DUNCAN – The Duncan Economic Development Trust Authority recently delayed action on the Duncan Area Economic Development Foundation’s request to withdraw $32,981.32 in sales tax dollars, which would have funded an incentive to the Duncan-based company Model 1 Commercial Vehicles.
The authority, which is made up of the f ive Duncan City Council members, voted 3-1 April 22 to table the request. Outgoing Councilwoman Patty Wininger voted against the motion to postpone action.
The money represented DAEDF’s sixth payment to Model 1 for the incentive, which was approved by the authority nearly two years ago, DAEDF President Lyle Roggow said in an April 15 letter to City Manager Chris Deal. The incentive is based on the number of new hires starting Aug. 1, 2023, paying for new jobs through July 31, 2026.
“For the fourth calendar quarter of 2024, Model 1 had a to tal of 66 full-time employees, with 36 of those employees qualifying for the incentive,” Roggow said in the let ter.
He said the incentive, which is paid quarterly, equals 10% of annual salaries at Model 1.
Councilman Nick Fischer proposed delaying action on the incentive because sales tax dollars may be involved in a lawsuit between the city and DAEDF.
“This is really good work – great stuff,” he said. “But I understand that there may be some monies in litigation, so I recommend that we table this motion.”
The city is currently appealing a recent ruling in a lawsuit that centered on the ownership of several properties, Southwest Ledger
reported in March. The ruling affirmed that DAEDF owns the properties that were purchased with money the foundation received through its contracts with the city and the authority.
The court also said any money that the city or the authority disburses to DAEDF for services rendered are no longer public funds upon disbursement, the Ledger reported. The newspaper said that aspect of the ruling clarified the status of the funds that the foundation used to purchase the properties in question.
The city’s appeal contends that the trial court erred in concluding that public funds are no longer considered public once they are disbursed under an economic-development arrangement between a public entity and a private one, the Ledger reported.