Committee members debated action 2.25, which originally suggested a tax structure to discourage vacant commercial property. Planning clarified the intent: vacant commercial rents and high costs have left storefronts empty, hurting local small businesses. Several council members argued a stick (higher tax) might not solve the underlying problems—permitting complexity, high rents and market shifts were cited—while others supported financial incentives.
The body amended the language to read 'incentivize owners to rent or repurpose vacant commercial spaces' (including repurpose rather than only redevelop), added the Office of Economic Development and Department of Management (and suggested Public Works) as co‑leads, and set timing and priority. The motion passed unanimously. Members asked staff to return with a menu of tools—tax incentives, expedited permitting, public‑private partnerships, targeted grants—rather than lock a single tax approach into the plan.