A city attached automatic expiration dates to new business tax incentives so that ineffective programs would not continue indefinitely. The clauses forced periodic review, but firms considering long-term investments argued that a benefit capable of vanishing suddenly could not be included reliably in financial plans. Removing the expirations would restore predictability but weaken the review mechanism. The city instead published renewal criteria in advance, began evaluation two years before each deadline, and allowed a short bridge period when evidence was incomplete. The revised system did not guarantee renewal; it made the decision process more predictable without turning temporary incentives into permanent entitlements. The passage treats accountability and planning stability as competing institutional needs, then redesigns timing and criteria so that neither need is pursued in its most absolute form.