Consultants say public market at Spiegel building is feasible; recommend predevelopment step

A consultant team led by Andrea Garmon, senior director at New Venture Advisors, told the Moline City Council that a public market concept for the Spiegel building is viable but should move next into predevelopment rather than immediate construction. The study estimated a total development cost in the low tens of millions and projected that properly staged management and funding could produce positive operating results within a few years.

The consultants summarized market analysis, vendor outreach and building concepts conducted over several years. "One thing that we see across all three models is that we do have EBITDA positive in year 1," Andrea Garmon said during the presentation. The analysis relied on prior work by PGAV planners and the Riverland Institute and incorporated local stakeholder interviews and vendor surveys.

Why it matters: consultants said a public market could create jobs, expand food‑based entrepreneurship and strengthen riverfront redevelopment by increasing foot traffic. The study emphasized that the market model combines shared production kitchens, incubation space, retail kiosks and programmatic services to support businesses through growth stages.

Key findings and details from the study - Market and demand: PGAV's earlier market assessment suggested a public market with eight to nine food vendors could attract significant regional visitation; the consultants reported PGAV’s 50‑mile radius analysis and a regional consumer projection cited in the study. The consultant team also documented robust local interest: they reported 16 vendors responding initially and a follow‑up group of six vendors that reviewed detailed financial models; more than two dozen local organizations indicated interest in providing programming or operational support. - Building and site: study models compared renovating the Spiegel building (a gut renovation with structural reinforcement) against an alternative three‑floor model on an adjacent parcel. The consultants concluded the alternate parcel had logistical restrictions for truck access and was probably not compatible, while the Spiegel site offered community value tied to its historic presence. A rooftop restaurant was modeled as a revenue enhancement but was flagged as higher risk because no operator had been secured during outreach. - Financials and operations: the team produced detailed cost estimates and pro forma scenarios, and presented versions with and without the rooftop restaurant. Their summary said the models showed operating stability after early years, but the group stressed that diversified funding would be required; the consultants gave a ballpark cost range for development in the low‑to‑mid‑tens of millions. The report recommended exploring a public‑private partnership (P3) management structure in which the city could act as landowner or developer and a nonprofit or private operator would manage daily operations. - Funding and partners: presenters noted a contribution recorded in the study and thanked named philanthropic partners and local groups that provided study funding and support; consultants said most public markets are funded through multiple sources rather than by a single city budget line.

Discussion and next steps Council members and staff asked questions about structural soundness, construction timing, and whether cost savings from renovation justified reuse of the building. The consultants said a gut renovation of the Spiegel building would require significant interior reinforcement and that cost differences between new build and renovation were smaller than some expected; they also noted certain historic preservation credits could be available if the building shell is retained.

The firm recommended proceeding to predevelopment: identify development partners and potential operators, finalize a preferred site, refine programming and design, and secure a diversified funding package before moving to construction. The consultants specifically cautioned against building immediately and recommended phasing and pilot programs (for example, pop‑ups) to test demand during predevelopment.

No formal council vote on construction or funding was recorded during the presentation. Consultants and staff said the next formal actions would be to identify partners and, if the council directs, return with more detailed predevelopment recommendations and a funding plan.