With an aim to entice more business developers to work within Buellton’s limits, city officials are hoping to spare some expenses for a long-running bowling alley project in flux.
During its Aug. 8 meeting, the Buellton City Council directed staff to research ways to incentivize the project’s completion that could offset some fees associated with developing the Waypoint Family Entertainment Center, formerly known as Live Oak Lanes—a proposal that never came to fruition.
The proposed bowling alley with a Highway 246 address has undergone “a number of iterations” as it changed hands over the past 10 years, according to the staff report. A representative of the property’s current owners recently approached city staff with a request that would mark a historic move on the city’s part if granted, City Manager Scott Wolfe said at the meeting.
“They have asked if the city would be willing to provide any sort of development incentive,” Wolfe said. “The city, to my knowledge, has never issued or offered a development incentive to bring development into the city.”
Wolfe recommended that the City Council consider making an exception “in this instance ... because there is a clear community benefit to this use being brought to the city.”
“Based upon public opinion that I’ve heard as well as opinion of the City Council over several years now, the city ... is, for a lack of a better word, desperately wanting to bring this use to the city,” Wolfe said. “There are a number of different types of incentives we could look at.”
The City Council greenlit Wolfe’s proposal for staff to study two specific incentive routes. One would offer the developer a rebate or refund of sales tax generated by the bowling alley, while the other grants a rebate or refund of the project’s property taxes.
“You could certainly do both,” said Wolfe, who estimated that neither option would result in “a tremendous amount of money.”
Buellton’s portion of the 7.75 percent sales tax rate in Santa Barbara County is 1 percent of the sales, while the city gets a portion equal to 16.52 percent of property tax collected (1 percent of the assessed valuation of a property), according to the staff report.
“At this point, they’re looking for any kind of assistance that the city might provide, no matter how small that might be,” Wolfe said. “They may also desire to see some kind of indication that the city is in favor of this project and is actively supporting this project. ... If they know that the city is all in, so to speak, it might help drive them and allow them to risk a little bit more in the construction of this.”
After Wolfe’s presentation, Councilmember David Silva voiced support for the refund/rebate incentives because they’ll basically act as financial rewards for the project developers, “based on their performance.”
However, Silva asked staff if a cap limit was necessary, in case the bowling alley’s profits reach “astronomical” heights. City Attorney Greg Murphy said those issues will be addressed at a future public meeting if the City Council decides to direct staff to research the proposed incentives.
“I’m interested in looking at [options for] this project specifically, and in general to make the city a little more development-friendly,” Councilmember Elysia Lewis said shortly before the council directed staff to proceed with a study.
