16:08A major point of contention during the meeting was the city council’s decision to cut the EDA’s budget from $32,000 to $16,000. This reduction was seen as a significant blow to the EDA’s ability to execute its work plan for 2025. Members expressed frustration, noting that the budget cuts would force them to reprioritize projects and limit their capacity to manage ongoing community development initiatives. A member emphasized that the reduced budget meant “we can do less of the work,” highlighting the impact on grant management and community projects. There was concern that the council did not fully appreciate the EDA’s efforts and contributions, which include facilitating grants and supporting community growth.

0:00Members reflected on past misunderstandings, recalling comments from a council member that misrepresented the EDA’s work as merely “knocking on doors and asking people if they want to split their property.” This inaccurate portrayal was met with dissent, as the EDA’s activities involve a wide range of community development efforts, such as listening to proposals and working toward strategic goals. Members expressed a desire for the council to engage more directly with the EDA to clarify expectations and support.

16:08In light of these challenges, the EDA discussed strategies to improve communication with the city council. There was a proposal to hold joint meetings with the council members, particularly after new committee assignments are made in January. This would allow for a more structured dialogue and help bridge the gap between the two bodies. However, it was noted that EDA members could not invite the council to their meetings unless a joint gathering was organized. A suggestion was made to present EDA concerns during the city council’s January meeting, where committee assignments would be discussed.

The meeting also touched on the importance of having a city council liaison who understands the EDA’s mission and can accurately convey that to the council. Concerns were raised about the current liaison’s representation of the EDA’s goals and activities, with members expressing a need for better support and understanding from the liaison.

29:40Beyond budgetary and communication issues, the meeting addressed the EDA’s branding efforts. The approval of a request for proposals (RFP) for a strategic branding initiative was a key agenda item. The RFP aims to develop a cohesive branding identity for Oronoco, moving beyond its traditional “Gold Rush” theme. The branding process seeks to encapsulate the community’s identity and values, emphasizing market strategies for attracting both commercial and residential properties. Members stressed the importance of involving a diverse advisory committee to gather input from various stakeholders.

43:46The approval of the branding RFP was followed by discussions on grant updates. The EDA is awaiting confirmation for the Age-Friendly Minnesota Grant, totaling $777,000, and has secured $93,000 in other grants. Members acknowledged the complexities of grant writing and emphasized its importance in supporting community projects. The authority is also exploring opportunities for additional funding, such as applying for a state fund to establish a revolving loan fund.

As the meeting drew to a close, members discussed the procedural aspects of enhancing community awareness of the EDA’s work and the impact of grants. There was agreement on the need for better communication strategies to improve visibility and understanding of the EDA’s contributions.