Laserfiche WebLink
<br />He suggested the Board discuss whether it falls on this body to reenergize the study. The study <br />could be brought back to the owners of these properties to provide them with suggestions they <br />may want to try and consideration of how the EDA can help. He indicated a discussion by this <br />Board is a good starting point. <br /> <br />Member Kiefer stated he had raised the question about this node and of the City's loyalty to the <br />existing businesses, and of whether it is owed to the businesses to look at whether this will be a <br />viable node in light of the new downtown center. He had asked whether the City should look at <br />trying to relocate these existing businesses into the downtown center if the node is not viable. <br />The study came back and said it is a viable node. What happened was that the owners felt this <br />was being pushed on them. In light of changes in ownership there could be a more soft sell <br />approach to the businesses, asking what the EDA can do to partner with the businesses and make <br />this happen. <br /> <br />Economic Development Coordinator Sullivan indicated he agrees that the sewer extension <br />concept had been the dominating discussion point that fueled interest in this area. They even got <br />as far as preparing new designs on how that area would redevelop. In the findings there seems to <br />be other alternatives, including face lifts on buildings, new paint jobs, and signage identifying <br />the area. As far as the soft sell, he agrees people get nervous when they hear sewer is coming, or <br />big eyed with the dollar sign. He suggested the area could be acknowledged for what it is, with <br />the businesses informed that the EDA would like to see this area become more vibrant. <br /> <br />Member LeTourneau stated the driving force of the study came from him and some of the <br />community members. The hurdle and where this fell apart was in the assumed value held by the <br />landowner in this commercial node. He stated he understood that this would not work and that <br />he was not in a position to do anything about it. His strategy was that he wanted the commercial <br />node to continue to move forward. He was faced with two decisions, which were to lock the <br />doors or sell his store. He worked out a deal that allowed the node to continue to move forward, <br />allowed those individuals to keep their jobs, and provided an exit strategy that did not tip him <br />over completely. Member LeTourneau stated the community does not support this node because <br />it is not what the community wants or needs. It used to be supported because the grocery <br />industry had that offering all over the community with small stores. That changed when the <br />industry changed with Cub Foods, etc. If they were to proceed with a neighborhood plan for this <br />node they would want to tear it down and reconfigure it in a way that the way community wants <br />businesses to be there. He pointed out that one observation in the study is that a large percentage <br />of residents are new since 1990. He stated these residents are living in new homes and driving <br />SUV's. When they drive by this node they do not see a brand new home and SUV; they see <br />yesterday, old and worn down, and they are looking for shiny and new. <br /> <br />The Board discussed the findings and recommendations from the Rum River Commercial Area <br />Retail Market Analysis prepared by McComb Group. The following was discussed by the Board <br />and staff: <br />· Concern regarding the well being of the area and businesses <br />· Possible interest in redevelopment by the businesses in the node due to changes in <br />ownership <br />· Possibility of EDA partnership to assist the businesses in redevelopment efforts <br /> <br />Economic Development Authority/April19, 2007 <br />Page 4 of7 <br />