City
Council Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2016
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Laliberte,
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
Allegiance
3. Approve Agenda
Councilmember Willmus
requested removal of Item 8.e from the Consent Agenda for separate
consideration.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte,
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one
appeared to speak.
5. Council
and City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Mayor Roe recognized
Veteran's Day and noted that City Hall would be closed in remembrance. Mayor
Roe announced upcoming November events including, a seminar by Roseville Police
on Identity Theft protection followed by Coffee with a Cop; the 4th
annual Ovalumination and skating event.
Mayor Roe
announced an upcoming volunteer opportunity at Cottontail Park for assisting
with already cut Buckthorn debris.
Mayor Roe also
noted upcoming community meetings for input on future land use for the former
National Guard Armory site at 211 N McCarron's Boulevard and logistics of those
meetings.
As part of the
SE Roseville Working Group consisting of staff and elected officials from
Ramsey County and the Cities of St. Paul, Maplewood and Roseville, Mayor Roe reported
on the ongoing monthly meetings since the last community meeting to review feedback
from the communities and develop next steps and actions. Mayor Roe reported another
meeting would be forthcoming to provide a concise list of ideas put forth from
that meeting and how to address the various components. Mayor Roe referenced
the City of Roseville's website under the Community Development Department tab
for more detailed information and updates on revitalizing the Rice Street and
Larpenteur Avenue area, in addition to the report having been emailed to all
attending that community meeting who had provided their email addresses.
Mayor Roe
advised that one of the next steps identified by the working group was to reach
out to local businesses inviting their input in the process. Mayor Roe advised
that commitment for funding for the planning portion was pending with sources
anticipated from Roseville in the amount of $40,000 from existing 2016
planning/development budgets; City of St. Paul 2017 budget funds (if approved)
of $50,000; City of Maplewood $10,000 totaling $100,000. Mayor Roe noted
planning included developing a request for proposals (RFP) for a project
management firm for consulting during the process to replace the efforts of the
St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce and their past time and financial commitment
due to recent staff changes. Mayor Roe noted the City of Roseville was
discussing Roseville-specific plans for SE Roseville that tied into this
broader effort; with the county and all cities involved in approving the
broader efforts by their governing bodies. Mayor Roe advised that the Chamber
would likely serve as the fiscal agent, but each city would need approval of
actions going forward for the broader effort, with individual City Council
discussions and decisions accordingly, and allowing for additional public input
along the way.
Mayor Roe
reported on an anticipated report in 2017 from Ramsey County on the Rice Street
corridor and how that street functions (e.g. mechanical and pedestrian
amenities); including discussions about development at the Community School of
Excellence at the former Linder's site in St. Paul.
Mayor Roe noted
the next steps would include convening the neighborhood group again with the
purpose of reporting and synthesizing the information gathered to-date and to
provide an opportunity for more feedback on that information.
City Manager
Trudgeon reported on absentee and early voting in Roseville to-date, with an
average of 400-500 voters per day, with today's record of over 800 voters
exceeding that average. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this represented a significant
portion of the approximate 20,000 registered voters in Roseville. Mr. Trudgeon
publically thanked city staff for their heroic efforts in accommodating this
early voting option that had far exceeded expectations; and noted other
communities in Ramsey County were also experiencing similar outcomes. Mr.
Trudgeon noted Ramsey County Elections officials were looking at doing things
differently locally and statewide; perhaps including legislation to change the
process and address this huge burden on staff, especially since the current
process is very time-consuming and involved.
Mr. Trudgeon
reminded voters that for tomorrow's Election Day, they would need to vote at
their assigned precincts, but that City Hall staff would be available to answer
their questions. Mr. Trudgeon reported that absentee and early ballots were
delivered to Ramsey County by city staff after polls closed each evening.
Mayor Roe
thanked voters for their enthusiasm.
6. Recognitions,
Donations and Communications
7.
Approve Minutes
Comments 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.
a.
Approve October 10, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
Mayor Roe
thanked Councilmember McGehee for her rewrite of the section related to her
presentation on policing services in Roseville.
Willmus moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the October 10, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
b.
Approve October 24, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the October 24, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as
amended.
Corrections:
2
·
Page 35, Lines 37 -38 (Willmus)
Correct to
read: "Councilmember Willmus opined that the best position for the city would
be [without that particular clause a better clause would be no clause]
[to have an escape clause]."
Roll Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
Abstentions:
Laliberte.
Motion
carried.
8.
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) dated November 7, 2016 and related attachments.
a.
Approve Payments
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
detailed.
ACH Payments
|
$686,900.29
|
83496 - 83645
|
251,152.10
|
TOTAL
|
$938,052.39
|
Roll
Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
b.
Approve Business and Other Licenses
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of New 2016-2017 Massage Therapy Licenses as detailed,
dependent on completion of successful background checks.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
c.
Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax
Rolls
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11371 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution
Directing the County Auditory to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City
Charges for Payable 2015 or Beyond."
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
d.
Resolution Accepting the Voluntary Relinquishment of Liquor
License #27969 and #27897 and Final Disposition of Proposed Liquor License Violation
by Licensee Smashburger Acquisition - Minneapolis, LLC
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11372 (Attachment A) entitled, "A
Resolution Accepting the Voluntary Relinquishment of Liquor Licenses #27969 and
#27897 and Final Disposition of Proposed Liquor License Violation by Licensee
Smashburger Acquisition - Minneapolis, LLC."
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
9. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
e.
Consider Approving Information Technology (IT) Shared Service
Agreement with the City of Ham Lake
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item being considered
under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in the RCA dated November 7, 2016 and
related attachments.
Councilmember Willmus
advised staff that this particular item had not been included in his meeting
packet materials.
As this venture
continued to roll out with other municipalities and agencies, Councilmember
Willmus asked staff if the business model had been reviewed for use of other
entities' employees rather than Roseville employees to offset staffing and
travel costs.
Finance
Director Chris Miller advised that this particular business model addressed
cost-sharing; however, he clarified that many of the IT employees were not
actually housed out of Roseville City Hall, but instead their work site was at
other city halls as applicable. Therefore Mr. Miller reported that there was
no added travel costs were incurred with their normal schedule, therefore no
mileage allotment was included, with few exceptions other than those identified
as "floaters" and reimbursed accordingly, but not to any significant amount.
Specific to
personnel, Mr. Miller noted there were a number of nuances and complexities to
this business mode, with Roseville currently having hired seventeen different
IT employees parceled out to a number of different agencies. Mr. Miller also
noted that some of these other cities or agencies had their own smaller IT
staff who came into the business model mix and provided the City of Roseville
and others partners with their unique areas of expertise (e.g. City of
Maplewood) and share their resources consortium wide. While the seventeen
employees are considered City of Roseville employees, their services are shared
with other partners in the consortium, with current needs for additional
staffing, but working well to-date. Mr. Miller opined that there was some
inherent risk in Roseville carrying all the employees on its books; but also
noted there had been no reported work place injuries to-date, nor any property
liability risk with this business model and employee pool.
If this
collaboration should ever be sized differently, or if an agency or city decides
to leave, Mr. Miller advised that the remaining participating agencies would be
approached for a collective decision on whether to downsize the consortium
staffing, or for each agency or city to decide to keep the existing number of
staff on the books and increase their share of the funding proportionately.
To-date, Mr. Miller advised that none of the participants had left the
consortium due to dissatisfaction.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller confirmed that each Joint Powers Agreement
(JPA) was set up with built-in inflators to capture employee costs (e.g. COLA,
benefits, etc.) and indirect paybacks to make the operation viable. If this
business model went away, Mr. Miller reported that the City of Roseville would
need another $500,000 in its annual budget to retain the same network,
equipment and services it not has; thus making it a definite benefit with this
collaboration for the City of Roseville.
McGehee moved, Laliberte
seconded, approval of a Shared Services Agreement with the City of Ham Lake for
the purposes of providing IT support services.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
10.
General Ordinances for Adoption
a.
Fire Department City Code Ordinance Changes for Chapter 404 (Air
Pollution) and Chapter 902 (Fire Prevention)
Fire Marshal
Tim O'Neill; and Battalion Chief of Operations David Brosnahan were available
for this item.
Chief O'Neill
provided a brief introduction and background for this request and changes made
to-date from several previous meetings with the City Council. Chief O'Neill
noted changes made based on City Council feedback had been highlighted in the
documents presented tonight, including ordinance summaries.
Mayor Roe noted
most of the changes were due to changes in State Fire Code and City staffing
models over the years since initially adopted.
Councilmember
Etten noted his conversations with Chief O'Neill about amendments to Section
2.404.02 (Open Burning), removing Item D. for institutional recreation burning
permits and safety concerns of Chief O'Neill related to the annual B-Dale Club
Halloween burn. While recognizing the Chief's concerns that small brush and
debris may blow out of that bonfire, Councilmember Etten asked the City Council
to considering a permitting process that would allow for a bonfire to be safely
run. Councilmember Etten noted that this annual event drew many people in the
area and provided a positive family activity; and suggested support for a
smart, safe way to make changes to this policy that would allow that event to
continue.
From a
different perspective, Councilmember McGehee stated she was ready to commend
the Chief for eliminating this event, since it created a significant air
pollution issue. Councilmember McGehee opined that an annual tradition and
gathering such as this could be held without it serving as a giant air polluter
at the same time; and expressed her personal appreciation of Chief O'Neill's
efforts to limit these types of fires to a more reasonable size and length of
time.
Councilmember
Willmus asked Chief O'Neill what his proposed parameters would be if he was to
consider a permitting process.
Chief O'Neill
reviewed his rationale in recommending removal of this type of recreational
burn from Section 404; since as it currently stands, there is little guidance
provided for what could or could not be done, beyond the restrictions of the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as to cubic feet of fire product, without
any other restrictions such as how, when, where and the distance from adjacent
property lines. When seeking the DNR's rationale about the reasonable nature
of their limited restrictions, Chief O'Neill reported that their response had
been that they didn't anticipate any such burns being done in the seven-county
metropolitan area. From his perspective at this time, Chief O'Neill reported
that there were few limitations he could place on that type of fire under
current municipal legislation; but if directed to do so by the City Council, as
far as permitting he would recommend an Interim Use permit individually
considered for a particular event in order to condition such an approval on
meeting Fire department and/or city requirements as mandated (e.g. setbacks,
supervision, etc.). Chief O'Neill stated that his recommendation was that the city
sticks with the 3 x 3 x 3' fire; but if the City Council directed otherwise, he
would be more than willing to assist in developing recommendations.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Chief O'Neill confirmed that, due to setback and
property line concerns, his recommendation at this time would be to leave the
revised language as presented; and consider such institutional recreation
burning requests for a later date through an Interim Use process if so directed
by the City Council. At the further request of Councilmember Willmus, Chief
O'Neill reviewed consequences if the Fire Department was called out to the
scene of such a bonfire and their authority to mandate that the fire be
extinguished. Chief O'Neill advised that the intent was that the Fire
Department be able to retain the ability to understand the community as well as
bonfire regulations; but if there were a number of neighbor complaints about
air pollution, such as during a high dew point day, today the department only
had the ability to ask the party to extinguish the fire. However, Chief
O'Neill advised that new language proposed under Item F of this section
provided the Fire Department the ability to demand or mandate that a fire be
extinguished if conditions changed or as the Chief or his/her designee ordered.
Chapter 404
McGehee moved, Willmus
seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1513 (Attachment A) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 4, Chapter 404
(Air Pollution Control)."
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
While
supporting the motion, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of considering
an IU for an institutional recreation burning event.
Mayor Roe noted
the City Council could consider such action later in 2017 if related to the annual
B-Dale club for their fall tradition.
McGehee moved, Willmus
seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1513 (Attachment B) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 4, Chapter 404
(Air Pollution Control)."
Roll
Call (Super Majority Vote)
Ayes:
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
Chapter 902
McGehee moved, Laliberte
seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1512 (Attachment C) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 9, Chapter 902
(Fire Prevention)."
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
McGehee moved, Laliberte
seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1512 (Attachment D) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 9, Chapter 902
(Fire Prevention)."
Roll
Call (Super Majority Vote)
Ayes:
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 6:35 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 6:36 p.m.
11.
Presentations
a.
Receive Presentation from Ramsey County Assessor, Stephen Baker,
Reporting Roseville Commercial & Residential Valuation Trends in 2016
Mayor Roe recognized
Community Development Director Kari Collins who in turn introduced and welcomed
Ramsey County Assessor Stephen Baker.
Ms. Collins
advised that earlier this year, city staff met with Ramsey County Assessor
staff to discuss how valuations were determined and what the City of Roseville
could do tin increase market valuations for commercial and residential
properties citywide.
Ms. Collins
noted that staff felt the information would be beneficial to the City
Council/REDA based on the current Policy Priority Plan (PPP) and desired objectives
to increase market value in the community.
Ramsey
County Assessor Stephen Baker
In addition to
his presentation, attachments included the 2016 (Payable 2017) Ramsey County
Assessor's Report.
Mr. Baker noted
that Minnesota is recognized as a state having one of the most complex property
tax systems in the nation; and while most citizens and local officials
understand some aspects of property taxes, they don't grasp the total picture.
Mr. Baker stated his goal tonight was not to make the City Council, staff, or
those viewing the presentation as property tax experts, but to increase their
understanding of the system.
As part of his
presentation, Mr. Baker encouraged residents to maintain their homes, with the
thought to finding out what amenities those in the buying market were seeking
that would not only increase their home's value but encourage people to look at
it once listed with a realtor.
Mr. Baker noted
that, while school districts remained important to buyers, life style questions
were becoming more important than seen in a long time (e.g. their location to
transit such as Bus Rapid Transit and/or Light Rail) and amenities available in
the immediate area. Mr. Baker advised that apartments continued to do very
well in the market, with condominiums not having taken off again since the
recession, and in part due to significant liability changes in Minnesota and
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) funding changes, keeping apartments
more reasonable and profitable. With both downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis
short on available land, Mr. Baker noted that this provided good opportunities
for inner-ring suburbs evidenced by the dearth of construction seen in suburbs
and continuing market for apartments. However, Mr. Baker noted that many developers
were choosing older complexes and repositioning them through remodeling and new
amenities versus new construction. Mr. Baker advised that this created a new
class at a much lower investment for a developer, and allowing them to sell
them when rehabilitation is completed. With low rates available for refinancing,
Mr. Baker noted it provided a good return on investment for existing owners.
Until interest
in single-family homes returns to the exurbs comparable to the previous 10-15-year
growth cycle before the recession, Mr. Baker opined with ongoing interest in
the core area, Roseville was well-positioned for that growth, especially with
BRT connections to light rail.
Council
Questions/Discussion
When reviewing
more timely data and current trends for rental rates, Councilmember Willmus
asked if indications were for a decline in multi-family rental rates, what did
that indicate to Mr. Baker for the strength in that market.
Mr. Baker
responded that the primary drivers of apartment rental rates (occupancy and
vacancy rates, rental rates and expenses) were changing with landlords paying
nearly all expenses in the past but now able to bill back utilities to renters
even if not separately metered. Mr. Baker also noted a big driver is the lower
capital rates and expectations of returns in the current low interest rate
environment, allowing a potential 6.5% return on investment versus 1% interest
on a bond or even less at a bank; and providing an opportunity for leveraging
growth if mortgaged. Mr. Baker noted there was still pressure in the market
for more units at a quicker pace until the demographics change back to owner
versus renters slowing that demand for apartments, and depending on how long
that took.
While not
separating it out in his report as indicated by Councilmember Willmus, Mr.
Baker advised that the county kept tracked of difference in new construction
versus average sale prices for non-new construction by major class and city as
also available through MLS data.
Councilmember
McGehee referenced comments made by Mr. Baker during his presentation related
to the impact of tax increment financing (TIF) on the city's tax structure, and
asked that he elaborate on that comment.
Mr. Baker noted
in general TIF is not put in place by a city except to help projects that
otherwise would not occur and borne by others than the developer in order to
proceed. While such a city decision affected property taxes, Mr. Baker noted
during the time that property improvement was not on the tax rolls, with the
new value increment going to the city's Housing & Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) or the entity doing the TIF, it wasn't necessarily borne by the community
at large in the meantime. Mr. Baker reported that those numbers weren't
typically that large to begin with, and while they may be borne by other
properties within the jurisdiction funding TIF collections, it didn't tell the
true tale in each case, especially if and when the fiscal disparities tax was
taken into account, even though the Truth in Taxation notices will show a
number for TIF, it may not be mathematically correct.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Baker advised that he didn't have the fiscal
disparities rate for Roseville available, but would get it and forward to staff
for their dissemination to the City Council.
Noting that the
city's tax rate breakdown had been 50%/50% between commercial and residential
property for some time, Councilmember McGehee noted the current shift in that
percentage to residential paying more than commercial properties.
Councilmember McGehee asked if that was adjusted by the County Assessor's
office or by legislation action by the State of Minnesota.
Mr. Baker
responded that it was changed through legislative action; and reviewed the
background of the most recent shift created by the legislature during Governor
Ventura's administration in 2002 or 2003, creating a state general tax and
dramatic class rate compression to reduce commercial rates seeking more equity
between residential and commercial properties. However, Mr. Baker further
clarified that this didn't ultimately result in a windfall reduction for
commercial properties as the additional general tax was created on top of other
tax rates. Mr. Baker noted the unfortunate consequences in making it more
difficult for local officials and citizens to understand that interaction, and
taxing authority changing from the city to state; and not necessarily being
returned to a jurisdiction. Mr. Baker noted another unintended consequence was
that the legislature couldn't agree on how to fund schools, and while reducing
the rates and getting revenue back to the state level to accomplish that, it
had proven more costly to run the schools and had ultimately shifted costs back
to local jurisdictions and school districts as the State had no political will
to fund schools.
Councilmember
McGehee stated she had heard from residents in Roseville who had rehabilitated
their homes and subsequently sold them that buyers wanted homes to be walk-in
ready so they didn't have to make any improvements until they sold the home.
From his broader perspective, Councilmember McGehee asked Mr. Baker what
information he would share with Roseville residents seeking to update their
homes in preparation for sale.
Mr. Baker noted
that it seemed like the market was penalizing properties not nearly perfect
right now; but if a nice home was in a great location, there might be stronger
interest even if not considered perfect. However, most of the time, Mr. Baker
suggested it was better for those selling to have things in good shape, and
while not necessarily remodeling everything, open house indicators strongly supported
staging houses (e.g. de-cluttering, painting) and other things to spur interest.
Mr. Baker also noted the market was supporting increased home sales through
kitchen upgrades, removing carpeting and refinishing original wood floors in
older homes, and other things that were easier to do before moving in. Mr.
Baker suggested that residents get a good realtor and seek their advice and to
look at homes currently on the market and how they show. Mr. Baker opined that
he was convinced that most people would rethink listing their homes before taking
such steps if they checked out those homes already on the market.
Specific to
properties receiving TIF and recognizing that taxing jurisdictions were not
collecting the difference in before/after taxes that could have gone toward the
tax levy, Mayor Roe asked if it was fair to say properties adjacent to or in
the immediate area of properties receiving TIF or in the general area could see
their values increase as a result of those improvements.
Mr. Baker
stated that was a definite result, with new development serving as a catalyst
for more development. As an example, Mr. Baker referenced the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area that, even though it took considerable time to start moving,
was now seeing ongoing and dramatic results in the broader area. Mr. Baker
reiterated the intent of TIF for use on properties that wouldn't otherwise
develop due to contaminated soil, large infrastructure expanses for roads or
other reasons. Mr. Baker noted that those infrastructure improvements served a
much broader area, as well as watershed improvements in some of those
commercial areas and extending beyond just those few parcels receiving TIF.
While
understanding how the assessor looked at property classes, Councilmember Laliberte
asked Mr. Baker to provide more detail for apartments, such as value
differentials for age-restricted versus market-rate apartments.
Mr. Baker
advised that his office looked at apartments by size and type, as well as
amenities or features (e.g. apartments versus walk-up only, underground
parking, etc.). Mr. Baker noted senior buildings were in a unique class of
their own, and those being built most frequently at this time cooperatives,
with the most recent senior apartments seen being integrated campuses.
Councilmember
Laliberte asked if Mr. Baker was seeing a trend with Roseville housing for
senior housing stock compared with the remainder of Ramsey County.
Mr. Baker responded that, while Roseville was early in constructing senior buildings,
there were significant senior projects happening all over Ramsey County in
surrounding suburbs.
Councilmember
McGehee asked Mr. Baker what he observed for the type of apartment and
surrounding amenities that best drew young people in.
Mr. Baker
advised that the current apartment market was struggling with that very
question. However, Mr. Baker observed that great developers were the ones who
identified a new or burgeoning market to explore and opened that up
themselves. While there have been limited opportunities to do so thus far, Mr.
Baker advised that some was starting to be seen happening in some places (e.g.
Maple Grove near the transit home and in Minnetonka). Mr. Baker noted light
rail is a big item driving the market, as well as other amenities, some in the
units themselves and some in the buildings (e.g. dog walking services, bike
repair centers, roof top grills and terraces, exercise facilities, free coffee
lounges). Mr. Baker noted that developers attempt to put enough amenities in
their buildings so tenants realize "one stop shopping" and don't have to expend
those funds elsewhere beyond their rent and consider those lifestyle savings
even while paying more rent for a tenant (e.g. Wi-Fi, no fitness center
membership, etc.). Mr. Baker noted good bike connections offset not having
access to light rail, especially when BRT comes into the picture.
Regarding
condos and continuum of care residences, Councilmember Etten asked where they
fell within the classification system and their values related to other housing
options.
Mr. Baker
responded that continuum of care buildings are tough to classify other than on
a case by case basis and their type of facility such as memory care, assisted
living, independent living, or those more like an apartment and within the
apartment class. Mr. Baker noted that licensed nursing homes are typically exempt
when owned by a non-profit, but memory care units are treated differently if there
are no kitchens connected for safety concerns, even though they may have a
"fake kitchen" to make residents feel more at home. Specific to cooperatives,
Mr. Baker reported that each unit could receive homestead credits, even though
on one parcel, their value was split for each shareholder.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Baker clarified that nursing homes are separate
and specific under property tax code and only licensed nursing home beds are
exempt whether non-profit or in a very few cases, if a portion of a for-profit
complex. Mr. Baker referenced specific statutory exemption #94 addressing
non-discharge properties that accepted Medicare as full payment; with the
majority falling under the 501.3.c category, and mostly non-profit versus
for-profit facilities; but requiring further research on a case by case basis
as he noted previously.
From the
commercial aspect, Mayor Roe noted when reviewing changes in values for
Roseville given the variable types and sizes, he looked at the overall value rather
than median increase; and asked Mr. Baker if this provided an accurate way to
view those values.
Mr. Baker
stated there was no good way to determine shifts in property classes, with most
ending up paying more percentage of taxes next year than the previous year, as
shift occurred from one class to another (e.g. commercial). All things being
equal, Mr. Baker agreed with Mayor Roe's view as being a good barometer, even
with different market segments all on different points of the real estate cycle.
While industrial is currently strong, Mr. Baker noted that retail is coming
along; while offices continue to struggle and not seen as adding as many jobs
due to employers downsizing work space for existing employees. Mr. Baker noted
there were many different trajectories at play in making that value
determination.
Mayor Roe
thanked Mr. Baker for his presentation, and asked that a copy be provided to
city staff for their dissemination to the council.
b.
Receive Presentation from Ehlers, Inc. and Discuss Criteria for
Acquisition Framework
Mayor
Roe welcomed Jason Aarsvold from Ehlers, Inc., who in turn introduced his
colleague James Lehnhoff, who had just recently joined their firm and was also
available at tonight's meeting.
Given
the City Council's and Economic Development Authority's active interest in land
purchases, including their consideration of four different properties for acquisition
just this year, Mr. Aarsvold noted that they had agreed to repurpose dollars to
develop both a public financing policy and an acquisition framework going
forward. Mr. Aarsvold referenced Attachment A to the RCA of today's date to
lead the discussion for criteria for such an acquisition framework, and to
guide general feedback from the City Council for its development.
Mr.
Aarsvold suggested the city consider four key questions as outlined in the
preamble of the attachment. Subset questions for consideration in evaluation,
even if varying from one property to another, were listed in Attachment A, with
each category receiving feedback as outlined below.
Who
should acquire property for development and redevelopment purposes?
Councilmember
McGehee stated she favored both private developers and the city, seeing the
city much more specifically involved if there was a community interest in the
outcome; and whether there was specific direction from the community for
financial participation or if there was insufficient control available through
zoning to get the desired outcome for a city asset, or to assemble sites to move
a development project forward.
Councilmember
Willmus concurred with Councilmember McGehee on a combination of both depending
on the desired outcome and community goals and risks involved.
Generally
speaking, Mayor Roe stated he would default to the private developer; with
concurrence by Councilmember Etten.
Mayor
Roe stated he could agree to city or EDA involvement to meet city objectives or
if involving a challenging site with benefits available if the city assembled
the site if it wasn't organically developing, as long as those costs fell in
line with the city's ability to acquire the property. However, Mayor Roe
stated his preference by and large is that private developers do their own
acquisition for a variety of reasons. Mayor Roe further stated his lack of
interest in acquiring large sites and holding them for a long time, since those
carrying costs could become a financial drain on the city unless that risk and
its mitigation was identified ahead of time.
Mr.
Aarsvold referenced the city's recent adoption of the Business Subsidy Policy that
would serve to inform this additional feedback.
What
is the purpose of acquiring the property? (e.g. Would a public
acquisition align with community development and redevelopment goals?)
Similar
to the Business Subsidy Policy, Councilmember Etten suggested a check-off
list. For example, while the city didn't like blighted properties, it couldn't
acquire every blighted property in Roseville. But if it acquired a blighted
property (e.g. SE Roseville), Councilmember Etten stated he would look for a
policy without one single item as the magic bullet, but consisting of a few
things checked off on a particular site before it became amenable to the city
to acquire or assemble parcels, such as meeting redevelopment goals or by providing
controls beyond existing zoning designation and uses.
Councilmember
Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Etten, opining that was well stated.
Mayor
Roe also agreed with Councilmember Etten's statement, referencing the criteria
listed on Attachment A (Item 2) as a sensible first look at achieving the goal,
with others available for potential assembly under that list of criteria. Specific
to public uses, Mayor Roe opined that it was outside the purpose of this policy
unless a public use is associated with a larger goal and acquired as part of
that. Mayor Roe further opined that park dedication was another way to acquire
those properties (public uses as suggested in the "other" category).
Councilmember
Etten suggested a bonus item on the bottom of the check-off list it could show
criteria if a project met a public use as well as any other goals it achieved.
However, Councilmember Etten stated he was not agreeable to purchasing parcels
simply for that means alone.
Councilmember
McGehee suggested moving "site control" above "blight" on the list.
From
his perspective, Mayor Roe suggested "blight" could move far down on the list.
Councilmember
McGehee suggested the goals need to be revisited by each sitting City Council.
Mayor
Roe noted that the goal was to achieve one or more of these purposes, but
suggested that while one priority may be less important than another priority,
it could serve to inform future City Councils. Mayor Roe further suggested
trying to achieve the City's goals, but not specifying what those City goals are
in this policy.
Identification
of costs and risks (Best Practices)
Mr.
Aarsvold highlighted "appraised value," "acquisition sources," and "marketability."
Councilmember
Willmus opined that he didn't know if any one of these criteria should be set
aside, and that he found them all to be quite important. For instance,
Councilmember Willmus stated that he'd advocate for appraisals on the front end
to provide a better indication of other related costs of a project. Councilmember
Willmus stated he felt strongly about appraisals before acquisition, as well as
determining what projected holding costs might be.
Councilmember
Etten agreed with Councilmember Willmus for appraisals prior to acquisition,
noting they had proven helpful in past decision-making. However, Councilmember
Etten stated he would have a low willingness to purchase a parcel exceeding its
appraised value. Specific to holding costs, and long-term maintenance,
Councilmember Etten stated it depended on whether it was a vacant parcel or if
existing buildings were on the site and what long-term maintenances costs would
involve unless the city was confident of an immediate sale without added
maintenance costs. Regarding demand for future use, Councilmember Etten opined
it was important to look at the market prior to any acquisition.
Councilmember
Laliberte stated her agreement with Councilmembers Willmus and Etten: that
appraised value should be found upfront, as well as other potential costs,
providing a representation of the entire city investment. Specific to demand
for future use, Councilmember Laliberte stated the importance of how the city
foresaw the future use versus what the public or developer saw for that
particular acquisition.
Councilmember
McGehee suggested the holding costs take into consideration the costs of
holding the property off the tax rolls for the duration. While not being a big
believer in market studies, Councilmember McGehee suggested instead using the
considerable development acumen around the community, depending on the size of
the project, but if small to rely on the city's and public's judgment versus
the cost of an appraisal and/or market study.
Mayor
Roe stated his agreement Councilmember McGehee's comments. However, on the
market study side, Mayor Roe noted the city may have already commissioned a
study (e.g. housing market study) on the broader demand, but not a project-specific
study that could also help inform a project, and serve as a reliable source of
information. On the other hand, Mayor Roe stated he'd seen other communities
holding land for a long time because their goal was for a specific use, even
though the market was not agreeing with that initial goal. Mayor Roe stated he
wasn't willing to risk such a venture just for the desire of the community at a
given time, while not being a realistic goal for the community. Mayor Roe
stated he wasn't sure he was willing to acquire parcels without a good
understanding of turning it around quickly. However, Mayor Roe noted that made
market studies even more informative and important in those types of
situations.
Identification
of potential benefits
In
this category, Mr. Aarsvold highlighted "resale potential of land for development"
and "change in market value and tax collection" criteria.
Councilmember
McGehee stated she wasn't a strong proponent of changing a project, design or
goal simply to achieve grant eligibility. Councilmember McGehee stated grants
by their very nature are not guaranteed, and their requirements may not fit the
goal, thus structuring a project for a special grant may not be worth it if
the idea and market are already in place.
Mayor
Roe clarified unless the grant already aligns with a goal the city is seeking.
Councilmember
McGehee agreed if it met other desired benefits or satisfied some need or goal
in the community.
Councilmember
Laliberte agreed with Councilmember McGehee in that the project itself should
be the driver of what's marketable versus trying to make the project fit the grant.
Referencing
the earlier County Assessor presentation tonight, Mayor Roe suggested criteria
when looking at impacts (e.g. TIF) valuation changes outside the borders of the
project itself and how that might impact the ability to collect taxes to pay for
services during the TIF District timeframe. Mayor Roe stated the reason this
came to mind even before tonight was based on the Chapter 429 assessment
process and appraisal of the increased value was to justify the assessment.
Mayor Roe suggested a similar concept in analyzing impacts toward the goal of
redevelopment and value on a site as well as for adjacent sites, especially
trade-offs in considering the use of TIF and whether or not that tool can be
used or would prove beneficial for the bigger picture from a neighborhood
and/or regional impact.
Gap
analysis and estimate of permanent investment
Councilmember
Etten noted that the former HRA and new REDA had acquisition funds available,
and suggested they be considered in future levies, but not in 2017 due to other
levy increases in play. However, Councilmember Etten suggested money be
available to allow the city the flexibility to take action if and when appropriate,
as well as other funding sources or in addition to them, if the city intended
to have a role in redevelopment sites.
Councilmember
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten, but suggested other ways were needed
to build that fund other than the levy, unless a highly specific need was
identified and willingness to leave some funds available. Councilmember
McGehee clarified that, from her perspective, this meant more than simply
getting its initial investment back from an acquisition.
Specific
to the last part of Councilmember McGehee's comment, Councilmember Etten
suggested including as part of the check-off boxes when acquiring property
whether or not the city was willing to take a loss to meet a specific goal
depending on the community benefit or if making a profit was a goal.
Councilmember
McGehee opined the city had already agreed on that in their commitment to
keeping EDA funds solvent. However, Councilmember McGehee opined there were
other ways to fund the EDA beyond levy support.
Mayor
Roe noted one possibility may be revenue supported bonds depending on a
particular project.
As
a point of clarification, Mr. Aarsvold sought a response to a philosophical
question he had heard for projects with a high degree of need, and spending
down funds. However, Mr. Aarsvold asked if that included a strategy for the
city to replenish those funds through increasing the EDA levy or by another
means if/as identified.
The
council concurred in that understanding.
Mayor
Roe suggested if the gap couldn't be filled, a legitimate outcome of the
project review would include whether or not to proceed with the project at all.
Community
engagement and planning
Mr.
Aarsvold highlighted engaging the community as a City Council priority similar
to that expressed in the Business Subsidy Policy discussion. However, Mr.
Aarsvold asked their preferred timing for that engagement, whether prior to acquisition,
once the development is proposed, or not required at all. Mr. Aarsvold noted
this would address City Council expectations for the framework and provide
direction to city staff.
Mayor
Roe opined that, if acquisition was for a single-family property, he wouldn't
anticipate as much community engagement. But beyond that, Mayor Roe stated
that if acquiring parcels for a project, he'd want public input early on and
often. Mayor Roe referenced the Dale Street Fire Station project as an example
of early involvement made the project more successful for the neighborhood.
Councilmember
Willmus agreed with Mayor Roe on "early on and often."
Councilmember
Laliberte agreed with the criteria in general, but asked that the city be
mindful that when previous planning efforts had happened prior to acquisition
(e.g. Parks Master Plan), new community engagement should not supersede that
prior work and priorities, but could serve to enhance it.
Mayor
Roe agreed that recognition of previous engagement was important.
Councilmember
McGehee also agreed with comments thus far, while noting that things and
neighborhoods changed; and while it was nice to have that old planning, it may
not represent those now present having a role to play. Councilmember McGehee
agreed with Mayor Roe that community engagement was relevant to the size or
type of project, whether single-family or a larger project. Councilmember
McGehee opined this included other criteria such as tax implications city wide,
not just for the immediate neighbors, and if a larger project would require
more community engagement to the greatest extent possible, and beyond the 500'
notice area for land use items, but to allow a broader slice of the public to
be aware of it and provide feedback.
Mayor
Roe suggested the City Council provide direction and use its discretion in
determining the engagement process upfront, not in the middle of a project.
Councilmember
Etten stated he would double down on that with it being a citywide issue, not
only local, and to allow time to step back and gather that feedback on the
bigger picture. Councilmember Etten questioned whether the Dale Street project
and HRA acquiring land to assemble served the community well in engaging them
in that part of the process. In that case, however, Councilmember Etten opined
that once the development was proposed, the community was engaged and perhaps
that was more appropriate rather than prior to acquisition. Councilmember
Etten suggested that may be part of the City Council's decision-making and
discretion as a development is put together with the goal to include the
community upfront, while also being mindful of the guidance of the
comprehensive plan, redevelopment goals and other city goal documents as
adopted versus making those decisions at the community level.
In
the case of the Dale Street project, Mayor Roe noted the ownership of a
significant portion of that land by the city and not requiring all parcels to
be acquired.
Specific
to apartment construction and deciding on a location and amenities to entice a
younger segment in the community, with a defined area close to transit,
Councilmember McGehee suggested that could be a specific goal as well.
Mayor
Roe suggested that the bigger the plan, the earlier community engagement.
Timeline
Mr.
Aarsvold highlighted "when future use would be implemented;" and "what was a
realistic timeline."
Consensus
was that this would be determined to the best of staff's ability; and reiterating
that the larger the investment the shorter the timeframe.
General property
information assembled for potential acquisition - (Best Practices)
Mayor Roe opined that the entire list made sense, and suggested adding
under "other," the "adjacency to current or future transit and pedestrian
amenities,".
Councilmember
Laliberte stated it was important from her perspective to realize what was
currently on the property and any demolition or other costs related to or
subsequent to the acquisition (also noted under Item #3).
Next
Steps
Mr.
Aarsvold thanked the City Council for this informative feedback, advising that
it would be incorporated into the next draft iteration and to reflect any remaining
questions for further review and consideration at a future meeting. Mr.
Aarsvold noted this next discussion was scheduled for the November 28, 2016
City Council meeting to address any remaining questions and to finalize the document
prior to adoption.
As
part of that next presentation, Councilmember McGehee asked staff to put together
a fake first pass or example of a fictitious or past project that the criteria
could be applied to as part of the review process and to determine if anything
was missing in the initial analysis of a property's acquisition.
Community
Development Director Collins duly noted that request for additional
information.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed
the meeting at approximately 8:16 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:23 p.m.
12.
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
a.
Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision of Commercial
Property (PF16-030)
Senior
Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized the RCA of today's date and a sketch
plan of existing and proposed easement perimeters identified in accordance with
current subdivision code language. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff recommended
approval subject to those conditions as listed in lines 68 - 79 of the RCA.
Discussion
included the sufficiency of the proposed easement area; clarification that
there were no drainage concerns in this area; setback provisions; and reciprocal
shared parking arrangements in the future upon redevelopment of both sites.
Further
discussion included current and projected parking stalls as they related to
city code requirements to avoid parking elsewhere and creating a nuisance or inconvenience
to neighboring properties; and viability of periodic evaluation of the city's
minimum parking standards and current ratios; and parking specific to this site
and general site access to address traffic flow on the site.
Specific
to shared parking, City Manager Trudgeon noted there had been a parking study
conducted; and also addressed the difference in city code's minimum standards
and a particular use on the site. In this case, Mr. Trudgeon noted that if it
was determined there was insufficient parking, it would limit development of
the northern property unless parking was facilitated through shared parking if
and when it reached a maximum and depending on uses for the site.
Applicant
Representative Curtis Martinson, Business Solutions Consulting, 724 Associates,
LLC
Mr.
Martinson noted his involvement in purchasing this tract over the past summer
for the LLC. Having worked with many cities over the years, Mr. Martinson
publically thanked city staff throughout the process for their efforts,
mentioning Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Brokke and City Manager Trudgeon for being on top of
the game and staying in touch. Mr. Martinson respectfully sought City Council
approval of this request at tonight's meeting.
In
light of the discussion earlier tonight with Ramsey County Assessor Baker and
the Ehlers, Inc. discussion, Mr. Martinson asked that the City Council consider
their particular situation and the current park dedication and trail fee set at
fair market value. Mr. Martinson stated they were more than willing to adhere
to the City Council's discretion, but reviewed their concerns with this
property's valuation and consensus with an outside appraiser for their
financier. Mr. Martinson reviewed the property valuation at this point and
their intent to appeal to Ramsey County based on survey information even though
it was a lengthy process beyond and not available as part of tonight's action.
Therefore, Mr. Martinson asked if the City Council would consider delaying
their assessment of the park dedication fee until resolution of the property
value, since the current square footage price was not deemed accurate by
several parties.
At
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Martinson advised that once this
subdivision was approved, the purchase would continue and appeal process initiated.
However, Mr. Martinson noted it was a months-long process to resolve. Mr.
Martinson opined it was more important to them to get the subdivision approved,
and simply asked the City Council to consider that the $15/square foot value
may be overinflated, but reiterated they would abide by their decision.
Mayor
Roe noted that city code required that park dedication fees be based on the
assessor's value, not on any appraisal.
City
Attorney Gaughan concurred with Mayor Roe's interpretation of current city
code.
While
appreciating the approach outlined by Mr. Martinson, Councilmember Willmus
agreed with the reliance on current policy in place. Councilmember Willmus
also noted that the Parks & Recreation Commission periodically reviewed the
park dedication issue, as they had done earlier this month in reviewing
residential and commercial rates; advising that they were actually going to recommend
an increase in the current rates for future City Council consideration.
Mayor
Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 8:36 p.m.; with no
one appearing to speak for or against.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, approval of a MINOR SUBDIVISION of the property at 1935 County Road
B-2 into two parcels; based on the comments and findings of the RCA dated
November 67, 2106; and input received during the public hearing; and subject to
the conditions as detailed in the RCA, lines 68 - 79.
Councilmember
McGehee agreed the City Council could not deviate from its current policy.
However, for future reference, Councilmember McGehee suggested it may be
worthwhile for city staff to look into when we actually looked into assessing
the park dedication fee: whether on the sale price or appraisal price. While
recognizing that many property owners may not want to take that risk,
Councilmember McGehee suggested it may be an option that could prove beneficial
for the city at times.
Mayor Roe noted
that this had come up early in his tenure on the City Council, and noted code
language had been adjusted at that point, with the policy established for when
value is determined and how it was based.
Councilmember
Etten opined there was a value to leave this as an assessed benefit, with no
costs going into the development versus doing so on the back side.
Councilmember Etten noted that upfront everyone had a firm understanding of the
value, and without benefit of past rationale, stated his support for leaving
the practice and policy as is based on market value of the total subject
property land area and prorated on the lot split size. Councilmember Etten
opined it would be more challenging if based on the sale of the property and
potentially change several aspects of city code.
Mayor Roe
further clarified that Ramsey County's current year estimates for fair market
value were based on analysis of past years' sales and values. Given that this
data is fairly old, Mayor Roe opined that may benefit property owners with
respect to park dedication amounts. Generally speaking, Mayor Roe reiterated
his support of the current policy, while sympathizing with the applicant's
situation.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
b.
Public Hearing to Consider Approving the 2017 Liquor License
Renewals
Finance
Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed this portion of liquor license renewals
for 2017 processed by staff to-date and as detailed in the RCA and Attachment
A.
Mayor
Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 8:43 p.m., with no
one appearing to speak for or against.
McGehee moved, Laliberte
seconded, approval of liquor license renewals for 2017 as presented and as
detailed in the RCA (Attachment A).
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
13.
Budget Items
14.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Select a Consulting Firm to Lead the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Update, authorize staff to negotiate a consulting services contract with the
selected firm, and establish a Not-To-Exceed Budget for Overall Services
(PROJ-0037)
Senior Planner
Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized the RCA and community survey responses to-date,
along with staff's preference indicating the Cuningham Group. Mr. Lloyd
advised that staff's preference was based on their firm's diversity of final
product offerings, and different formats and plan information in reaching people
at different points and enhanced engagement for future comprehensive plan
updates and in reaching the goals of this update.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Lloyd reviewed variables in the two proposals and
their components and contingencies.
Discussion
ensued regarding the two proposals, the comparable base rates and additional
cost breakouts; and staff's identification of the not-to-exceed amount of
$175,000 as the contribution amount most comfortable and available in Community
Development funds.
Community
Development Director Collins clarified that the department had identified
$170,000 as the base amount of funds available before ala carte choices and
multi-formatting options; with a remaining $5,000 for those additional components.
Ms. Collins further clarified that both firms had indicated they would work
with the city on costs and provide revised numbers on those components found
most important to the city. By selecting a firm tonight, Ms. Collins advised
that this would authorize staff to initiate those negotiations for a more
refined scope of services, including how many workshops or sessions and their
associated cost within that not-to-exceed number. Ms. Collins briefly reviewed
some of the costs she thought were inflated with one proposal and those less
than she anticipated with one proposal. Ms. Collins noted that a negotiated
professional services contract for City Council consideration would be a direct
result of those staff negotiations with whichever firm was chosen.
From her
perspective, Councilmember McGehee stated her preference for the Cuningham
Group based on community feedback and staff preference; as well as their
broader approach for their presentation and work with other metropolitan communities.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she found their presentation better and more
forward thinking and what she was looking for.
McGehee
moved, approval of the Cuningham Group as the consulting firm to lead the 2040
Comprehensive Plan Update; and authorizing staff to negotiate a consulting
services contract with the selected firm established at a not-to-exceed budget
of $175,000 for overall services.
Mayor Roe
declared the motion failed for lack of a second.
Willmus
moved, Etten seconded, approving WSB & Associates as the consulting firm to
lead the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update; and authorizing staff to negotiate a
consulting services contract with the selected firm at the best price possible.
Speaking in
support of his motion, Councilmember Willmus stated that he liked the WSB
approach, opining that it more closely aligned with the legal and technical
document to lead the community. Councilmember Willmus also noted their strong
presentation for economic development; as well as the strong membership
available from within their group to achieve the civic engagement the city was
looking for, including their experience in this community as a benchmark with
the Parks Master Plan process through the involvement of LHB and part of the
WSB team. While feeling confident with either firm, Councilmember Willmus
stated he found value in the WSB as better serving the community.
Councilmember
Etten agreed that either firm would do a good job, with the Cuningham group
bringing good experience and data to the table. However, Councilmember Etten
stated what stood out for him with WSB was their research of Roseville issues
before making their proposal and referring to engagement processes already in
place. Councilmember Etten stated this said WSB was paying attention to
Roseville events and happenings, including their engagement process using
stakeholder interviews as they noted and delving into the community's full
picture in updating the comprehensive plan.
Councilmember
Laliberte stated that after the presentation and her review of materials, and
talking to the Planning Commission and community members since then, she felt
stronger about the WSB firm as well as from her personal perspective.
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she found their engagement to be more
authentic based on what was already being done in the community and what the
community was used to and meeting them at a grass roots level to get their
input where they were. Councilmember Laliberte also stated it struck her that
WSB seemed very aware of the city's current priorities, including a stronger
housing component that the City Council had been discussing. Councilmember
Laliberte agreed with her colleagues that both presentations were great, but
her thought was that the city would gain more value for its money with WSB.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed concern with the Cuningham Group in the
number of consultants involved versus a one-stop shop with WSB making it easier
for the city to communicate with them throughout the process versus dealing
with five different entities represented with the Cuningham Group.
Councilmember
McGehee stated that she couldn't agree with any of the points made by her
colleagues, but noted neither she nor the City Council had to work directly
with the firm, but city staff would need to do so, and therefore she deferred
to their preference. Councilmember McGehee further stated that she was looking
for something more interesting than things already done such as presented by
WSB with an "been there, done that" mentality for the process. Councilmember
McGehee opined that she hadn't found the last comprehensive plan update that
great, and with not doing visioning this time, stated she was looking for
something more interesting and with more potential. Councilmember McGehee
opined that the city had already spent a lot of time on housing and parks, but
not much on economic development, and therefore stated she thought the
Cuningham Group had good and creative ideas. If she compared and evaluated the
presentations and the representatives at the table, Councilmember McGehee
opined that she found very little comparison in the two firms.
Mayor Roe
recognized that a lot had already been said in favor of WSB, and further
recognized that people respond differently to things, but agreed that either
firm would do a good job for the city. Mayor Roe stated that he had come down
on the side of WSB based on their interview and things that stood out for him
(e.g. setting goals and tracking progress with a dashboard approach, and
adapting the process going forward). Mayor Roe opined that this was good to
talk about upfront. Mayor Roe opined that he liked with the notion that WSB
would not avoid the hard questions and would revisit and update the process if
goals were not being met through the process. Mayor Roe stated the other thing
that intrigued him with the WSB presentation was the funding analysis for those
goals, especially for the economic development component. Mayor Roe agreed
perhaps their presentation hadn't been as impressive, but stated that he had
found certain elements to stand out for him.
Councilmember
Laliberte agreed with the funding analysis component as a second stage and
outcome of the comprehensive plan to take the goals into reality, noting that
she hadn't heard that as part of the Cuningham Group presentation.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Laliberte, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
Abstentions:
McGehee.
Motion
carried.
15.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
16.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
17.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Mayor Roe noted
the addition to the November 28, 2016 agenda presentation of the draft
acquisition policy.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe and City Manager Trudgeon clarified that
further discussion on the level of deer management for Roseville was still pending
and would be coming back to the City Council with more specifics.
Councilmember
Laliberte asked staff to provide a project update on the Garden Street Station
development, recognizing its completion in phases, but also expressing concern
for those neighbors waiting for more progress for some time now.
Mayor Roe and
Councilmembers McGehee, Willmus and Etten agreed; and City Manager Trudgeon
duly noted their request for a status update.
18.
Adjourn Meeting
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:06 p.m.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Laliberte,
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.