Wyoming Business Council Main Street Program Grants is sponsored by Wyoming Business Council. Offers grants and technical assistance to Wyoming communities for downtown revitalization, historic preservation, and economic development to strengthen the commercial heart of small towns.

Business Ready Community Grant and Loan Program - Wyoming Business Council Business Ready Community Grant and Loan Program Financing for publicly owned infrastructure that serves the needs of businesses and promotes economic development goals of Wyoming communities Proposed BRC Rules changes The Wyoming Business Council (WBC) is proposing major changes to the Business Ready Community (BRC) grant and loan program, which funds public infrastructure in communities to unlock economic growth.

Program rule changes are intended to better align with the Council’s mission of reversing economic decline and building strong, self-reliant communities. 2025 Proposed BRC Program Rules Changes Summary of BRC Rules Changes Public Comment period open until Sunday, July 27, 2025, at 11:59 p. m.

MST. Review Existing BRC Rules on the Wyoming Secretary of State website. Proposed BRC Rules Public Comment Themes & Responses First and foremost, we want to thank everyone who was involved in or provided the 57 official public comments we received about the proposed rule revisions to the Business Ready Community (BRC) grant and loan program.

Reading and digging into these comments was incredibly helpful in the process of creating the best rules possible for today’s BRC program. These changes better focus BRC on addressing critical state and local barriers to economic growth. They also narrow the focus of these public investments to projects that are more focused on economic development than community or amenity development.

We understand both are important to communities and their future growth; however, our goal is to serve all communities by addressing economic constraints that are holding them back from thriving. Other program and service offerings are available to help communities with their community development needs.

Many commenters expressed concern that the proposed 25% minimum match requirement will disproportionately hinder smaller and rural communities and those facing declining property tax revenues and limited funding options. Critics argue it forces communities to choose between essential services and development projects.

Suggestions included tiered match requirements, waivers for communities in significant need, and increased technical assistance. It is also worth noting that we received several comments in support of increased match and co-investment from applicants.

We understand these concerns and that many communities, both large and small, do not have cash on hand for this level of match; however, there are several options built into these rules to mitigate these concerns. We know this requirement may seem onerous, but it is a crucial co-investment for communities and the state to be able to make impactful investments to reverse economic decline.

Waiver Option: Included in the draft rules, we allow for the ability to waive the required 25% match for extraordinary circumstances, therefore lowering the acceptable match for a specific project. Cash Match: Match can come from many different sources, and only 12. 5%, or half of 25%, is required to be cash.

Sources of Match: Match can be from federal grants, other state grants, in-kind, land donation, cash, business partners, partner organizations, regional municipality contributions, or BRC loans. Additional comments proposed match requirement revisions. Some concerns focused on the revision that previously, BRC-funded infrastructure or property could not be used toward the minimum match, as this may be burdensome for rural communities.

This stipulation was added to prevent double leverage of public funding when state funds have previously been deployed in the project. Furthermore, once the minimum match has been met, that asset may be counted towards an additional match.

Other commenters expressed concerns about limiting the amount of BRC loans that can be used as a grant match to a maximum of 50%, stating that this addition could restrict some local organizations’ financial flexibility. As noted above, the project match can come from many different sources, and a strong application will use diverse and multiple sources of funding.

We heard from both sides about the proposed elimination of maximum award limits. There were concerns that with larger awards, the BRC account could be depleted too quickly, while the other perspective stated that projects cost more today, and larger impact projects will not fit under the previous limits. Both of these are valid perspectives.

Our intent in removing the maximum award limit is to encourage larger-scale projects that address significant barriers to growth and have the potential to make a greater economic impact for a community, region, and the state. We hypothesize that bigger projects will need larger awards, which should have an outsized impact on growing Wyoming’s economy.

We encourage communities to take big swings on projects and invest in themselves to spur economic growth at the local level. By increasing match requirements and aligning potential award amounts with expected impact, we are creating a win-win-win environment for all parties involved.

If the proposed elimination of the maximum award limit is adopted, the WBC will continue to review and evaluate each project based on potential return on investment to the community and the state, taking current budgets into account. The WBC recommendation of funding will reflect this due diligence on each project.

Small Towns & Community Capacity Another major comment theme was about smaller, rural communities and their ability to acquire data, have the capacity to manage the grant process, and the ability to keep up on reporting.

These communities often lack the administrative capabilities, financial resources, and dedicated staff (like full-time grant writers) to meet the new demands, making it difficult for them to qualify for or manage BRC projects. We hear this feedback loud and clear. We also think this challenge is something all Wyoming communities face, not just smaller ones.

While we realize we are raising the bar on what is expected from applicants, we are also raising our service level to match. By making data evidence a requirement of the program, we are ensuring communities are addressing the most important barriers to economic growth.

New Guidelines: The WBC will be releasing updated BRC guidelines on our website to help communities access free data resources and outline how to approach identifying their unique barriers to growth. Continued Learning: The WBC will host informational sessions about BRC on a regular cadence, providing invaluable opportunities to learn more about the process, provide time for questions and answers, and peer learning.

Streamlined Approach: Our team is continually working on improving the BRC application and reporting so that they are not onerous or become an additional barrier to economic growth. A new digital application will launch soon, with updated reporting coming after that. Barriers to Economic Growth The proposed rules require “barriers to growth” to be “verified by data.

” This presents a challenge for many communities that historically struggle with data collection due to small populations, a lack of integrated systems, and limited resources for analysis.

There is a call for clearer guidance on acceptable forms of data, a willingness to consider regional or statewide planning data, and the provision of technical assistance to help communities identify and document these barriers without incurring excessive costs or burdens.

The focus on “barriers to growth” requirement is included to encourage all communities to apply for projects that address their most urgent barrier to economic growth, specific to their community, regardless of size. Data evidence must be supported by quantitative analysis of local barriers to growth rather than qualitative or anecdotal information.

The WBC team is developing resources to support communities as they work to identify and address their barriers. And, as always, our team of experts and supporting partners is available to work with communities as they put together a project. We received multiple comments regarding additional resources needed for applicants to be successful in growing their economies.

These included providing a walkthrough tutorial for the BRC application, more clarity on timelines and expectations for the process, clarity on how to identify barriers to economic growth, as well as what data sources to use in identifying barriers to economic growth, guidelines for how to present to public boards, and application checklists.

We agree that all of these would be helpful in the BRC process and will commit to making these resources available on the website, including templates for certain required documents, timelines, and clarity on the process, as well as sample reporting. Following project analysis, we will publish example datasets of community barriers to growth research on the WBC website.

In addition, we are developing guides to identify barriers to economic growth, including data sources. Comments demonstrated that the existing revenue recapture provisions are often confusing.

There are concerns that the expanded repayment cap (up to double the original grant amount) and the requirement that a portion (25%) of recaptured funds must be reinvested into another revenue-generating project could limit fiscal flexibility for communities and force them into unsustainable projects.

The WBC’s intent is to simplify the revenue recapture section of the BRC rules; however, we recognize that this requirement can be somewhat confusing. Ultimately, the core principle and goal is that an applicant who co-invests in a project will retain a larger share of the net revenue upon its completion.

Essentially, revenue recapture is a profit share agreement where the upside, or net revenue, is shared between the respective parties based on their share of project funding, not an inherent cost to the project.

Regarding concerns about the ability for the BRC account to recapture double the awarded grant amount and diverting funds away from local communities, the only instance that the BRC account would recapture double the awarded grant amount is if a project has a very high upside, or net revenue, in which case the community would also be realizing higher recapture.

This change ensures the incentives are aligned for communities to develop profitable projects, not burdens to the community. In addition, the money recaptured by the BRC account stays in the BRC account and will be utilized for future community infrastructure investments. Revenue recaptured at the local level is intended to spur future economic growth and ensure there are resources available for the next project.

The new rules aim to simplify project types, primarily focusing on “infrastructure projects” that address barriers to growth. Comments and questions were posed regarding what types of projects fit within the new rules, specifically around quality of life projects, affordable housing, and startup business support.

We intentionally removed project types from the proposed rules in order to focus on addressing barriers to economic growth, which will likely look different for different communities. Realistically, each of the posed scenarios (i.e., amenities, housing, business development) could be a barrier to economic growth, and if the data supports that, it is something the WBC would consider an eligible project.

Regarding startup business support, the WBC does not limit the type of business that can work with cities, towns, counties, joint powers boards, or tribes to address barriers to economic growth. We do, however, require the creation of great jobs at levels that can justify the state’s involvement and investment.

Comments encouraged allowing Economic Development Organizations (EDOs) and other similar entities to be added to the list of eligible BRC project applicants. While this is an interesting concept, eligible BRC applicants are defined in statute, not in rules. However, some of these parties can act as agents of the applicant and play a larger role in projects and their outcomes.

The WBC team is evaluating if additional language or clarification is necessary in the rules. Some comments encouraged the WBC to ensure the publicly owned asset(s) can benefit a business in the long term. While a publicly owned asset offers numerous possibilities, the least effective approach for all parties involved is to completely relinquish control when only minimal assistance is required.

The WBC will review and analyze each project to ensure all entities with capital at risk in the project can realize a positive return from the project, including the state, the community, and the committed business. Unpredictable Outcomes & Process There is a strong demand for greater clarity and transparency in the rules, application process, timeline, and future updates.

The current multi-layered approval process involving both the WBC Board and the SLIB is described as unpredictable and lengthy, discouraging organizations from seeking funds. We recognize that the process can seem cumbersome and unpredictable, but state statute requires that BRC funding assistance follows a public process, and during that process, the outcome can be less certain and lengthy.

The WBC is a recommending body, and the final determination is made by the State Loan and Investment Board (SLIB). With each application and project developed in our communities, the economic landscape changes, and other factors need to be taken into account. Therefore, the mission focus of BRC must continue to evolve to move the needle in Wyoming’s economy, and that mission will continue to influence future rule changes.

We received many insightful technical comments about definitions needed, clarity on specific sections, proposed adjustments to public comment periods, and the speed at which WBC reimbursements go out to awardees. The majority of these suggestions will be included in the final rules that the WBC team is currently updating and will present to the WBC Board of Directors during its Sept. 10, 2025, meeting in Sheridan, Wyoming.

General Support for Rule Revisions A large number of comments expressed support for the WBC’s efforts at streamlining BRC rules to better communicate and clarify the overall intent of the program. Block Grants for Planning Projects: In general, comments supported the inclusion of block grants for planning projects. We incorporated this revision after much feedback from past BRC applicants and their partners.

We believe this change will streamline planning applications and help communities prepare for and incorporate a planning process more quickly and easily. Program Name Change and Rebrand: Comments received regarding the proposed name change from Business R eady Communities to Building Resilient Communities (BRC) were supportive and thought the shift was appropriate, more clearly describing the intent of the program.

We agree, as we believe it focuses on the eligible applicant and the program’s goal to build resilient communities across Wyoming. 2025 Proposed BRC Program Rules Changes The BRC Rules Revision Public Comment period closed on Sunday, July 27, 2025, at 11:59 p. m.

MST. Proposed BRC Rules Public Comment Themes & Responses First and foremost, we want to thank everyone who was involved in or provided the 57 official public comments we received about the proposed rule revisions to the Business Ready Community (BRC) grant and loan program. Reading and digging into these comments was incredibly helpful in the process of creating the best rules possible for today’s BRC program.

These changes better focus BRC on addressing critical state and local barriers to economic growth. They also narrow the focus of these public investments to projects that are more focused on economic development than community or amenity development.

We understand both are important to communities and their future growth; however, our goal is to serve all communities by addressing economic constraints that are holding them back from thriving. Other program and service offerings are available to help communities with their community development needs.

Many commenters expressed concern that the proposed 25% minimum match requirement will disproportionately hinder smaller and rural communities and those facing declining property tax revenues and limited funding options. Critics argue it forces communities to choose between essential services and development projects.

Suggestions included tiered match requirements, waivers for communities in significant need, and increased technical assistance. It is also worth noting that we received several comments in support of increased match and co-investment from applicants.

We understand these concerns and that many communities, both large and small, do not have cash on hand for this level of match; however, there are several options built into these rules to mitigate these concerns. We know this requirement may seem onerous, but it is a crucial co-investment for communities and the state to be able to make impactful investments to reverse economic decline.

Waiver Option: Included in the draft rules, we allow for the ability to waive the required 25% match for extraordinary circumstances , therefore lowering the acceptable match for a specific project. Cash Match: Match can come from many different sources, and only 12. 5%, or half of 25%, is required to be cash.

Sources of Match: Match can be from federal grants, other state grants, in-kind, land donation, cash, business partners, partner organizations, regional municipality contributions, or BRC loans. Additional comments proposed match requirement revisions. Some concerns focused on the revision that previously, BRC-funded infrastructure or property could not be used toward the minimum match, as this may be burdensome for rural communities.

This stipulation was added to prevent double leverage of public funding when state funds have previously been deployed in the project. Furthermore, once the minimum match has been met, that asset may be counted towards an additional match.

Other commenters expressed concerns about limiting the amount of BRC loans that can be used as a grant match to a maximum of 50%, stating that this addition could restrict some local organizations’ financial flexibility. As noted above, the project match can come from many different sources, and a strong application will use diverse and multiple sources of funding.

We heard from both sides about the proposed elimination of maximum award limits. There were concerns that with larger awards, the BRC account could be depleted too quickly, while the other perspective stated that projects cost more today, and larger impact projects will not fit under the previous limits. Both of these are valid perspectives.

Our intent in removing the maximum award limit is to encourage larger-scale projects that address significant barriers to growth and have the potential to make a greater economic impact for a community, region, and the state. We hypothesize that bigger projects will need larger awards, which should have an outsized impact on growing Wyoming’s economy.

We encourage communities to take big swings on projects and invest in themselves to spur economic growth at the local level. By increasing match requirements and aligning potential award amounts with expected impact, we are creating a win-win-win environment for all parties involved.

If the proposed elimination of the maximum award limit is adopted, the WBC will continue to review and evaluate each project based on potential return on investment to the community and the state, taking current budgets into account. The WBC recommendation of funding will reflect this due diligence on each project.

Small Towns & Community Capacity Another major comment theme was about smaller, rural communities and their ability to acquire data, have the capacity to manage the grant process, and the ability to keep up on reporting.

These communities often lack the administrative capabilities, financial resources, and dedicated staff (like full-time grant writers) to meet the new demands, making it difficult for them to qualify for or manage BRC projects. We hear this feedback loud and clear. We also think this challenge is something all Wyoming communities face, not just smaller ones.

While we realize we are raising the bar on what is expected from applicants, we are also raising our service level to match. By making data evidence a requirement of the program, we are ensuring communities are addressing the most important barriers to economic growth.

New Guidelines : The WBC will be releasing updated BRC guidelines on our website to help communities access free data resources and outline how to approach identifying their unique barriers to growth. Continued Learning : The WBC will host informational sessions about BRC on a regular cadence, providing invaluable opportunities to learn more about the process, provide time for questions and answers, and peer learning.

Streamlined Approach : Our team is continually working on improving the BRC application and reporting so that they are not onerous or become an additional barrier to economic growth. A new digital application will launch soon, with updated reporting coming after that. Barriers to Economic Growth The proposed rules require “barriers to growth” to be “verified by data.

” This presents a challenge for many communities that historically struggle with data collection due to small populations, a lack of integrated systems, and limited resources for analysis.

There is a call for clearer guidance on acceptable forms of data, a willingness to consider regional or statewide planning data, and the provision of technical assistance to help communities identify and document these barriers without incurring excessive costs or burdens.

The focus on “barriers to growth” requirement is included to encourage all communities to apply for projects that address their most urgent barrier to economic growth, specific to their community, regardless of size. Data evidence must be supported by quantitative analysis of local barriers to growth rather than qualitative or anecdotal information.

The WBC team is developing resources to support communities as they work to identify and address their barriers. And, as always, our team of experts and supporting partners is available to work with communities as they put together a project. We received multiple comments regarding additional resources needed for applicants to be successful in growing their economies.

These included providing a walkthrough tutorial for the BRC application, more clarity on timelines and expectations for the process, clarity on how to identify barriers to economic growth, as well as what data sources to use in identifying barriers to economic growth, guidelines for how to present to public boards, and application checklists.

We agree that all of these would be helpful in the BRC process and will commit to making these resources available on the website, including templates for certain required documents, timelines, and clarity on the process, as well as sample reporting. Following project analysis, we will publish example datasets of community barriers to growth research on the WBC website.

In addition, we are developing guides to identify barriers to economic growth, including data sources. Comments demonstrated that the existing revenue recapture provisions are often confusing.

There are concerns that the expanded repayment cap (up to double the original grant amount) and the requirement that a portion (25%) of recaptured funds must be reinvested into another revenue-generating project could limit fiscal flexibility for communities and force them into unsustainable projects.

The WBC’s intent is to simplify the revenue recapture section of the BRC rules; however, we recognize that this requirement can be somewhat confusing. Ultimately, the core principle and goal is that an applicant who co-invests in a project will retain a larger share of the net revenue upon its completion.

Essentially, revenue recapture is a profit share agreement where the upside, or net revenue, is shared between the respective parties based on their share of project funding, not an inherent cost to the project.

Regarding concerns about the ability for the BRC account to recapture double the awarded grant amount and diverting funds away from local communities, the only instance that the BRC account would recapture double the awarded grant amount is if a project has a very high upside, or net revenue, in which case the community would also be realizing higher recapture.

This change ensures the incentives are aligned for communities to develop profitable projects, not burdens to the community. In addition, the money recaptured by the BRC account stays in the BRC account and will be utilized for future community infrastructure investments. Revenue recaptured at the local level is intended to spur future economic growth and ensure there are resources available for the next project.

The new rules aim to simplify project types, primarily focusing on “infrastructure projects” that address barriers to growth. Comments and questions were posed regarding what types of projects fit within the new rules, specifically around quality of life projects, affordable housing, and startup business support.

We intentionally removed project types from the proposed rules in order to focus on addressing barriers to economic growth, which will likely look different for different communities. Realistically, each of the posed scenarios (i.e., amenities, housing, business development) could be a barrier to economic growth, and if the data supports that, it is something the WBC would consider an eligible project.

Regarding startup business support, the WBC does not limit the type of business that can work with cities, towns, counties, joint powers boards, or tribes to address barriers to economic growth. We do, however, require the creation of great jobs at levels that can justify the state’s involvement and investment.

Comments encouraged allowing Economic Development Organizations (EDOs) and other similar entities to be added to the list of eligible BRC project applicants. While this is an interesting concept, eligible BRC applicants are defined in statute, not in rules. However, some of these parties can act as agents of the applicant and play a larger role in projects and their outcomes.

The WBC team is evaluating if additional language or clarification is necessary in the rules. Some comments encouraged the WBC to ensure the publicly owned asset(s) can benefit a business in the long term. While a publicly owned asset offers numerous possibilities, the least effective approach for all parties involved is to completely relinquish control when only minimal assistance is required.

The WBC will review and analyze each project to ensure all entities with capital at risk in the project can realize a positive return from the project, including the state, the community, and the committed business. Unpredictable Outcomes & Process There is a strong demand for greater clarity and transparency in the rules, application process, timeline, and future updates.

The current multi-layered approval process involving both the WBC Board and the SLIB is described as unpredictable and lengthy, discouraging organizations from seeking funds. We recognize that the process can seem cumbersome and unpredictable, but state statute requires that BRC funding assistance follows a public process, and during that process, the outcome can be less certain and lengthy.

The WBC is a recommending body, and the final determination is made by the State Loan and Investment Board (SLIB). With each application and project developed in our communities, the economic landscape changes, and other factors need to be taken into account. Therefore, the mission focus of BRC must continue to evolve to move the needle in Wyoming’s economy, and that mission will continue to influence future rule changes.

We received many insightful technical comments about definitions needed, clarity on specific sections, proposed adjustments to public comment periods, and the speed at which WBC reimbursements go out to awardees. The majority of these suggestions will be included in the final rules that the WBC team is currently updating and will present to the WBC Board of Directors during its Sept. 10, 2025, meeting in Sheridan, Wyoming.

General Support for Rule Revisions A large number of comments expressed support for the WBC’s efforts at streamlining BRC rules to better communicate and clarify the overall intent of the program. Block Grants for Planning Projects: In general, comments supported the inclusion of block grants for planning projects. We incorporated this revision after much feedback from past BRC applicants and their partners.

We believe this change will streamline planning applications and help communities prepare for and incorporate a planning process more quickly and easily. Program Name Change and Rebrand: Comments received regarding the proposed name change from Business Ready Communities to Building Resilient Communities (BRC) were supportive and thought the shift was appropriate, more clearly describing the intent of the program.

We agree, as we believe it focuses on the eligible applicant and the program’s goal to build resilient communities across Wyoming. 2025 Proposed BRC Program Rules Changes The BRC Rules Revision Public Comment period closed on Sunday, July 27, 2025, at 11:59 p. m.

MST. Application Process and Eligibility Do these changes affect grant and loan application deadlines and timelines? Yes.

Once these rules take effect, application categories by deadline will be removed: Rolling basis: Planning applications and those involving a business Quarterly deadlines: Applications to solve a barrier to growth without a business What is a barrier to growth? How does a community define or identify these barriers?

Barriers to growth are obstacles or root causes of problems that limit the economic progress of communities, regions, states, or nations. To develop a strong plan or project, you must first understand the problems you need to address. This involves identifying policies or systematic limiting factors that are economic constraints contributing to your community’s current situation.

Long-term, systemic change (not short-term wins) Policies, programs, and systems designed to unlock sustainable growth We are preparing a helpful guide and data sources for communities to identify their specific barriers. What kind of projects are/aren't eligible? Has that changed?

Not eligible: Projects that don’t identify or address a barrier to economic growth are no longer eligible for BRC funding. Our economic development plan pre-dates the rule changes and doesn't identify barriers to growth. How can we address this?

When does a plan become outdated? We are developing a guide to help identify and quantify barriers to economic growth that can be integrated into your current plan if needed.

Plans generally range from 5 to 25 years Plans should be reviewed, amended, and updated regularly to ensure goals, objectives, and recommendations remain relevant 2025 Proposed BRC Program Rules Changes Summary of BRC Rules Changes Public Comment period closed on Sunday, July 27, 2025, at 11:59 p. m. MST.

Supporting Community RESILIENCE The Building Resilient Communities (BRC) – formerly the Business Ready Community – grant and loan program provides financing for community planning activities and publicly owned infrastructure that serves the needs of businesses and promotes economic development within Wyoming communities.

Cities, towns, counties, joint powers boards, and the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone tribes are eligible to apply for funding.

Public infrastructure eligible for funding includes water; sewer; roads; airports; rights of way; telecommunications; land; spec buildings; amenities within a business park, industrial park, industrial site or business district; landscaping, recreation, and educational facilities; and other physical projects in support of primary economic and educational development.

Find A Regional Director To Discuss Your Project Ideas Eligible Grant and Loan Activities The Building Resilient Communities (formerly Business Ready Community) program is designed to support community infrastructure and planning needs. An infrastructure project is a project that funds the construction