View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2015
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
requested removal of Items 8. f, g and h from the Consent Agenda for separate
Willmus seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Thomas F. Schraad, 1142 Rose Place
fifty-eight year resident of Roseville, eleven of them most recently at this
address, Mr. Schraad brought to the attention of the City Council issues with
City of Roseville vacant property adjacent to him, providing 58 year resident; providing
pictures of those concerns. Mr. Schraad noted various code enforcement issues,
including debris, brush and overall mismanagement of this city-owned property.
Mr. Schraad opined that, if the City sent out letters to private property owners
to point out code enforcement violations, the City should be required to police
its own property as well. Since overflow parking was often needed for special
events at Central Park, Mr. Schraad suggested the City clean-up this property
and use it for overflow parking, even though it was not a paved surface.
also provided pictures of another code enforcement issue on his street with the
parking of commercial trucks and his interpretation of ordinance making parking
illegal for commercial vehicles for more than a few hours daily and/or
monthly. Mr. Schraad provided a history of commercial trucks parking illegally
on his street, their use of his driveway and those of his condominium neighbors
for turn around, and breaking up the surface. Mr. Schraad advised that his
attempts to speak to the firms owning these commercial vehicles had proven
futile; and his conversations with an Officer Johnson of the Roseville Police Department
had only helped in the short term. Mr. Schraad noted the inconsistencies he'd
received from staff in various city departments and the need to improve
communication to resolve this situation for the benefit of residents.
Mr. Schraad noted the lack of enforcement of parking on Rose Place, even with
signage in place, especially during holiday events at Central Park (July 4th
events); and parks actually parking in condominium driveways, in front of their
private garages, and blocking their driveways, as well as fire hydrants in that
area; recurring on an ongoing basis over the last ten years. Mr. Schraad asked
what the City meant by "No Parking," or how they intended to resolve this
stated that the City should enforce the same standards for their property as
with other properties in the City, directing staff to follow-up, as duly noted
by City Manager Trudgeon.
further stated that the City enforcing "No Parking" areas, and the illegality
of parking commercial trucks on residential streets, should be enforced consistently
and also directed staff to follow-up on both issues. Mayor Roe noted that
parking was an issue around Central Park during the July 4th
weekend, but should be enforced better. If there was confusion among staff as
to who should or could enforce that parking, Mayor Roe asked that City Manager
Trudgeon address that issue and ensure consistent enforcement.
provided an anecdotal example based on her experience with an abandoned vehicle
on a residential street, receiving the same response from the Police Department
about their inability to enforce the issue; with Community Development Director
Bilotta responding that it could and would be enforced in accordance with City
ordinance. No matter which department was responsible for that enforcement,
Councilmember McGehee opined that once it comes to the City's attention, it
needed to be addressed.
asked that staff communicate with him directly as an officer of his Homeowners
Association, and he would report back to their group.
Mary Bridgeman, 471 Wagner Street
noted her attendance and comments at a previous meeting regarding wildlife
management, and the amount of money she'd spent to remove raccoons from under
her porch. Ms. Bridgeman noted her fear with the raccoons potentially
relocating under her porch due to neighbors feeding them; and her lack of
finances to repeat this significant expense to remove them; and asked the status
of the City's ordinance in addressing feeding wildlife in Roseville.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the ordinance, originally
scheduled for tonight's meeting, had been deferred to the August 10, 2015
meeting. Mayor Roe assured Ms. Bridgeman that staff and the City Attorney were
working on this ordinance draft now for recommendation and presentation to the
City Council. Mayor Roe asked Ms. Bridgeman to provide her contact information
to City Manager Trudgeon so he could follow-up with her on the status of this
ordinance, including addressing language regarding the feeding wildlife.
David Bailey, 10 Mid Oaks Lane
referenced his recent receipt of a letter from the City as part of its
Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP). Mr. Bailey opined that the actual
concern was about a very small area of paint fading and siding/trim
approximately 9' long and 2' wide. While recognizing the issue, even though he
considered it to be insignificant, Mr. Bailey clarified that his main concern
was in the City actually sending out such a letter to private property owners,
opining that they were infringing upon constitutional rights and the liberty to
be free from such government intrusion on those liberties. While the letter
stated Mr. Bailey had a year to address the code violation, Mr. Bailey opined
that he was not confined to any timeframe, as such an effort by the City was
against the constitution and not enforceable by threatening compliance. Mr.
Bailey further opined that everyone wanted to keep up their properties, but his
concern was the encroachment on his liberty, as he was sure it would also be of
interest to the State of MN. If the City chose to inspect properties and make
observations, and thank property owners for their interest in Roseville
citizenship, they could do so, but Mr. Bailey opined they could not enforce
thanked Mr. Bailey for his comments; and advised that the constitutionality of
code enforcement programs is tested frequently, and as long as the City
provided due process allowing private property owners to address their complaints,
the City would continue to follow that framework. While appreciating Mr.
Bailey's comments, Mayor Roe clarified that the ultimate goal of the program is
not to "nitpick," but to maintain property values and rights of property owners
in the community as a whole. Mayor Roe assured Mr. Bailey that code enforcement
programs had been tested, and would probably continue to be, in the court
system; and expressed confidence that the City's program met the requirements
of those previous constitutional tests. Mayor Roe recognized that the program
could be challenged at the discretion of any property owner going forward.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan concurred with Mayor Roe's summation.
At the request
of Mr. Bailey for follow-up, Mayor Roe asked him to provide contact information
to City Manager Trudgeon for follow-up outside the meeting.
reported on a recent "community-building community" opportunity in assisting a
private property owner address code enforcement issues. Ms. McCormick
introduced Mr. Robichaud and provided pictures of that community effort in
addressing abatement issues for this long-time Roseville resident, unable to
complete the work due to his age and declining health. Ms. McCormick noted how
fortunate it was to be involved in this broader community or neighborhood
effort, providing an extraordinary experience. While her personal neighborhood
association, the Twin Lakes Neighborhood Association, had spearheaded this effort,
Ms. McCormick noted the involvement of a much broader group of residents and
businesses, as well as several council members, who participated in this effort.
Ms. McCormick invited those in tonight's audience to come forward, and
personally recognized residents, businesses/developers, and council members
with a certificate of appreciation and thanked everyone for helping to resolve
this issue, whether by contributing their labor, donating materials or
providing expertise. Ms. McCormick concluded by stated that it had proven a
very rewarding experience, and a new friend had been made as well.
Robichaud, 959 Brenner Avenue, Property Owner
expressed his deep and heartfelt gratitude for the help.
thanked all who participated and for their willingness to do so.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
announced the upcoming screening at the Ramsey County Library Roseville
Branch of "Selma: The Bridge to the Ballot" and registration contacts to
ensure adequate space was available.
Mayor Roe announced
upcoming open houses for pending development activities in Roseville for an Old
Highway 8 and County Road C-2 properties and updated zoning and comprehensive
plan update for the Twin Lakes Area, and their respective times and location.
Mayor Roe also announced the upcoming open house for the Twin Lakes Parkway
Extension project as plans move toward final design. Mayor Roe shared contact
information at City Hall for additional information.
Donations and Communications
Introduce City Engineer Jesse Freihammer
Director Marc Culver introduced City Engineer Jesse Freihammer, who started
employment with the City of Roseville on June 29, 2015; and provided a brief
biography of Mr. Freihammer and previous service in the engineering field.
thanked the City Council and staff for the opportunity to work in Roseville and
for tonight's formal welcome.
welcomed Mr. Freihammer and the City Council's anticipation of working with him
in the future.
Proclaim Night to Unite
Mayor Roe read
a proclamation declaring August 4, 2015 as "Night to Unite" in the City of
Roseville, to encourage awareness of the importance of crime prevention
programs and the impact of residential participation in reducing crime in the
community through joining neighborhood watch groups and assisting with crime
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, proclaiming August 4, 2015 as "Night to Unite" in the City of
encouraged residents to sign up for a block party through the Police
Department, or just in participating in their neighborhood events to address
crime prevention in their neighborhoods.
7. Approve Minutes
and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior
to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft
presented in the Council packet.
Approve July 6, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes
moved, Etten seconded, approval of July 6, 2015 Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 2, Line 12 (Laliberte)
of event to "Party" in the Park"
Page 3, Line 32 (Laliberte)
read: "all departments as to whether a [lowest] bid or best
Page 7, Line 3 (Laliberte)
Strike language as follows: "cost
for the City represents the reimbursement to the state [for the state
basically] for the traffic signal controller"
Page 7, Line 9 (McGehee)
Correct to read: "paying [so
much] [most of the cost] for this particular interchange"
Page 11, Line 19 (Laliberte)
Correct to read: ", whether from
Iona [or the hotels] [or other road] access, and"
Page 21, Lines 15 - 17 (McGehee)
Correct to read: "Councilmember
McGehee noted the need to consider Roseville as a [flyover]
[flyway] area for migratory song birds [from] [over]
Minneapolis to Langton Lake [and surrounding areas where quality
vegetation is needed]. [as it considered the particular quality of
vegetation to retain]"
Page 23, Lines 7 and 11 (McGehee)
Correct to read "flyway" rather
Page 23, Line 13 (McGehee)
Correct to read "tree" survival,
rather than "their" survival
Page 24, Line 40 (Laliberte)
Insert language as follows: "agreed that she was not interested in [the City assessing or approving]
a private property owner's need"
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Approve July 13, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of July 13, 2015 Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 7, Lines 7 - 8 (McGehee)
sentence to read as follows: "Councilmember McGehee opined that the City's
governance would be better served by not fixing [itself on]
a levy percentage [without] [before] incorporating [that]
[CIP] information [now versus later] [early in the budget
Page 8, Lines 13 - 17 (Laliberte)
Correct to read: "Councilmember
Laliberte [noted] [expressed her frustration that such an analysis was
not part of the Finance Commission's July agenda, and] only one
meeting [of the Finance Commission] was scheduled after that to
analyze the CIP."
Page 8, Line 40 (Laliberte)
Strike: "and storage" to make it more presentable
Page 10, Line 30 (Roe)
Strike: ...funded through "with
those being" tower lease fees.
Page 17, Line 23 (Roe)
Add house address for Ms. Wheeler
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated July 6, 2015.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
78091 - 78260
Approve 2015 Business and Other Licenses
Etten seconded, approval of renewals of business and other licenses and permits
for terms as noted.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the City campus
phone system had last been replaced in 2003.
moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for
services, and where applicable, trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as noted in
the RCA and Attachment A entitled, "2015 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated June 30, 2015.
Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final
Payment, and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the 2014 Pavement
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11234 (Attachment A) entitled, "Final Contract Acceptance - 2014 Pavement Management Program (PMP) Project;" accepting work completed, initiating the one-year warranty, and authorizing
final payment in the amount not to exceed $40,372.93.
Accept Roseville Area High School Police Liaison Officer
Agreement for the 2015-2016 School Year
Etten seconded, approval of the 2015-2016 Roseville Area School Police Liaison
Officer Agreement (Attachment A); and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to
execute the document.
Receive Donation of Tourniquets and Rapid Deployment Packs from
the Roseville Police Foundation
moved, Etten seconded, accepted the donation of equipment (tourniquets and
rapid deployment bags) at an estimated value of $834 from the Roseville Police
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Request for Approval of a Preliminary Plat of the Property located
at 2325 and 2335 Dale Street and 657, 661, 667, and 675 Cope Street into
18-Medium-Density Residential Lots
Etten seconded, approved the proposed Garden Station PRELIMINARY PLAT for the
property located at 2325 and 2335 Dale Street and 657, 661, 667, and 675 Cope
Street, based on the public record and findings/recommendations of the Planning
Commission, and content of the RCA dated July 20, 2015, as conditioned.
Set Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Public Hearing Related to the
Dale Street Development
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11236 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Calling Public Hearing on the Proposed Adoption of a Modification
to the Development Program for Development District No. 1; and the Proposed
Adoption of Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 10 and 12;" scheduling the public hearing on
Monday, August 24, 2015 at approximately 6:00 p.m.
Request to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Master
Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11237 (Attachment A) entitled, "A
Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Sign Master Subscriber Agreement for
Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies and Request Form for
Minnesota Government Access (MGA) Login Account;" allowing the City Attorney's
office access to the State Court database.
Approve Information Technology (IT) Shared Service Agreement with
the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
Etten seconded, approval of a Shared Services Agreement (Attachment A) between
the City of Roseville and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization for the
purposes of providing IT support services.
Approve Appointment to Roseville Housing and Redevelopment
regarding HRA appointments, Councilmember Laliberte recognized the Mayor made
these appointments under statutory provisions, with the City Council ratifying
those recommended appointments. However, Councilmember Laliberte asked that in
the future when doing appointments/reappointments, the process include soliciting
applications similar to that used for other commission members, providing all
of the City Council with the applicant's background and expertise, as well as
for public information for the community as well.
agreed that was a good point, and in the future, he and staff would follow that
procedure, as well as a memorandum justifying his rationale in a particular
appointment as part of the application process.
Trudgeon noted a typographical correction in the signature copy of the
Resolution for processing.
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11238 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Affirming Mayor's Reappointment of Susan Elkins to the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Roseville;" for a term from
September 24, 2015 to September 23, 2020, as corrected.
Request by Cities Edge Architects for Final Approval of an
Amended Common Interest Community Plat at 2715 Long Lake Road
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11239 (Attachment D) entitled, "A
Resolution Approving the Rosedale Corporate Plaza Condominium (Condominium No.
266) Modification, A Common Interest Community (CIC) Plat (PF15-005)."
Consider Items Removed from Consent
f. Receive Authorization to Accept the Minnesota Department of
Commerce Grant Funds Crime Scene Processing Equipment
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as
detailed in the Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments,
dated July 6, 2015.
McGehee requested statistical information on break-ins before and after use of
this equipment to determine its effectiveness.
Roe opined this was a reasonable request; and City Manager Trudgeon duly noted
that request for follow-up.
moved, Laliberte seconded, acceptance of grant fund as detailed in the State of
Minnesota Grant Contract (Attachment A); and proceeding with the purchase of
specialized crime scene processing equipment.
Approve Resolution Awarding Contract for St. Croix Storm Sewer
Manager Trudgeon noted that the most recent bids for this type of work raises
the focus of the CIP disparity and the need to raise the projected cost
allotment of $500,000 to a more realistic estimate closer to $1 million. While
recognizing the need to balance the proposal and how to fund those additional
costs, Mr. Trudgeon expressed staff's confidence in the validity of the
proposal and the responsibility and expertise of the contractor.
McGehee concurred with the City Manager about the need to complete this work;
however, questioned why the City only received one proposal with this project;
and only three proposals were received on a similar project this year.
Works Director Marc Culver responded, after discussions with the consultant as
well as contractors, the reason in so few interested contractors appeared to be
based on their glut of work following the improved economy and so many projects
available to them at this time. Since this is a complex project and few contractors
qualified to perform the work, Mr. Culver advised that other companies admitted
they were just too busy to take on any additional work. Using the Best Value
Procurement Process, Mr. Culver noted the blind process used even with only one
proposer; but found the proposal comparable to that submitted for other lift
station work bid this year, and therefore stood by their recommendation to
McGehee concurred with staff's recommendation.
discussed at a previous City Council meeting, Mayor Roe noted the request for
staff to include scoring tabulations as part of RCA information when using the
Best Value Procurement process.
Culver noted that request, and assured that staff would provide the complete
information as requested in future RCA's.
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11235 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Resolution Awarding Best Value Proposal for Project ST-15-13 - St.
Croix Storm Sewer Lift Station Project;" to the firm of Magney Construction,
Inc. in an amount not to exceed $827,875.00."
Receive 2015 - 2nd Quarter Financial Report
McGehee pointed out the poor financial condition of the Water Fund (page 10)
and staff narrative regarding consideration of future rate increases necessary
to repay the internal loan and offset projected operational and capital
Councilmember Willmus pointed out the Storm Sewer Fund (page 11) and staff
narrative specific to that internal loan, but also showing reserves at close to
Roe clarified that the report did not address the source of the internal loan,
nor did that fund balance include proceeds of that internal loan.
Director Chris Miller concurred, noting that it was not shown on this second
quarter report, but would be shown at year-end as funds were transferred.
Roe noted the need for Councilmembers to remain cognizant of that going forward
with the budget process; as well as taking into consideration the recommendations
of the CIP Task Force to transfer funds from the Stormwater to the Water Fund,
yet to be done, since the internal loan took the place of that recommendation.
However, Mayor Roe noted the need to review transfers versus loans as part of
City Council discussions when addressing the CIP.
General Ordinances for Adoption
Adopt Ordinance Amending Various Sections of Roseville City Code,
Title 2: Commissions
Manager Trudgeon noted suggested changes in the new Chapter 201 and general
provisions for advisory commission (Attachment A) included those revisions
discussed at last week's meeting. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the remaining
specific chapters for each advisory commission also included revisions based on
those earlier discussions, and sought further feedback from the City Council.
to discussions at the previous meeting on filling Human Rights Commission (HRC)
vacancies and related language issues, City Manager Trudgeon advised that he
added specific language to new Ordinance No. 201 based on that feedback,
specifically the addition of Sections 201.04.E (lines 64-65) and 201.07.C and D
(lines 120-121 and lines 126-127) respectively.
Roe noted that, as per previous discussions, language had been added in Chapter
201 to address youth commissioners as applicable and similar statements thus
removed from language in Chapters 204, 205, and 209.
Chapter 202 (line 157) for the Planning Commission, Councilmember Willmus questioned
if any allowance was made for appointment of a Councilmember to serve on the
Commission of if that language should be struck.
the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan advised that State Statute
Chapter 462 for Planning Commissions was silent on that detail, and the
decision at the discretion of the City Council.
Laliberte noted her strong advocacy to retain a Councilmember on the Housing
& Redevelopment Authority (HRA) based on her position that the HRA served
as a fully-appointed board with levy authority. However, Councilmember
Laliberte stated that, in this case with the Planning Commission, she did not
see that same scenario, and therefore, did not feel strongly about retaining
McGehee, Willmus and Etten concurred.
Mayor Roe suggested that lines 158 - 159 of Ordinance 202 be struck.
the new Chapter 201, Councilmember Laliberte noted typographical errors in paragraph
lettering, duly noted for correction by City Manager Trudgeon.
the new Chapter 201, Councilmember McGehee noted various grammatical corrections
for deletion of commas (e.g. lines 34, 38, 42, 56, and 87 as some examples).
Section 201.01.B, Councilmember McGehee suggested a statement indicating the
commissions can initiate topics to bring forward to the City Council at their
Laliberte noted that, while not specific, Section 201.07.B talked about
periodic advisory commission joint meetings with the City Council and suggested
plans and pending issues could be addressed at that time.
Chapter 201, Section 201.03 (line 42), Councilmember McGehee suggested revised
language as follows: "high school to serve one-year terms as ex-officio [youth]
members of a commission."
McGehee sought clarification as to the responsibility of the Ethics Commission
for ethics training, and whether commissioners were expected to attend training
annually or upon initial appointment.
Roe, City Manager Trudgeon and City Attorney Gaughan responded collectively
that commissioners were expected to attend annually, with Councilmember Etten
concurring and noting that training varied with different topics each year.
that training was not specifically addressed in the Ethics Commission Chapter
207, Mayor Roe noted it had been past practice for that to be their responsibility.
McGehee referenced previous discussions to include a "Code of Conduct," but
noted no reference to that in Chapter 201, Section 201.04 Terms specific to
behavior reflecting on the City of Roseville.
Laliberte suggested a statement listing expectations of commissions for their signature
Roe noted past discussions, and recommendation of the City Council, included
not referencing something in code until language had been developed, at which
time the ordinance could be amended.
general, Councilmember McGehee referenced the individual chapters and inclusion
of their organizational purpose (e.g. scope, duties and function) as a preamble
to outlining their specific duties. Since that preamble is included in Chapters
for the Human Rights, Finance and Community Engagement Commissions,
Councilmember McGehee suggested something similar also be provided for the
Ethics, Public Works and other commissions as applicable to set the tone before
getting into the specifics. Councilmember McGehee again thanked CEC Commissioner
Gardella for her distinction between and definition of civic engagement and
Laliberte noted her appreciation in accomplishing this goal to provide
uniformity and consistency across the board in guiding advisory commissions and
the work they performed for the City Council.
moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1481 (Attachment A)
entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Various Sections of Roseville City Code, Title
2: Commissions;" as amended.
Etten thanked members of the City Council Subcommittee and staff for their work
on this project.
moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1481S (Draft
Attached) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Various Sections of Roseville City
Code, Title 2: Commissions."
Call (Super Majority)
Business Items (Action Items)
a. Establish a Date of Sale for the Issuance of the City's 2015 TIF
Director Chris Miller briefly summarized this request to establish a date of
sale for the issuance of the City's 2015 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Bonds,
as detailed in the RCA dated July 20, 2015; and as outlined in previous
meetings and discussions.
the request of Mayor Roe for the benefit of the public, City Manager Trudgeon
reviewed the purpose of the bond issue and history as provided at the last City
Council Work Session (lines of 13 - 18 of the RCA). Mayor Roe asked that in
the future, that analysis be included for reference in the RCA, duly noted by
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Finance Director Miller responded to
questions of how much was left in TIF District 17 (a little under $400,000); legalities
if consideration was given to closing the TIF District (one option); how much
money the City would receive upon closure (approximately $500,000 to the City,
with remaining distribution to all taxing jurisdictions); and availability of
$1.5 million in the Hazardous Subdistrict.
McGehee questioned if this $500,000 represented "free money" for the City's use
in its operating budget for infrastructure needs.
Director Miller responded that, while those funds could be used for any public
purpose, it would need to be a City Council policy decision.
the City closed TIF District 17, and used that $500,000 in the coming year for
infrastructure needs, Councilmember McGehee questioned if it could then open
another TIF District to replace 17, but move it to another area of focus.
Director Miller stated he was not in a position to provide that expertise to
the City Council given statutory requirements that would need to be met, and deferred
to the City's Financial Consultant from Springsted, available in the audience.
Manager Trudgeon noted that there were specific requirements to be met, including
geographical blight tests for this redevelopment district; advising that some
of that blight had been removed, and without further analysis, it may be
challenging for the City to qualify under current strict TIF laws and with the
condition of those properties compared to when TIF District 17 was first
Huot elaborated on several of the existing TIF Districts in Roseville, and redevelopment
provisions under that district based on the status of the property at the time
the district was established in 2005. In considering a new redevelopment TIF
district now, Ms. Huot advised that only certain properties with substandard
buildings would qualify, including occupancy tests and not applicable to green
space. Ms. Huot advised that other types of districts could include economic development,
but would be restricted to manufacturing/warehousing type uses and buildings
restricted accordingly, with limited availability for a housing district for
affordable housing uses. Ms. Huot clarified that the current TIF District
includes a much larger area and provides much more flexibility; and once TIF
District 17 is decertified or meets the 10 year rule passed, more restrictions
would apply on how dollars could be used within that TIF District, affecting
timing and size restrictions and use of proceeds in the project area, basically
encompassing the boundaries of the City of Roseville.
McGehee sought clarification on the rationale in keeping TIF District 17 open
through issuance of bonds as proposed.
Huot responded that the structure for issuance of TIF Revenue Bonds would
provide for payment of principal and interest from future TIF increments from
that District based on current revenue projects and development currently underway
in the district.
McGehee asked what restrictions would be placed on using that money going
forward beyond road construction.
Huot responded that bond proceeds or future TIF revenues could be used to
finance already-identified public improvements, or if the City chose not to
issue bonds, future revenues would be restricted with the law requiring at
least 75% revenues spent within the district be done by September 15, 2015 and
any revenues after that date would be severely restricted. Ms. Huot advised
that this prompted a recommendation to issue bonds at this point to protect any
revenues after that restriction date that may jeopardize financing future
projects or public infrastructure improvements.
McGehee opined that the remaining question was, if the City did not issue bonds
for TIF District 17, the District could be closed at any time and there would
be no commitment carried forward to pay off bonds. Councilmember McGehee
further opined that, once closed, the City would be no worse off as properties
would pay taxes in general. Councilmember McGehee stated that she was having a
difficult time seeing any inherent value in issuing bonds.
Huot noted, in this type of TIF District, there were currently no obligations,
and once the purpose of the district had been fulfilled, any additional
increment would be considered excess. If there were no additional obligations,
Ms. Huot noted the district would have to be closed or requiring the City to
decertify the district. In this case with the bond issue, Ms. Huot noted that
window of opportunity remained open.
McGehee noted other public improvements in this area had yet to be discussed
(e.g. purchase green space or installation of sidewalks and/or pathways).
clarification, Ms. Huot reiterated that if this District expired, there would
be significant restrictions on the use of remaining TIF dollars, only available
in the redevelopment district and only 90% of those qualifying or TIF-eligible
Roe asked if the bond proceeds had to be spent on identified projects at the
issuance, or could be used on some other project that met similar requirements.
Director Miller advised that, at some point the City needed to market the
bonds, and questioned how successful that marketing would be if the City didn't
identify a clear plan on why the funds were needed.
McGehee stated her point was, that while staff was recommending this bond sale
to extend the life of the TIF District, there had not been sufficient time for
public discussion for the City Council or the public beyond what limited
options had been provided in last week's agenda packet materials. Under those
circumstances, Councilmember McGehee opined this did not meet the transparency
test or community engagement in general principle. Councilmember McGehee
stated she was very unclear whether this was financially in the best interest
of the City and its residents; opining that over $10 million in taxpayer dollars
had already been spend in this area for road and infrastructure improvements
without any repayment, and with no demands for this road.
Manager Trudgeon clarified that there are other infrastructure projects (e.g.
land acquisition) and previous discussion had long-identified necessary road improvements;
with this being the next step to preserve those dollars in the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area and immediate surrounding area to fund those improvements.
While there may be other alternatives, Mr. Trudgeon opined that there were none
immediately available. If consideration is given to land acquisition, Mr.
Trudgeon opined that $3 million wouldn't go very far; and offered his
recommendation as the best step moving forward is to use available TIF funds
and apply them to remaining projects.
McGehee asked City Manager Trudgeon when staff had become aware of this
September 2015 deadline and need to make this decision; opining staff should
have brought this to the City Council before the last minute to provide a more
Manager Trudgeon responded that the deadline had always been looming, but as
other avenues for development continued to be deferred or not come to fruition,
it became prudent to recommend this bond issue process.
the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Huot advised that the remaining term for TIF
District 17 would be December 31, 2031 for the financing term for bonds issued
on March 1, 2016; and final bond payment due March 31, 2032 with 2031 for final
TIF collection. Ms. Huot advised that the presumed interest rate and rate of
return on bonds for this anticipated sale date of August 17, 2015 was
conservative and reasonable, with the surplus of $30,000 per year anticipated
and required over the levy providing additional cushion.
the benefit of the public and his colleagues, Mayor Roe clarified that based on
the legislative extension of TIF District 17 from five to ten years, the City
Council's decision was to issue bonds for qualified expenditures in the
district for a project or for payback of those proceeds; or to use the
increment by September 3, 2015.
Huot concurred, noting that statutory rules require revenue incurred and revenue
spent within that remaining timeframe; with the bond issue included in that
provision to further extend available time to complete improvements and
projects within TIF District 17.
Laliberte noted provisions (Exhibit A to the Draft Resolution) allowing an
optional redemption date of March 1, 2014 for prepayment of the bond proceeds,
but not until that date, confirmed by Finance Director Miller as accurate as
McCormick expressed her surprise at how quickly this came up, and also
questioned why there was no public hearing like the Dale Street amendment to
the TIF District for public information and comment. Referencing the
disclosure statement (Exhibit A.4) and recognizing this is a procedural first
step, Ms. McCormick asked if there would be more opportunity for public comment
prior to the sale date. Ms. McCormick requested further clarification in her
conflicting understanding of this as a General Obligation TIF bond issue and
whether it was specifically tied to those improvements mentioned in the AUAR.
Roe responded, confirmed by City Manager Trudgeon, that those costs listed are
within the parameters of the existing plan for this TIF District; with the
original public hearing held on that plan when the plan was established in 2005
and no additional hearings planned as there was no need to amend that plan.
to the Dale Street Project TIF District Amendment, City Manager Trudgeon
responded that it was off-site so the public hearing on changes to the plan
would be required.
to the disclosure statement, Mayor Roe deferred to Finance Director Miller who
clarified that all bond issuers required compliance with the City's annual
financial report, which was an ongoing reporting requirement to holders of the
his interpretation of responses earlier questions by Ms. Huot, Mayor Roe noted
based on expectations of purchasers of bonds, they expected projects as listed
for the purpose of issuing bonds would be those undertaken and bond proceeds
used for those purposes.
Director Miller concurred with Mayor Roe's interpretation, noting that the form
served to disclose the intent of the City; and if the City chose to do
something different it could significantly besmirch its reputation for future
bond sales. Therefore, Mr. Miller highly recommended that the City Council not
consider doing anything outside those stated parameters.
McGehee asked Public Works Director Culver to confirm the reasons the City of
Roseville undertook so much of the cost for the I-35W/Cleveland Avenue
interchange project was due to seeking that improvement before it rose to the
level of need identified by the County and State.
Works Director Marc Culver responded that this represented his response for
that cost share.
a consequence of constructing Twin Lakes Parkway, Councilmember McGehee opined
that if further changes were required on Fairview Avenue, it would be based on
previous discussions with Ramsey County Public Works staff, as Fairview Avenue
was also not on their schedule in the near future.
Works Director Culver responded that it would depend on the type of improvements
for Fairview Avenue. Mr. Culver noted staff's ongoing and strong lobbying of
Ramsey County to make improvements on Fairview Avenue at County Road D and
Lydia Avenue sooner rather than later; anticipating Ramsey County would respond
favorably and move those projects up on their CIP, not currently or immediately
identified by them.
moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11240 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Resolution Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of
$3,270,000 in General Obligation Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2015A;" setting the date for sale on the issuance for August 17, 2015.
Laliberte stated she would support this motion in keeping with the original
intent of the bonds and intended projects for that area. Councilmember
Laliberte advised she did not want to see the City left with only a fraction of
McGehee stated that she disagreed with that, and given her comments made at
last week's meeting, would probably not support this request to establish a
date of sale for the issuance of 2015 TIF Bonds.
provided the reasons for her opposition, listing a variety of reasons, opining
that the least of which is that she didn't think that a hearing held in 2005
for a project occurring in 2015 really met her litmus test for public engagement,
therefore from her perspective negating an actual public hearing. Councilmember
McGehee further noted the very strong and broad citizen opposition expressed
earlier this year at the City's planning session held in February for a
parkway. Councilmember McGehee noted only one developer had recently involved,
who came before the City Council saying they didn't care about the parkway one
way or another, again indicating that no one has come forward to say that this
parkway is essential.
pointed out, Councilmember McGehee opined that residents had already spent $10
million of public money toward this infrastructure area, and reiterated her
previous comments that TIF is not free, but public money from the citizens of
the City of Roseville, involving the city, school district and county. Councilmember
McGehee noted that there had yet been no real cost benefit analysis of the kind
she would consider adequate. Councilmember McGehee noted that, with current
zoning, the City Council was making changes to the zoning for the entire area
as well as making new zoning tools available that may in fact present
opportunities absent that road.
McGehee opined that the City has already spent $2.4 million for the road
right-of-way, and this money could be used for other options in the area.
Councilmember McGehee noted that the new parkway would cost approximately $3.1
according to bond figures, with $2.4 already spent, totally $5.5 million of
taxpayer money for a road that developers haven't asked for and residents don't
want. Councilmember McGehee further noted that
consideration for the real cost of this road including ongoing maintenance
which she also found to be a major issue but never dealt with satisfactorily by
the City Council in any meaningful way through a cost benefit analysis, Councilmember
McGehee stated that this remained an unknown. Councilmember McGehee also noted
the lack of any real cost of what that additional traffic to Terrace Drive,
changes to Terrace Drive and Lincoln Avenue, or changes to Lincoln and Snelling
Avenues and County Road C-2, changes to Fairview Avenue at County Road D or
Lydia Avenue, remained an unknown also even though ongoing expenses that would
become the responsibility of all city taxpayers.
McGehee opined that the roadway would create distance inequality in all those
areas that have yet to be studied and nothing presented; and further opined
that she found it particularly egregious that this has come forward at this
late date with no other plans or options having been offered or any opportunity
to even think about a plan before this was brought forward. Councilmember McGehee
noted that this is a plan to complete something planned for completion that was
a TIF District idea long before 2005, but to use a hearing from 2005 is wrong
and does not represent anything like what was being sought after to improve
communication, seek citizen input or provide for good financial management.
For those reasons, Councilmember McGehee stated that she would not support this
Willmus stated this sitting City Council had heard from property owners and
small business owners in this area seeking completion of the roadway.
Councilmember Willmus opined this was a vital segment of the roadway to help
redevelopment of the interior of Twin Lakes and projected capacity needs, and
met the goals of the City. Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the motion.
Etten argued that the Twin Lakes Parkway and a number of the projects included
in the bond issue had received frequent discussion with public input over the
last year. Councilmember Etten noted that taxpayers were going to have to pay
for these public infrastructure improvements, as per past practice throughout
the community, and this was a quality way to accomplish that. Councilmember
Etten opined this fit the original concept and intent of TIF District 17; and
noted any use of the property designated for the Parkway other than for a
roadway would require refunding federal monies. Councilmember Etten spoke in
support of the motion.
Roe spoke in support of the motion. In terms of comments regarding good
financial management, Mayor Roe opined that it made no sense to take $500,000
now in lieu of being able to utilize $3.2 million and issue bonds adequately
that were conservatively covered. Mayor Roe opined that while, if for some
reason increments were not collected and the City was responsible for the bond
payment, he felt confident that staff and financial consultant analyses and
recommendations were conservative enough to address any such scenario. Mayor
Roe noted that the analysis was based on no additional tax revenue or
development in that area, simply status quo. Mayor Roe reiterated he felt it
was well within the City's ability to pay off the bond using increment as
outlined, providing for good financial management as previously approved by
this City Council.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Mayor Roe recessed
the meeting at approximately 8:09 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:16
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Update on Park Building Usage
Director of Parks and Recreation Jill Anfang summarized the RCA reporting park
building use for the first six months; reporting usage surpassed expectations.
Ms. Anfang provided sample tracking sheets (Attachments A, B and C); and noted
building-related statistics and demographics, with bookings already going into
2016 for various events. Ms. Anfang further reported that there was no
evidence to-date that shelter reservations had been hurt, with new facilities
providing additional rental options for the community, with shelter rentals remaining
Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane
expressed disappointment on the buildings constructed with no anticipation over
the next 5-10 years of significant maintenance dollars or yearly costs reserved
to pay for planned or unexpected future expenses. As a direct result, Mr.
Callaghan stated his anticipation that in 5 years that City Council would be
seeking additional money for that purpose. Mr. Callaghan opined that the City
should have learned from past experience and budgeted accordingly to address
those future significant needs, and questioned why they had not done so.
discussions with Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke specific to the
Lexington project, Mr. Callaghan noted his interpretation of significant discrepancies
in projected and actual expenses for utilities.
stated his preference to know the honest cost for the buildings; opining that
they've been underestimated drastically creating a significant cost to
taxpayers for operating and maintaining these buildings beyond their initial construction
Mayor Roe clarified that the City Council is looking at annual and future
maintenance and replacement costs as part of its CIP going forward. Mayor Roe
advised that he reviewed spreadsheets for all Parks & Recreation facilities,
including roofs, major systems and all potential costs; and had plugged that
information into the CIP going forward and that would be part of the budget
process over the next few months, and scheduled for annual review and revision
McGehee reported she had performed her own analysis along those lines, based on
information provided to her by staff; and had her two-page analysis displayed
on camera. Councilmember McGehee expressed concern that the public had not
been informed adequately on those costs; so for her own purpose, she performed
the computations that included the cost of the buildings, cost of the bonds,
annual debt service on the bond portion used, annual cost of buildings,
estimated staff time, and cost for CIP contributions/depreciation; representing
the total cost for taxpayers for those new facilities. Based on her projected
total annual cost to taxpayers for the buildings, and cost to subsidize those
annual costs, Councilmember McGehee further projected monthly costs and rental
fees that needed. Since there was no business plan made available for
residents, Councilmember McGehee noted her provision of this information;
opining that if these buildings were intended to make money, they needed to be
heavily scheduled, even though non-resident related uses beyond use of the
facilities as neighborhood parks and facilities didn't appear amenable for
residents. While supporting the buildings, Councilmember McGehee opined it was
important to provide information to residents of how and where their money was
being spent. With a $14,000 deficit already shown based on the Park &
Recreation Department's first six months of operation for these facilities, and
noting the budget process currently underway, Councilmember McGehee stated the
need to provide her more detailed analysis for the public.
McGehee noted her ongoing request for this type of analysis, using the Twin
Lakes Parkway project as an example, showing this analysis as part of the
preliminary information made available for the City Council and public.
thanked Ms. Anfang for her work in tracking this information and the success of
bookings to-date and coordinating the community's use of the facilities,
opining that level of use could be attributed to her efforts. Regarding
comments about these facilities being an asset to the community, Councilmember
Willmus stated that he saw them on a par with other services provided (e.g.
police, fire and public works), all playing into quality of life and calling
Roseville home by providing recreation opportunities for all ages as one of
those very positive aspects of the community. As far as those amenities being
revenue generators, Councilmember Willmus opined that his advocacy for the facilities
to serve that purpose had never entered his mind, further opining that parks
and recreation services, programs and/or facilities were not now nor did he
ever see them becoming revenue generators. Councilmember Willmus opined that
the City of Roseville subsidized those costs from other revenues; and as noted
in post card responses from citizens on the 2016 budget process, and park and
recreation allocations were broken down and reflected in tax dollars, if tax
revenues were looked at from a different perspective, continued support would
be obvious. Councilmember Willmus noted people continued to support parks and
recreation, the City remained on the right track in providing those amenities,
and overall the vast majority of the community used these facilities and their
construction was proving a step in the right direction. Councilmember Willmus
reiterated that parks have been a great benefit for the community.
opined that the City Council and staff had all been more than aware of costs,
as detailed in the CIP, including other expenses as they had come forward,
which was all part of budget needs and projections moving forward. With the
most recent staffing request coming forward, Councilmember Etten noted the need
to address this to further facilitate those amenities. Councilmember Etten
noted the purpose of the buildings was to increase community use of the park
system, to provide neighborhood gathering spaces, space for youth and other
programming, and to increase usage for the entire twelve months per year.
Councilmember Etten opined that already increased pride in the community was
evidenced along with appreciation for the increased bathroom facility access
and other amenities. Agreeing with the comments made by Councilmember Willmus,
Councilmember Etten reiterated that the facilities were not intended to make
money, but to provide services and create a stronger and healthier community.
While it was necessary to be aware of costs, Councilmember Etten opined that
those costs had been clearly identified upfront and planned for well by staff
to make sure they are and continue to be addressed going forward.
McGehee agreed that the facilities seemed to be well-used, and while not expecting
them to be money makers, opined that the public had been bypassed in seeking
bond funding without a referendum.
Mayor Roe and
Councilmember Willmus disagreed with that comment about lack of public
information throughout the process.
While not disputing
Councilmember McGehee's figures, if those numbers were to be brought to the
public, Mayor Roe asked that they be verified by staff and clearly defined as
categorized before being distributed further.
McGehee stated she was not afraid to have her numbers vetted by staff and
provided a copy to City Manager Trudgeon for Finance Director Miller's review
and future dissemination.
Sherman Development Discussion
Development Director Paul Bilotta apologized that the RCA was so brief,
advising that additional information was anticipated following several key
meetings late last week, but had subsequently resulted in more time needed, causing
staff to defer providing additional information at this time. Mr. Bilotta
noted the number of steps required for such a complex project as this.
reviewed the history of the project and their policy decision made on June 9,
2014 by unanimous vote to support the Sherman project to make application for
grant funding. Mr. Bilotta further noted the City Council's addition of a
clause to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Sherman at their October
27, 2014 meeting that they were not approving the project by entering into the
MOU, but only its concept. On February 9, 2015, Mr. Bilotta noted the item coming
before the City Council with an update from Sherman, and based on City Council
feedback, direction to staff to begin diligently performing due diligence with
Sherman to facilitate the project.
As part of that
due diligence, Mr. Bilotta noted, from a technical perspective, this included
the "but for" test to qualify for TIF funding, with the City's financial advisor
Ehlers working diligently on the various pieces and in conjunction with various
funding agencies. Mr. Bilotta noted the complications of the project based on
a percentage of affordable housing units along with market rate units; and advised
staff had anticipating being able to present that "but for" analysis presentation
at tonight's meeting, and recommendations to support or not support moving
forward based on financial analyses. However, at this point and based on
significant financial gaps remaining, Mr. Bilotta advised that changes had been
made as late as last week in underwriting requirements, creating the need for
all participating funding sources and agencies to weigh in, and confirm their
level of participation for the developer. Based on their respective governing
structures and approval processes, Mr. Bilotta advised that a final
recommendation was not possible based on those agency response times needed.
recognized multiple delays was creating fatigue within the community, among
staff and for Councilmembers. However, Mr. Bilotta reported that, currently
staff did not have enough information to provide a recommendation to the City
Council on the "but for" test as additional information was needed from Sherman
for that analysis. Given general policy support from the City Council to-date,
Mr. Bilotta suggested the City Council reaffirm their support or withdraw that
support, and if reaffirmed the City's financial consultant would finalize their
determination on the "but for" test. Mr. Bilotta noted the considerable
analysis and expertise of Ehlers in determining a per unit cost, construction
costs, land costs and other components, with all indicating preliminarily to
staff that a significant gap existed at this point for the overall project.
recognizing ongoing talk about that significant gap, Councilmember Willmus
asked for an update on that actual projected gap, or the number staff was
attempting to address.
Bilotta advised that the additional gap estimated by Ehlers at this point was
an additional $1 million; requiring $2.5 million to $3 million in TIF funds.
past staff narratives and actions taken to-date, Councilmember Willmus noted
early discussions in 2013 at the HRA level of using the remaining balance of
TIF District 17 funds and a small amount of State of Minnesota Department of Education
and Economic Development (DEED), and questioned if over time that funding ratio
had changed. Councilmember Willmus further questioned if there was a City
Council majority still willing to go forward. Over time, Councilmember Willmus
noted his shift in position; and sought to clarify for staff clear direction
one way or another at tonight's meeting.
on best case scenarios at this point and without additional promises, Councilmember
McGehee sought to clarify the request from Sherman was for $2.5 million in TIF.
staff's perspective, Mr. Bilotta advised that they foresaw no way the deal
could proceed with any less than $2.5 million and it may require more than
McGehee questioned if the City Council was comfortable with that level - or any
level - of TIF.
Roe invited developer, George Sherman to respond and provide an update on the
Sherman reviewed the history of the project, as outlined by Mr. Bilotta and
suggestions by the City Council in February of 2015 to change the ratio of
market rate and affordable housing units, which his firm had pursued with
funders, including the State, County and Metropolitan Council), creating a
bigger funding gap. Mr. Sherman noted the original submission for funding that
had been supported by those agencies, and supported at that time by the City
Council, was based on the original housing ratio, but in mixing that ratio, it
became less economically viable. Mr. Sherman noted the City's housing market
study indicated the need for upper scale market rate apartments, which was what
his firm had responded to in their original proposal for a 100 unit building at
market rate housing stock, with the last such building constructed in Roseville
over thirty-five years ago. With the City later identifying their revised
preference for more low income housing, or housing for those with incomes of
$30,000 to $40,000 annually, Mr. Sherman noted the considerable time spent
working with other agencies to provide that different model.
that process, Mr. Sherman advised that those revised models had been submitted
to the City and their financial consultants for evaluation of funding gaps as
indicated by staff, with a remaining gap of approximately $1 million between
the projected funding need and the amount staff believed could be supported.
Mr. Sherman opined that the project generated significant TIF increment, estimating
that to be $1.5 to $1.7 million over a reasonably short period of time, and
should provide a surplus that will not take away from current jurisdiction revenues,
but provide new revenue. However, Mr. Sherman recognized staff's reluctance to
move forward at this time with a recommendation to the City Council. Mr.
Sherman opined that and TIF risk would be borne by the developer, since it was
not a General Obligation that the City had to stand behind, and only create
risk for his firm as the developer.
Sherman further addressed upper market rate housing needs in the City not
requiring assistance, with only the provision of the affordable housing
component requiring subsidizing; reviewed how the project addressed City of
Roseville goals; projected rate of return of 4% for the developer; and current
trends of people moving into adjacent communities (Shoreview and New Brighton)
for that market rate housing and for executives in corporate fields seeking
that housing option. Mr. Sherman noted the significant shortfall in workforce
housing throughout the metropolitan area, and a clear goal outlined by the
Metropolitan Council for cities to address that shortage of quality workforce
housing, not to be confused with Section 8 housing options.
Sherman opined he was not under the impression that the City was interested in
the site continuing to look the way it now did; and based on City Council support
one year ago, noted the significant intergovernmental support and commitment of
additional funds the project had received from other agencies and jurisdictions.
If the project does not move forward, Mr. Sherman noted it was at risk to lost
$7 million in funding from those other sources. Mr. Sherman referenced his
letter summarizing reasons to move forward in addressing this financing gap,
and respectfully requested an additional two weeks to resolve those issues and
further reduce that gap.
the City did not support their initial TIF commitment indicated since day one,
Mr. Sherman asked that they provide future projects and development proposals
with much clearer direction before a developer pursues developing models and
the time commitment and associated costs in planning this type of project.
Sherman opined that if the City Council continued to support this project, and
provided the additional two weeks, it would be a positive for the City and make
a significant statement across the state given the size of the project.
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bilotta responded that the current analysis by
Ehlers dealt with the overall financial gap issue, and the level of funding
being asked for by Sherman. Mr. Bilotta noted this could result in utilizing
the full available TIF District term of twenty-five years, or could be
addressed within fifteen years, creating a significant difference in time based
on the level of funding.
comments via e-mail and dated July 20, 2015 were provided as bench handouts, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, and received from Susan Brown, 1776 Millwood
Avenue and Kathleen Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive.
Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane
Callaghan opined that residents were being asked to pay for 20% of this project;
and asked what they received in return. Mr. Callaghan noted there was no
discussion of reduced rents for workforce housing using this public money, and
questioned the benefit to the City. While it may be an interesting project,
Mr. Callaghan asked why the City was being requested to pay all this money
toward it. Mr. Callaghan reviewed his interpretation of the number of units,
which apparently would cost more than a single-family home would, while not
generating any taxes for between 15 to 26 years for the City, County or School
Districts, while they carried the development free of taxes. Mr. Callaghan
questioned if the City was willing to put that much additional tax burden on
its taxpayers, while paying for all services required of the development, and
questioned if the resulting benefit was something worthwhile.
listening to detailed explanations about TIF District 17, Mr. Callaghan expressed
his confusion, and how the money was being allocated based on staff analyses
especially how a TIF District could be created within another District making
him more than a little suspicious.
much as he would support Councilmember McGehee's suggestion to decertify this TIF
District and create a new one, Mr. Callaghan noted the previous decision to not
pursue that option; and this subsequent attempt to figure out how to facilitate
this development. Mr. Callaghan opined it seemed the City was putting itself
into a little box, and questioned the legalities of getting out of that box.
Tosi, 1766 Millwood Avenue
Tosi noted references to funding indicating investment of the developer to ultimately
make a profit and projecting a 4% return on their investment. At current
interest rates, Ms. Tosi opined that was a very lucrative return, while if any
part of the development changes, the firm is threatening to back out. Ms. Tosi
opined that this should first prove that the developer is a for-profit firm,
and in the interest of being frank and honest, should clearly indicate whether
or not this project is actually viable for the area. Ms. Tosi opined that it
would be interesting to know how much of that calculation is based on market
rate units continuing long-term, noting how frequent it was and precedent
already set for buildings as they age becoming affordable housing units,
further changing the ratio of housing stock available. Specific to the number
of jobs being created, Ms. Tosi noted the jobs would be mostly created during
construction, and only temporary and not provide any long-term gain for
McCormick, 2950 Wheeler Street North
comments made by Councilmember Willmus on this pending project over for the
duration of at least one year, Ms. McCormick asked the City Council to take
action tonight one way or the other to bring closure for the public, opining
sufficient time had been provided for any alternatives for the project. Ms.
McCormick agreed that the public was getting fatigued, especially their immediate
neighborhood adjacent to the proposed development; and reiterated past concerns
regarding the initial notice of the project form the HRA and/or City Council
before June of 2015 when brought to the attention of a broader group of
the economics of the project and whether it will work or not, Ms. McCormick
noted steps forward during the review period, specifically in environmental
clean-up through hiring a Brownfields consultant to review the area, and steps
to bring zoning in line through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process to
create other types of developments; and opined the situation was not as dire as
being portrayed, and that there were other options for this site other than the
proposal. During the public input session held in January, Ms. McCormick
opined that it had been clear, and good data and public responses had been provided
to the Community Development Department, clearly stating the public did not
want any more subsidy granted in the Twin Lakes area, especially for a project
without creation of head of household jobs.
McCormick agreed with Mr. Sherman regarding the City Council policy, recognizing
past concerns about the message sent to developers. However, Ms. McCormick
opined great strides had been made over the last year and corrections made to
alleviate inconsistencies evident in prior decision-making. Regardless of
which way this project goes, Ms. McCormick opined that those strides made would
provide more prudent and conscientious projects going forward to make decisions
that stuck. In consideration of transparency and community engagement
commitments recently made, Ms. McCormick opined that the community deserves an
answer, and that Sherman had had sufficient time to work with staff and
consultants; and questioned what two more weeks could accomplish; asking the
City Council to take action one way or the other tonight.
Terry Foster, Agent for Hagen Properties
Foster referenced and displayed the original Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area
project and related Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan dated June 26, 2001. Mr.
Foster reviewed his history in working with Mr. Hagen, owner of the property
now deceased, and subsequently Mrs. Hagen, current owner of the property. Mr.
Foster opined that the City now had the opportunity to accomplish a quality project,
and now once again sought to change zoning; and reviewed the ongoing changes in
direction of the City, further confusing and eliminating the ability of current
property owners to sell and/or redevelop this area, no matter what the proposal.
Mr. Foster expressed frustration in attempting to meet the ever-changing target
of the City for this area and their lack of support for any development presented.
Having lived in Roseville for over forty years, Mr. Foster asked the City
Council to make a decision what it actually wanted to accomplish in the Twin
Hagen, Property Owner
Hagen agreed with the confusion expressed by her property representative, Mr.
Foster, and also reviewed a history of the property, uses, direction of the
City in various projects brought forward, and current condition of the property
and existing structures. Ms. Hagen expressed her sincere interest in selling
the property and her continual butting into resistance from the City. Ms.
Hagen recognized the environmental clean-up needed and Sherman's willingness to
perform that mitigation, the addition of a $40 million building for the City's
tax base, and amount of time spent to-date on various proposals and the two
years already spent on this particular project. Ms. Hagen opined that the
general public did not clearly understand the complexity in a project of this
size, funding required, design and planning requirements for developers, and
other components. Ms. Hagen noted the City Council's initial support for the
project when first approached by Sherman; and noted the potential improvement
with this project compared to its current use, generating little taxes compared
to what could be accomplished long-term. Ms. Hagen noted the need for housing
in Roseville, and while this may not be a manufacturing plant or office
building, which her marketing had found was not of interest to qualified
developers, opined that this project appeared to address and accomplish
numerous goals outlined by the City Council over the last few years, in
addition to providing housing for additional residents who would spend money in
Roseville in a variety of ways, and even create some jobs. Ms. Hagen noted the
map referenced by staff was dated 1985, and that was how long redevelopment for
this area has been under discussion. Ms. Hagen opined it was time to say "yes" to something and get it done. As a taxpayer in Roseville for over thirty
years, while not a resident, Ms. Hagen asked the City Council to move forward.
Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive
Erickson referenced her written comments, as submitted earlier today. Stating
that she had nothing against Mr. Sherman or Ms. Hagen, but that she spoke on
behalf of the community, Mr. Erickson opined that a lot of people were just giving
up as they didn't feel they were being listened to. Ms. Erickson stated she
was not against the project, but opined this was not the right place for it
given its significant impacts to their immediate residential neighborhood, as
well as additional traffic to be generated with the Twin Lakes Parkway
extension, and addition of 190 additional households in that small space and
access to I-35W. Ms. Erickson noted that she and many of her neighbors had
also been taxpayers for a long time as well. Ms. Erikson stated they loved
their community and wanted to see their quality of life taken into consideration,
citing other negative impacts form this development (traffic, street condition,
park overrun, etc.) and asked that the City Council consider the wishes of the
neighborhood request for use of public money providing another slap in the face
of their immediate community. Ms. Erickson noted the negative impacts to their
neighborhood and their property values. Ms. Erickson opined that the Hagen's
had use of that property to fund their family needs and more; and expressed
concern about market rate apartments, given her review of the Sherman project
in Falcon Heights and concerns with deterioration of the market rate apartments
as they age.
Roe focused the City Council's decision tonight on two options: granting
Sherman an additional two weeks to finalize funding; or not granting that additional
time and subsequent ramifications for the community and developer with that
Willmus noted the appearance of Sherman before the City Council over earlier
this year seeing direction, and the general support of several Councilmembers.
Councilmember Willmus noted that at that time he was not supportive of moving
forward, and he remained so; and opined the City Council owed residents their
McGehee agreed the City Council owed Sherman, Mrs. Hagen and the residential
neighborhood a decision tonight. Councilmember McGehee noted she had made her
wishes known a year ago about the things she wanted to see moving forward; and
had also spoken to Mr. Sherman directly on those things she felt strongly about
that were not originally in the proposed mix. Councilmember McGehee noted that
she was not a big fan of using TIF, and therefore, required those additional
components going forward if she was to support the project. Councilmember
McGehee noted that, at this point, Mr. Sherman could not supply those
requirements, and therefore advised she had not been, nor could she ever
support the project as presented.
Laliberte noted that, during the last conversation with Sherman in February
seeking individual Councilmember feedback, she had made it clear that she was
unsure whether using TIF for housing and concerned with how numbers were
presented and differed, making it hard to track and follow. Councilmember
Laliberte noted this had not changed over time with this situation or how she
felt about it, making her less in favor of using TIF for this housing project.
While having tried to keep an open mind throughout the process, Councilmember
Laliberte noted her expectations of information brought forward, even after repeated
requests and attempts, had not served to clearly communicate that the project
could actually work as proposed.
Laliberte opined this had not been a very transparent process for the public,
the City Council or staff; and while people may not agree with her, bits and
pieces of information provided to individuals as needed or as requested, did
not provide for a good understanding for the public or City Council, and have
created some discomfort for her in the number of side conversations, individual
phone conversations seeking encouragement, or other discussions outside those
before the full City Council. Based on those misgivings and the amount of
public support being requested for this project, Councilmember Laliberte stated
it was just too much for her to consider, not only TIF but because of other
taxpayer supported funding mechanisms. Councilmember Laliberte noted the lack
of long-term jobs generated from the project while residents are asked to pay
for services for the complex over the next twenty-six years. While
Councilmember Laliberte noted she had made it clear over the last year that she
did not agree with the high density residential (HDR) zoning areas identified
in the 2010 comprehensive plan update and zoning code revisions, and this may
indeed be a quality project as presented, she could not support it.
Councilmember Laliberte referenced the considerable amount of staff time spent
on this today, which she found to be unreasonable from her perspective, even
though other steps have and would benefit the community (e.g., traffic studies
and additional infrastructure improvements to-date), and questioned the level
of advocacy she had observed but not expected from staff. While it may prove
to be a quality project and well-meaning, Councilmember Laliberte noted the
continued lack of ability for the developer to bring this forward in a final
format or to supply the necessary numbers to complete review, indicating a lot
of handholding by staff for the developer, which was not necessary.
Councilmember Laliberte opined that the letter of support provided by the
developer and petition for improvements ultimately could not suffice. Councilmember
Laliberte noted her visit earlier this year to the Cedar Riverside Complex,
owned or managed by Sherman, and even though a completely different scenario,
admitted she found it disturbing to see how unhappy tenants in that rental
community were, opining that clearly there were some opportunities not seized
by Sherman to improve communication and action for those residents needing
improvement in their living situation.
appreciation for the regional goals of the Metropolitan Council, Councilmember
Laliberte expressed her personal belief that their role should be on infrastructure
versus telling communities where housing needed to locate and at what density,
and therefore did not feel pressured to vote yes or extend the process to meet
not knowing the scenario between the land owners and potential developers,
Councilmember Laliberte expressed hope that there had been some milestones
built into their agreement, and if not, she could not support stretching this
out any further without the current property owners being able to move forward
with some other development on the site.
Etten agreed that this process could have been more open, but also noted the
lessons learned over the last year with the process resulting in the current
involvement of the neighborhood and community. While understanding progress
was still needed and not seeking to understand timeframes from the perspective
of a developer, Councilmember Etten compared the 2014 Maxfield Research housing
study update provided for the City as part of the Dale Street project in
identifying the need for market rate general occupancy housing, which this
development proposal served to meet. With the study providing an analysis of
overall housing needs for the entire community, when Sherman reviewed that
study, they said they could meet that need and thus developed their initial proposal,
which would serve to strengthen the community as a whole.
While this is redevelopment and is high intensity, Councilmember Etten noted it
would be clean and new housing and bring in new people o the community, as well
as being adjacent to the park amenity, which was the intent that parks be
used. Councilmember Etten noted the additional pluses for the community in new
quality families and housing for the community or in relocating existing
families in Roseville; environmental clean-up; and proximity of Roseville for
commuting to both downtowns as an attraction for new families seeking the
quality of life offered by Roseville.
staff's presentation of the request of $2.5 million in TIF out of a total project
cost of $45 million, or 5% of that total cost, Councilmember Etten opined it
was important for the City Council and public to allow the proposal to work its
way through the process. If the City pulls support for the project at this
point, Councilmember Etten opined it will have significant ramifications for
the community, including showing funders that Roseville is not serious about
development, limit environmental remediation, and other negative impacts to the
City of Roseville's reputation and end up costing the city more in the long-run
with continuing efforts at redeveloping the Twin Lakes area.
recognizing that the public or his colleagues may not support public subsidies,
Councilmember Etten opined that they would be necessary to achieve quality
development for this project or whatever may follow, and that subsidy will need
to happen if big box uses are not a consideration as a self-supporting land
use. If the City wants to pursue quality housing, or even office/retail uses,
Councilmember Etten opined that TIF dollars will be needed, the projects would
not and could not happen on their own. Councilmember Etten noted that the land
in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area had problems needing to be addressed; and
asked that the community consider long-term cost implications for the community
if it continued to prevent this and future development from happening.
Etten stated he would support an additional two weeks to allow the developer
time to finalize funding; and while admitting this had trailed on for a long
time, another two weeks was reasonable to make the project happen for the
benefit to the community. While it may note generate head of household jobs,
Councilmember Etten noted the project did provide housing options in Roseville
in a quality development.
Roe echoed comments about the need for the market place not being able to fund workforce
housing, and opined affordable/workforce housing would not happen in Roseville
if there was a policy to not use TIF for that need. While that type of housing
may be in demand and allow residents to move into Roseville and contribute in a
positive way, Mayor Roe opined that would not happen in the private market
place without some kind of assistance whether through federal housing tax
credit assistance, TIF or other agency support. Mayor Roe recognized concerns
about the length of term for this housing project as addressed by Councilmember
Willmus and the potential age of those buildings at the end of the twenty-six
year TIF term. However, Mayor Roe also noted the existence of the rental
licensing program now in place that could help mitigate those concerns allowing
the owner to stay on top of things to some extent, therefore, not causing him
the same level of concern. Mayor Roe admitted he would be even less concerned
if the term was limited to fifteen years and for a smaller amount of money.
Roe agreed this project met the market rate need and market needs, and the
market rate increment on the taxable property served to pay the way for workforce
housing units. If the City did not support use of TIF for workforce housing in
Roseville, Mayor Roe opined that it would not happen, causing him greater
concern. Mayor Roe opined that this was something desirable for the community
and there was an obvious need for that type of housing in this area, and even
more important to look at, was the City providing the perception that they
didn't want that type of housing in Roseville.
Roe noted that the project met the current and proposed zoning based on the City
Council's discussion process, and therefore nothing new was created from a
zoning perspective in this location. Mayor Roe noted the reason for a lack of
public process for such a project was because it met those zoning requirements
and no additional public airing was required. Regarding public assistance,
Mayor Roe admitted the City needed to do a better job of getting the pieces
together at the beginning of a project whether than meant missing a grant cycle
or not, any project involving public assistance needed to follow a public
process, including open houses and other land use and zoning approvals to allow
adequate public input. Mayor Roe noted that early approvals on this project
had been driven by those application deadlines for funding, thus the City's
letter of support for grant applications. Mayor Roe noted this may have been a
disservice to developers in withholding remaining gap financing, and in the
future should be taken care of upfront.
to comments related to staff advocacy, Mayor Roe opined that it was part of
staff's job to help people attempting to accomplish projects, and advocacy did not
mean staff was trying to skirt rules. Regarding comments about this project requiring
public services, Mayor Roe opined that everything required some level of public
service, and that was part of the City's role for any and all residences and/or
businesses in the community, which everyone contributed toward. To suggest the
City not pursue new things or do so through using TIF, Mayor Roe opined was
short-sighted, which he considered a real risk.
Roe stated he may support two weeks, but was hesitant if the gap couldn't be
worked out or if it required the full term of twenty-six years, noting his
preference for a term of fifteen years at a smaller amount. While not ruling
anything out at this point, Mayor Roe advised that given the importance of this
type of housing in Roseville, he was not yet ready to rule it out based on
discussion he'd heard tonight and in the past.
Willmus offered a gentle rebuttal that public subsidy for residential
developments, especially when adjacent to existing residential properties,
should be based on broad and extensive public input and a public process. Councilmember
Willmus noted his support for using TIF for the Dale Street project. However,
Councilmember Willmus noted there was not one person expressing support for
this proposal other than the property owner, their agent and the developer,
making it difficult for him to consider a public subsidy expenditure for this
project. Councilmember Willmus noted the significant dollars being sought just
in Roseville sewer access credits (SAC) and TIF dollars, without considering support
from other agencies, all of whom had provided input and expressed concern,
which he was going to listen to. Councilmember Willmus noted in his consideration
of TIF expenditures, he was looking at broad public support, and if on a
commercial project if it provided significant head of household jobs. Councilmember
Willmus clarified that he had not challenged this on market rate versus
affordable housing units, but noted the change in ratio repeatedly compared to
when initially presented and current ratio projections even while they may not
factor into his decision, but still relevant for the public to be aware of.
general, Councilmember Willmus opined that his preference was to see greater
commercial development in Twin Lakes, which he saw as having significant potential;
and if municipal dollars were going to be expended, those developments that
provided quality jobs were what he wanted to pursue.
McGehee concurred with Councilmembers Laliberte and Willmus, especially the
last comments of Councilmember Willmus specific to community based support,
noting her support for using TIF for the Dale Street project. With the recent
zoning district changes for Twin Lakes, Councilmember McGehee opined she was
not really worried about that area developing now, and preferred head of
Laliberte clarified that, at no point had she ever stated she was against using
TIF for housing; and attempted to keep an open mind as all information was
brought forward. However, with this particular project, Councilmember
Laliberte stated there was not sufficient reason for her to say TIF worked for
his gentle rebuttal, Councilmember Etten questioned comparisons between this
project and Dale Street, noting the City owned the land in that case and if not
for that ownership component, it would not have gone through the public input
process it had gone through either. In considering what is ideal, Councilmember
Etten opined that if trucks continued to be stored on that site, or used as a
truck terminal in today's economic and transportation environment, it would
result in hundreds of trucks using Fairview Avenue north and south and create
deep impacts on that area and the entire community. Councilmember Etten noted
that was the original reason for zoning out truck terminals in that area twenty
years ago; and caused him real concern.
Roe requested staff's response to Mr. Callaghan's question raised during public
comment about TIF District creation.
Bilotta responded that Mr. Callaghan was correct in that two TIF Districts could
not coincide on one site, and a new housing district would be created for this
specific project and removed from the existing TIF District 17.
moved, Laliberte seconded giving notice to staff to discontinue further
discussions on tax increment financing (TIF) for this project.
Willmus, Laliberte and McGehee.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon briefly reviewed future draft agendas.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus and previously brought forward by Councilmember
Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the current City Hall storage at
Fire Station #2 on Fairview Avenue had been tentatively scheduled for the
August City Council Work Session.
Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:00 p.m.