈥檙e doing this in a backwards arrangement. Is there a reason why we鈥檙e voting on these businesses before having completed vetting them?鈥
Lorna Alexander, SLDC鈥檚 vice president of programmatic compliance, said SLDC sought conditional awards because of complaints about the program鈥檚 initial slow pace.
鈥淪ome of these folks have submitted their original application in July of 鈥22, and the public was needing to hear from us,鈥 she said.
Conditional awards, she said, were a way to provide confidence that the process was moving, Alexander said.
鈥淥n paper, you look great, right? You look you look viable, but until we actually go out there, our partners go out there, and then we get reports from the collector of revenue and the license collector, we can鈥檛 say you鈥檝e been awarded,鈥 Alexander said.
Spencer, who voted against the new grant awards, pushed back.
鈥淢any of these,鈥 she said, 鈥渄on鈥檛 look good on paper.鈥
Austin Huguelet contributed to this report.