Richfield, Minn. — At a Richfield Economic Development Authority work session April 21, staff proposed a pilot forgivable-loan program called the Richfield Economic Vibrancy Investment and Visual Enhancement Program, or REVIVE, aimed at financing modest exterior improvements to older commercial buildings and sites to boost curb appeal and pedestrian friendliness.

The proposal presented by Jen Youngquist, economic development specialist for Richfield City, would target commercial buildings constructed before 1995 (about 75% of the city's commercial building stock) and offer forgivable loans of $2,000 to $5,000 per business or property, with no payments or interest as long as recipients meet program conditions. "The Richfield Economic Vibrancy Investment and Visual Enhancement Program or REVIVE," Youngquist said, introducing the initiative.

The EDA discussed program details and limits at length. Staff said the city has budgeted $60,000 for a pilot year and described program requirements including a loan agreement, required permits and inspections for permitted work, documentation of paid invoices, and a short reporting requirement after completion. Recipients would also be asked to subscribe to the Richfield Business Bulletin and the Elevate Hennepin newsletter and to participate in at least one SCORE educational opportunity. The program administrator would inspect completed work before forgiving loans.

Why it matters: staff and commissioners said many Richfield commercial buildings are aging and that small, visible improvements'new paint, lighting, signage that meets code, awnings, bike racks, landscaping'could improve the vibrancy of corridors and help retain customers and tenants. The EDA placed the program in the context of earlier city efforts, including a Penn Avenue streetscape program (2010), a Penn Avenue facade improvement program (2018), a displaced-business fund (2021), a bike-rack cost-share, and the city's partnership with Elevate Hennepin; Youngquist noted other programs have assisted businesses through rebates, technical assistance and forgivable COVID relief.

Discussion highlights: commissioners and staff debated eligibility and scope. Proposed eligibility would exclude home-based businesses, sites with delinquent property taxes, and corporate chains; however several EDA members argued for allowing franchisees and smaller franchise owners to participate because many franchisees operate as small businesses. Commissioners also discussed whether tax-exempt properties (for example, churches) should be eligible; staff suggested starting the pilot excluding tax-exempt properties and revisiting the question later.

Signage generated particular debate. Staff proposed ineligible items would include billboards, roof signs, temporary signs and dynamic electronic message signs. Commissioners questioned whether the program should fund primary business signs and whether the city should limit the portion of project costs applied to signage. Some members favored excluding signage entirely to avoid content issues and to focus funds on pedestrian-facing improvements; others said replacing a tattered sign can materially improve a business'curb appeal.

Geography, size and prioritization: staff suggested focusing awards on buildings with frontage along arterials and collectors (Penn Avenue, 66th Street corridor, Chicago Avenue, downtown Richfield and portions of the 494 corridor), but commissioners flagged several neighborhood nodes (for example, sections of Chicago Avenue and a local hub) as appropriate for inclusion. Parcel-size limits (for example, excluding parcels over two acres) were discussed as one way to avoid subsidizing large shopping centers; other commissioners favored limiting awards by business rather than by whole-parcel projects so small tenants in larger complexes could qualify.

Loan amount and pilot design: several commissioners questioned whether $5,000 would be sufficient to produce meaningful exterior improvements given construction inflation and design or legal costs for lease amendments when tenants do work on landlord-owned buildings. One commissioner suggested allowing up to $10,000 in some cases or increasing the pilot award amounts while funding fewer projects; staff said they would re-run cost assumptions and consider changes before returning with a final draft.

Technical support: commissioners recommended pairing the grant with design assistance and legal referral resources (for lease amendment issues when tenants do work on landlord-owned buildings). Staff cited existing partners, including Elevate Hennepin for technical and legal assistance and SCORE for business education, as possible support resources.

Next steps: staff will work with legal counsel to draft a forgivable-loan agreement and finalize program materials, clarify eligibility and signage rules, and return to the EDA with a formal program ordinance or policy and recommended award amounts for adoption at a future meeting. No formal vote or adoption occurred at the April 21 work session.

Background: Youngquist summarized past programs and results: the Penn Avenue streetscape program (2010) paid 20% of eligible costs and had two participants; the 2018 Penn Avenue facade program used a 50/50 match and had four participants; staff also noted the city's Energy Efficient Business Rebate (60 projects, $75,000 impact), the displaced-business fund (helped four businesses), a bike-rack cost-share (six businesses), and the Elevate Hennepin partnership (about 93 businesses assisted with over 1,300 hours of assistance to date).