The JETCO board voted Friday to approve providing up to $160,000 to support a planned Bells retail store in Jasper, subject to successful completion of a written agreement spelling out performance conditions and contract language.

Board members said the proposed incentive is intended to help fill a vacant building and attract additional tenants. Board member Bill Grant asked about jobs and the length of Bells' commitment; board members said they expect the developer or retailer to sign a multi-year commitment as part of any funding agreement.

At the meeting, Gloria, a representative for the project, described the retailer's footprint and prior experience in other states and said she and corporate development had been working toward the Jasper deal for months. Gloria said the presence of Bells would “broaden the opportunity for the shopping center owner to bring a whole different subset of tenants,” a point she said would make backfilling vacant storefronts easier.

Board members and staff summarized the financial inputs discussed: the landlord has pledged about $450,000 toward the project, the applicant indicated significant upfront corporate investment (frequently cited in the discussion as roughly $440,000), and the requested local contribution from JETCO was $160,000. A board member noted a letter of intent exists but called it “not binding.”

Members pressed for contractual protections before releasing funds. The board said the agreement should include a minimum operating term (several board members discussed a five-year minimum), commitments on staffing levels and wage expectations, and a cap on the JETCO payment. One board member asked that the grant be capped at $160,000 and that the agreement require a minimum wage level for positions funded by the incentive; the board planned to negotiate contractual language with Gloria and the project's counsel.

Tom, a staff member who researched the request, noted legal and procedural limits tied to the board’s organizational type, explaining that some steps (including a public hearing or city council approval) might be required depending on the legal pathway the board uses for the assistance.

After discussion and a friendly amendment to make award approval subject to a finalized agreement, the board chair called the question. The board recorded unanimous assent during the verbal roll call (“All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No.”) and the board chair stated the applicant had approval, subject to the agreement and any subsequent required city approvals.

Board members and staff said next steps include drafting and negotiating the funding agreement, confirming any necessary city council approvals, and returning the final contract to the board for ratification. Gloria and the development representatives said they would continue discussions with the board and city staff.

The transcript reflects differences in some numbers spoken at the meeting: one board member said at one point that the corporate side had “committed to move in if we get $960,000,” while the primary request recorded to the board during this session was $160,000; the board noted the letter of intent and the varying figures and directed staff to clarify final financials in the written agreement.