View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2015
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
3. Approve Agenda
Laliberte and McGehee noted questions they had regarding several consent items
to be addressed during discussion.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded approval of the agenda as presented.
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one
appeared to speak.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Laliberte reported on a recent League of Minnesota Cities sponsored conference
she and Mayor Roe had attended that focused on public participation and authentic
public engagement techniques and ideas. Councilmember Laliberte advised that
she and Mayor Roe would be providing more details at an upcoming Community Engagement
Commission meeting, and also bring some ideas and options forward to their City
Council colleagues at a future Worksession.
announced that the second Twin Lakes public informational meeting that would
provide results from a recent community survey originally scheduled on February
18, 2015 had been rescheduled to February 25, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. due to several
announced several free upcoming self-sufficiency workshops sponsored by
Keystone Community Services at the Ramsey County Library - Roseville Branch;
with additional information available at firstname.lastname@example.org or by
calling Eric Jayne at 651/797-7009.
announced the 19th annual Roseville Home and Garden Fair, hosted by
the Roseville Housing & Redevelopment Authority, scheduled for February 21,
2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Fairview Community Center, with
numerous exhibitors, sponsors and workshops scheduled. Additional information
available on the City's Website under the "HRA" tab, or by calling
Mayor Roe announced
vacancies on several Citizen Advisory Commissions, with the application
deadline on March 2, interviews scheduled on March 9, and appointments for
terms beginning April 1, scheduled March 23, 2015. Applications and additional
information are available on the City's website under the "commissions" tab.
invited residents to participate in another brush and buckthorn stacking at
Harriet Alexander Nature Center on February 21, 2015 starting at 10:00 a.m.;
with additional information available on the City's website or by calling
Volunteer Coordinator Kelly O'Brien at 651/792-7028.
Mayor Roe noted
that his annual State of the City Address would be presented on February 25,
2015 at 7:30 a.m. as part of the monthly Roseville Business Meeting to be held
at Affinity Credit Union in Roseville; and sponsored in part by the T win
Cities north and St. Paul Area Chambers of Commerce.
announced scholarship opportunities available through the North Suburban Cable
Commission for residents of the nine member communities with students interested
in communication, journalism or similar studies. Additional information, with
a deadline of April 10, 2015 for scholarship applications, is available at
ctvnorthsuburbs.org/scholarships or by calling 651/792-7515.
Donations and Communications
Chief Rick Mathwig introduced Officer Christine Marston, sworn in last week as
a Roseville Police Officer; with Officer Marston expressing her honor to be provided
this opportunity to work for the highly-esteemed Roseville Police Department,
and her excitement in serving the community.
welcomed Officer Marston and thanked her for her enthusiasm.
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 Minutes of January 26, 2015 Meeting
moved, Willmus seconded, approval of Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2015 as
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
8. 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 each specific Requests
for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated January 26, 2015.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
Approve Business and Other Licenses and Permits
moved, Etten seconded, approval/renewal of business and other licenses and
permits for terms as noted.
Laliberte noted numerous massage therapist licenses that were approved
periodically throughout the year, and while recognizing that the majority were
operating appropriately, she noted several recent problems in the past, and
sought clarification as to who performed background checks on those individuals:
a third party of City staff.
audience, Chief Mathwig clarified that his department performed background
checks on these licensees.
Approve General Purchases Over $5,000
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
January 31, 2015.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that other cities
and/or agencies under joint powers agreements with the City were invoiced
proportionately for a portion of applicable information technology expenditures.
Adopt a Resolution to Approve 2015 Apportionment of Assessments
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11207 entitled, "Resolution
Relating to Apportionment of Assessments for the Year 2015."
Authorize Joint Powers Agreement with the St. Paul Port Authority
(SPPA) to Administer the Property Assessed Clean Energy Program (PACE of MN)
moved, Etten seconded, authorizing entry in to a Joint Powers Agreement
(Attachment A) with the St. Paul Port Authority, Revision 1/26/2015, for administration
of the Property Assessed Clean Energy Program (PACE of MN).
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, staff confirmed that participation in the PACE
program would include recognition under the GreenStep Program as well.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Sherman Associates Update of Twin Lakes Apartment Development
bench handout, consisting of the Sherman Associates Presentation was provided, Community
Development Director Paul Bilotta introduced this presentation, and introduced developer
George Sherman of Sherman Associates Development LLC for an update on their
proposed 190 total unit, two building apartment project.
Sherman of Sherman Associates
Sherman introduced Mr. Link Wilson of Kaas Wilson Architects available to
assist with tonight's presentation, and recognized a number of staff attending
in tonight's audience to respond to any questions of the public and/or City
Council. Mr. Sherman noted the last update to the City Council of the proposed
Twin lakes Apartment Project had been approximately six month ago and after
providing a brief background of the development team, proceeded with the
presentation, along with Mr. Wilson.
Kaas Wilson Architects
Wilson noted the location of the two buildings, as well as a small retail component
proposed as part of the development.
Wilson advised that the latest parking design exceeded City requirements, and
incorporated additional green space as part of the site's stormwater management
improvements and other site amenities; and expressed their willingness to
continue work with staff on any revisions or reductions to the surface parking
at staff's discretion. Mr. Wilson noted that current plans provided 72
underground parking spaces and 56 surface stalls as part of Phase I of the
project, as well as a tot lot, bike racks and entrance drop offs.
Sherman reviewed interior amenities of the buildings, clarifying that while the
project was originally intended as a phased project, it would now be proposed
as one development anticipating construction of both apartment buildings within
the same eighteen month period.
Sherman noted the current use of the property with significant asphalt and
drainage to wetlands to the west compared to the proposed redevelopment efforts
that would serve to clean up water and provide stormwater retention within the
property boundaries. Mr. Sherman noted their company's pride and history in
long-term ownership and management of their properties, as well as
incorporating ongoing energy efficiency efforts for their construction
today's costs, Mr. Sherman advised that each unit would cost approximately
$140,000 to build, a comparable price to a single-family home, and based on construction
costs, the quality of exterior and interior products used and long-term
maintenance designed into the units from sprinklers, high energy furnaces and appliance.
Mr. Sherman noted that the housing industry's changing demographics were
making rentals more in demand across the country, creating their own unique
Sherman reviewed the City's priorities as outlined in the 2013 Maxfield Research
Housing Study as compared to their proposed development in meeting those
priorities. Mr. Sherman reviewed the market rate and workforce affordable
housing units proposed and rental rates for those units, all broadening the
range of housing options for Roseville.
Sherman reviewed the behind-the-scenes activities undertaken by the developer
over the last six months and resulting financing commitments and grant awards
to support this housing project as well as the separate Twin Lakes Parkway
extension for the City of Roseville, representing a total commitment from other
government agencies of close to $6 million.
the request of Mr. Sherman, Mr. Link briefly reviewed exterior architectural
designs; as well as providing section cuts from a drone that showed site lines
for the broader neighborhood and distance from existing single-family homes,
signifying the developer's sensitivity to the neighborhood in being the least
impactful as possible given the higher density of this type of housing and
required height of the buildings.
Willmus noted differences between the site plan included in the agenda packet
and as part of tonight's presentation, and asked the developer to explain the
differences specific to egress and ingress along with underground parking.
Link advised that during survey work with the developer's professional civil
engineer and architects, the project had been revised due to significant grade
issues for the underground parking. Mr. Link noted that this latest design
created more of a flat plain for entering the garage almost at grade, and thus
provided more green space and surface parking stalls. If further revision was
requested, Mr. Link expressed the developer's willingness to cooperate as the
design came closer to formal submission.
discussions for this project originated in 2013, Councilmember Willmus noted
that the proposal was for 100% market rate units as referenced in the Metropolitan
Council's Section 12 of the grant application, and questioned when that discrepancy
had come into play and the project to include affordable housing units, and
whether it was after neighborhood input.
Sherman advised that he didn't recall a discussion that included intents for
100% market rates units without consulting with his staff, but his recollection
was when presenting to the Roseville Housing & Redevelopment Authority
(HRA), the project had targeted a portion of the units for affordable housing.
Mr. Sherman again expressed his confusion, but related his understanding from
the meeting in July of 2013 with the HRA that the project always included a mix
of work force and market rate units.
Willmus noted that Mr. Sherman's recollection was similar to his, and
questioned the discrepancy on the Metropolitan Council grant application;
asking that someone from the development team provide a response in the near
future to staff to disseminate to the City Council.
McGehee concurred with the questions raised by Councilmember Willmus and that
the project had been presented as a market rate project, which would have been
one of the first such developments in Roseville. With the apparent changes as
proposed to include affordable housing units, Councilmember McGehee stated that
she could not and would not support a project that separated those work force
units assigned to one building and higher end units in another building.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she preferred a mix of units throughout the
development, with comparable buildings, materials, and amenities.
Councilmember McGehee opined that to construct the two buildings as currently
proposed would infer designation of one building as "second class" and she was
not interested in such a perception within the City of Roseville. Specific to
this proposal, Councilmember McGehee expressed appreciation that it had come forward
now for this discussion, especially since a lot had changed since the initial
presentation in June and prior to civic input. Councilmember McGehee expressed
her support that the Twin Lakes Parkway component had been separated from this
development proposal, noting that while the survey was not integral to this
plan and access not essential for the development on this site, it was an
important consideration for the neighborhood. While the developer had clearly
worked on obtaining a significant amount of necessary funding, Councilmember
McGehee noted that a substantial amount was still being requested to come from
the City of Roseville. Councilmember McGehee questioned if her recollection of
the original presentation was her oversight in not recognizing the intent of
the developer to include affordable housing units; but stated she was under the
impression she had been approving along with her colleagues whether the
development got funded, and did not expect massive funding requirements be
provided by the City of Roseville.
the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Sherman reported that there was as of
yet no confirmation of a tenant for the commercial component of the project,
but advised that they continued to work with a number of potential retail
and/or restaurant tenants. However, Mr. Sherman further advised that the
tenants were reluctant to commit until they were assured the project was going
to happen. Mr. Sherman, noting that previous successful Sherman Associates developments
that spoke for themselves, expressed assurance that this development could and
would be successful.
Laliberte provided her recollection from past discussions that the project
always included a small percentage of workforce or affordable housing units,
even though she suspected those numbers had changed over time, causing her some
reservations about the new ratios compared to those given during before the
City Council's original approval of the proposed project. Councilmember
Laliberte also expressed concerns regarding the amount of money the City needed
to supply the project, and even though the developer had described the current
use in the area as obsolete space, noted the significant amount of interest and
development now occurring in this redevelopment area. Councilmember Laliberte
questioned creating a perception that there were no other options or potential
Roe questioned if that was what the comment was intended to represent.
Laliberte reiterated that considerable development and discussion was occurring
in this area; and suggested caution was needed on what was developed and where
it was done, especially when the development was seeking public taxpayer funds.
to a mix of units in both buildings rather than separate buildings, Mayor Roe
advised that he would support that concept. Mayor Roe asked Mr. Sherman if he
had any projected numbers of what gap financing would be requested from the
Sherman advised that in the overall mix in types of housing units, the intent
was for 40% workforce and 60% market rate units. Mr. Sherman reviewed rationale,
based on Metropolitan Council input, that market rate units were larger in
square footage and provided larger common area amenity packages to meet the
needs of tenants versus the smaller footprint for a 1 to 2 person family unit,
requiring less in amenities by nature. Mr. Sherman noted that the cost for
each unit would be essentially the same (e.g. cabinets, appliances), but just
vary in square footage for market rate versus affordable units. If the
affordable unit component was eliminated or significantly reduced, Mr. Sherman
advised that the tax credit equity funding source may no longer be available to
the project, which in turn would increase the gap funding required from the
City or other sources. Mr. Sherman advised that it was tough to sell the
project when providing less than 50% workforce units, thus their proposal for
the buildings as noted. Mr. Sherman advised that physically it could be
accomplished, and expressed willingness to see if they could make such a
program work to make the project more efficient and viable for investors.
However, Mr. Sherman reiterated that the tax credit program would not work
unless there were at least 50% workforce units. Mr. Sherman advised that they
would return to their lenders to seek their willingness to make that adjustment
or see if other arrangements could be made that would still make the project
to the requested financing from the City of Roseville, Mr. Sherman advised that
the request, as generally outlined last summer, would be for "pay as you go"
tax increment financing (TIF) in an amount of $3 million to $3.5 million; with
the developer taking the risk. However, Mr. Sherman noted that this request
had not been formalized at this time and if the project proceeded, would come
forward to the City Council as a separate presentation and request at that
the request of Mayor Roe for clarification, Mr. Sherman advised that, while the
actual financing gap remained very preliminary at this point, the City's
participation should not exceed $3.5 million.
Roe reiterated that if Building A as displayed provided for more than 50% but
less than 100% workforce housing, with some of those units mixed into Building
B, he would be more comfortable. Mayor Roe noted that, if the developer could
find a way to fund such a proposal and still meet the 50% threshold with mixing
units, it sounded like the issue would be more problematic architecturally in
designing the square footage of the individual units.
Sherman concurred with Mayor Roe's statement regarding design work, and
expressed appreciation for this dialogue tonight to respect neighborhood
concerns and develop a project that was workable for the City and developer.
Mr. Sherman noted that, if the City Council's consensus was to move the project
forward, his team would take a look at requested design and funding changes.
However, if the project was not supported by the City Council consensus as
proposed with attempted revisions as discussed tonight, Mr. Sherman George
advised that they would need to return to their lenders to determine their
continued interest in financing the project. Mr. Sherman advised that lenders
and the Metropolitan Council supported workforce housing in Roseville, clean-up
of contaminated soils and waters with stormwater improvements, and making urban
Sherman noted three areas needing to be addressed, including the City's decision
on extending Twin Lakes Parkway as a separate consideration; the amount of
affordable housing units they would support in one building; and whether they
supported gap funding participation from public funds to make the project
viable. Mr. Sherman again expressed his willingness to work with lenders to
further refine finances by changing the percentage of affordable units and
mixing them between the two proposed buildings if the City Council supported
the project in general.
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Sherman confirmed that the requested TIF was what
was only generated on this site, and not from any other properties within the
Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.
Willmus reviewed his tally on requested City financial assistance, including up
to $3.5 million in TIF, $300,000 from the HRA, and credits for sewer access and
water access connections (SAC and WAC). Councilmember Willmus stated that he,
along with his colleagues, still was concerned about those amounts. While
having supported use of TIF for residential projects having broad community
support in the past, Councilmember Willmus questioned if he could do so since,
based on public sentiment to-date on the project as it now stands, this
development project had yet to obtain that public support. If required to make
a decision tonight on whether or not to support the level of assistance being requested,
Councilmember Willmus stated that his answer would be no.
McGehee echoed the comments of Councilmember Willmus, and questioned if
workforce housing was reduced from 50% to 20% and spread between the two
proposed buildings, whether or not some of the secured funding would be lost.
Sherman clarified that the portion of funding subject to loss would be the tax
credits themselves if workforce housing fell below 50%. Mr. Sherman opined
that MHFA and Metropolitan Council funding may continue if the affordable
housing component remained as part of the project, but may be subject to either
agency pro-rating their funding based on the number of overall units. If the affordable
housing units were reduced to 20% as suggested by Councilmember McGehee, Mr.
Sherman advised that would reduce the units from 80 as currently proposed to
40. Mr. Sherman noted that the purpose of tonight's discussion was to
determine a comfort range from the City Council; with the developer's objective
to make a viable project, which they were willing to look into spreading units
between both buildings and determine lender interest.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Link clarified the size of the tot
lot was estimated at 1,600 square feet, approximately 55' by 30'.
referencing tonight's meeting packet that had included the June City Council
meeting minutes, Councilmember Laliberte questioned staff if construction costs
and/or financing for extension of Twin Lakes Parkway would require funding for
that extension from the capital improvement program (CIP) rather than covered
by the developer as part of their project as previously presented.
Development Director Bilotta clarified that the Metropolitan Council's grant
award included money for extension of Twin Lakes Parkway but the developer was
not basing their decision on whether or not the extension was done or not. If
the Parkway extension did not ultimately go forward, Mr. Bilotta advised that
any excess funds would go back to the Metropolitan Council since competition
for funding was extensive, and the scope of the project would be changed
accordingly and funds reallocated to another area.
the June RCA and original Sherman project as presented, Councilmember Laliberte
questioned how many of these project components needed tweaking and what had
already been addressed legally as part of the TIF "but for" analysis.
Bilotta reiterated that the formal TIF application had not yet been submitted
by Sherman, but would be submitted as part of the underwriting process, including
the "but for" test qualifications and initiated by Sherman Associates. If and
when the formal TIF application is received, Mr. Bilotta advised that the
City's Financial Consultant would review the application, using the "but for" test and provide findings for presentation to the City Council, and if the
project proceeded, would be one of the next steps in the process, but had yet
the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Sherman estimated the total project
development cost to be $40 million plus, or in excess of $200,000 per unit when
land acquisition, environmental clean-up and construction costs were included.
At the further request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Sherman reviewed estimated
costs of environmental clean-up, with $600,000 for demolition of existing structures,
$400,000 to $500,000 for environmental clean-up, and additional funds required
for stormwater management improvements and enhancements.
Etten sought clarification of Councilmember McGehee's preferred percentage of
workforce units and their spread between the two buildings.
McGehee responded that she would like the City Council to have an established
policy when any housing was constructed in Roseville that a minimum of 20% in
workforce affordable housing was included. While she would support 20% in
affordable units at this point, Councilmember McGehee opined that she would
like to defer to the existing neighborhood. Councilmember McGehee stated that
she personally felt strongly about the exterior finishes and amenities, and
that they should be the same for all rental units, with any resident having
access to similar amenities in their individual units and/or in common areas.
While recognizing that in market rate units those amenity costs were borne by
rental fees, and that some subsidy may be required by the developer for
including those amenities with the affordable housing component, Councilmember
McGehee reiterated her preferences and opined that 20% seemed bearable to make
this distinction and provide a fair cut-off. Councilmember McGehee clarified
that she was not suggesting 50%, but based on recent community surveying, would
look to the community to determine how strongly they supported various
amenities and designs.
Etten noted that the developer's current proposal was for a 40% proportion for
affordable units, and questioned if Councilmember McGehee preferred a lower
proportion, to which Councilmember McGehee responded affirmatively.
Etten agreed that the affordable and market rates should be mixed and not to
create a higher end and lower rent building, but to mix those uses.
Councilmember Etten spoke in strong support of affordable housing at 20% to 40%
providing rentals available on an average worker's salary, and not erroneously
representing the perception of what affordable housing meant and not demeaning
those unable to pay market rate rental rates that may be possible for other residents.
McGehee seconded Councilmember Etten's comments. Councilmember McGehee
clarified that her intent was to offer the same level of amenities for everyone
while still providing lower rentals for those needing it, thus her suggestion
of 20% affordable housing units, opining that those renters were entitled to
those same amenities. For those in the listening and home audiences,
Councilmember McGehee explained the meaning of TIF funding generated on future
taxes, but essentially taxpayer money being used to subsidize a development
Roe echoed the comments of Councilmembers Etten and McGehee regarding
qualifications for "affordable" versus "market rate" housing, using his own
previous experience as a recent college graduate as a Professional Engineer
whose school debt and beginning salary qualified him for affordable housing
rates. Mayor Roe noted that one of the problems the City of Roseville was
attempting to address was some of those existing multi-family older buildings
that were classified as affordable due to their age and maintenance/upkeep issues
making them less desirable for market rate rental fees. Mayor Roe opined that
if the result of using taxpayer monies to assist with getting new, high-quality
construction of multi-family housing in Roseville as a currently missing
option, he was supportive of such an improvement in making Roseville a better
community. Mayor Roe noted that this would provide a broader range of
affordable housing types to meet market needs beyond the single-family housing
option. To seek to keep a portion of the units affordable by qualifying for
tax credits, Mayor Roe opined made sense, and therefore he had no problem using
TIF to gain workforce housing in Roseville, and in applying the number of units
needed to get the project viable and to change use of the project site. Mayor
Roe noted that, with funding provided through grants and TIF, they only
represented 22% of the total $40 million projected cost of the project, and
only 9% to 10% funding from the City when grants were excluded from that total
amount. Mayor Roe opined that this was what TIF was intended to be used for;
and while understanding the concerns expressed by the adjacent neighborhood,
opined that they could be addressed, and noted the developer's willingness to
further review or adapt their plans as much as possible to address the concerns
Sherman confirmed that they were interested in making this a successful project
for the City as well as for their development team, and even though there were
a lot of moving parts, expressed his willingness to look at both buildings for
consideration of an equal percentage of affordable units. Mr. Sherman offered,
once further refinement was completed by his team, to return to the City
Council with a number that worked. However, Mr. Sherman stated that he didn't
think the assistance level from the City would change; and whether or not the
Twin Lakes Parkway extension was approved or not, it made no significant impact
for their project and was a decision for the City Council alone.
Sherman reiterated his firm's long-term ownership commitment of the building;
and their typical high-quality construction materials. Mr. Sherman recognized
that there was a strong possibility that they would lose a portion of their
funding in mixing the affordable and market rate units in each building or by
changing the percentage; however, he opined that they would attempt to meet the
test and find other ways to address that. Mr. Sherman noted that the financing
gap was larger than the TIF request, and since the project had been awarded significant
grants from and the support of other government agencies, he felt they owed
that process a chance to see if the project could work before having to return
the money to those agencies for a competing project in another community, since
this represented a significant award for Roseville and the proposed development
project, while providing a way to increase workforce housing in Roseville.
Laliberte asked Mr. Sherman to address the changes in building rental unit
percentages and make-up and the total costs between the previous presentation
in June and tonight's meeting.
Sherman recalled that the total cost at over $40 million had not changes; and
the project's units had changed based on underground versus surface parking, increased
construction costs of $140,000 per unit, as well as land costs per unit of
approximately $20,000 and other costs for soft costs (e.g. financing) and site
clean-up. Mr. Sherman advised that they would provide updated proformas to
staff for further analysis and dissemination to the City Council.
Metz, Mildred Drive (across from the lake)
Metz opined that the lake and park are the gems of this community and needed to
be protected at all costs. Mr. Metz further opined that the proposed location
of this project did not serve to protect the lake.
Hagen, 5976 S Owasso Blvd.
Hagen clarified that his mother was the current owner of the property in question
in Roseville. Mr. Hagen noted that this redevelopment had been under discussion
for over ten years, but it just continued to drag on. While recognizing that
there was some concern by the City Council, Mr. Hagen opined that there was also
obvious agreement that it was preferable to turn this land from a trucking terminal
into something of value to the City of Roseville that would increase its tax
base. Mr. Hagen suggested the question should be whether the City Council was
fully comfortable with the current use or how soon it wanted to move to the next
phase in redeveloping the properties. Mr. Hagen opined that further delay for
more time would be advantageous to the community.
Erickson, Centennial Drive
Erickson referenced an e-mail she had sent to the City Council earlier today,
and clarified that she had no qualms that there was a need for more housing in
the area. However, Ms. Erickson opined that this was not the right location
for this type of housing, not whether it was market or affordable rate housing,
but because of the proposed significant impacts to the adjacent single-family
residential neighborhood. While appreciating the drone shots presented by the
developer, Ms. Erickson questioned how representative it was to those
residential properties when one of the buildings was proposed to be located
closest to the roadway from existing commercial buildings and especially with
the four story height, a first in Roseville. Ms. Erickson stated that she was
not opposed to development of the Twin Lakes area, and not having anything against
Sherman Associates, and desirous of a successful development, she would support
such a development further west on the other side of the lake where similar
buildings already existed. Ms. Erickson noted that the "Dorso" site would
still provide for access to the park, which was an amenity the existing
single-family neighborhood also valued and used frequently as a meeting place
providing a natural area for them in an urban setting. Ms. Erickson stated
that residents enjoyed nature, but they didn't want to see the proposed units
increase and negatively impact the day-to-day quality of life for existing
residents, whether or not the development was tied to extension of Twin Lakes
Parkway. Ms. Erickson opined that extending the Parkway would only serve to
create more traffic bottlenecks in the area; and asked that the development
would serve to benefit the neighborhood that they loved.
Patient, 3049 Shorewood Lane
a newer resident to Roseville, Mr. Patient advised that his concern was in the
height of the proposed building and increased traffic on Fairview Avenue. Mr.
Patient opined that the intersections of Lydia Avenue and County Road D at Fairview
Avenue already presented a bottleneck, as well as at Lincoln Drive. Mr. Patient
recognized that Fairview Avenue and several other roadways were under the
jurisdiction of Ramsey County and therefore the City was limited in what could
be done, he stated that residents did not want more cars there.
Patient noted the proposed closure of Wheeler Street at County Road D and
proposed assessments to benefitting properties, and suggested that since this
was of benefit to the entire community beyond the immediate neighborhood, the
taxes be spread city-wide. Mr. Patient suggested that any other costs for this
specific redevelopment project should also be taxed city-wide as only zeroing
in only on properties adjacent to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area for any
McCormack, Wheeler Street
a member of the neighborhood association, Ms. McCormack seconded the comments
of Ms. Erickson, but clarified that she was speaking as a resident also. Ms.
McCormack stated that the neighbors were open and desirous of a successful
project, but questioned confidence in the success of the project as proposed.
Ms. McCormack noted one point of contention for the neighborhood was the lack
of awareness provided in the past, and their knowledge only coming forward well
after the previously referenced June meeting. Ms. McCormack noted that the
neighbors had considerable concern with the proposed location, since they considered
this condensed area of 500 single-family homes as a gateway into Roseville.
Ms. McCormack advised that, once the neighbors became aware of the proposed
project, they had looked at multiple studies and factors playing into whether
or not such a project could be successful, since it affected the long-term
stability of the existing neighborhood.
the aerials provided by drone from the developer, Ms. McCormack disagreed that
the proposed development and size would not negatively impact or be obviously
visible to the existing neighborhoods, since it was purported to be separated
by existing retail development and over 700' away.
McCormack noted that, since the Twin Lakes planning sessions were mid-way and
community survey responses that had been given significant time by neighbors
and were yet to be analyzed, opined that this conversation was preliminary.
Ms. McCormack noted and agreed that the lake and park were critical components
for many residents and further opined that height was also of concern.
McCormack noted she had additional petitions yet to be submitted, which she
would do at a subsequent meeting in the near future, beyond those already
submitted at the January 5, 2015 City Council meeting. Ms. McCormack reminded
Councilmembers that the petition had yet to receive a public acknowledgement or
City Council response. Ms. McCormack stated that the neighborhood was open to
seeing what was feasible; but questioned if the building(s) needed to be four
stories. Ms. McCormack opined that it would be critical to the neighbors to be
assured of the financial feasibility of the project, especially since there appeared
to be varying opinions on what it would take to make it work financially.
McCormack spoke in support of additional conversation as to whether this is the
right site for the proposed development, and in displaying another aerial showing
high density zoning (HDR) in the area immediately north of North Terrace Drive,
questioned the validity of that same zoning designation on the subject parcel.
Ms. McCormack advised that the neighborhood petitions had intended to address
those applicable zoning concerns.
Hagen, current owner of the subject property
Hagen clarified that she was not a Roseville resident, but was speaking as the
current business owner succeeding her deceased husband. Ms. Hagen provided a
background on ownership and use of the property and failed attempts to sell it
in the past for development, made difficult with government stipulations due to
soil contamination and changing zoning regulations. Ms. Hagen noted the
difficult position she found herself in trying to market this property under
those circumstances; opining that she thought she had found a good solution for
all parties, including the City of Roseville and its residents, when Sherman
Associates had expressed their interest in purchasing the parcels and based on
their reputation and past project successes. Ms. Hagen opined that the
potential increased tax base for the City should serve as a huge asset, and
asked that the City Council recognize past attempts and difficulties in selling
the property over a number of years. Ms. Hagen questioned if it was now
necessary to start all over again; and suggested that, while this development
may not be perfect for all but it was more involved and not always possible to
achieve perfection or for picking and choosing projects that would address
individual or collective interests. If this proposal did not proceed, Ms.
Hagen expressed her concern that another long process would be required,
especially given the many issues already faced by her husband and former
tenants on the site who were given eviction notices by the City when previous developments
seemed inevitable and forthcoming, but were later tabled for a number of
years. With this current development interest, Ms. Hagen opined that it was
time to complete redeveloping this area, and reiterated her impression that
this would be seen as an asset to the entire community.
Clarifications of Public Comment Issues
to Benefitting Properties or Areas
Roe clarified that this was related to the initial Twin Lakes analysis and
study on options to finance infrastructure improvements in the overall Twin
Lakes area and possible definition of benefitted areas in accordance with state
statutes. Mayor Roe advised that more recently, the City had made the decision
to move from that option, and clarified that the option was not currently on
the table other than assessing specific projects that benefitted and were in
the immediate area only.
Roe stated that this perception may be a misrepresentation of previous City
Council discussions, specific to the areas considered as HDR zoning. In the
"green strip" as displayed by Ms. McCormack, Mayor Roe noted that the City
Council had talked about changing current zoning from HDR to Community Mixed
Use (CMU), which would still allow for HDR uses; and that discussion was not
necessarily framed to indicate the City Council did not want HDR uses in that
Volumes and Updated Study
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that
the updated traffic study was scheduled for presentation to the City Council at
their February 23, 2015 meeting. For the benefit of residents, Councilmember
Laliberte noted that Ramsey County had been invited to attend that meeting as
well, since Fairview Avenue and other impacted roadways and/or intersections
were under Ramsey County's jurisdiction.
Roe further noted that part of the overall review of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment
Area had been acknowledgement that those intersections were not currently
working as they should, and any thoughts on improving traffic flow should
include Ramsey County or other jurisdictions as applicable and in conjunction
with City's plans at Twin Lakes.
Roe noted that the developer was not seeking any request for action from the
City Council at this meeting; however, he noted Sherman Associates' concern as
to whether there was a consensus of the Council to move the project further
pending their submission of updated proformas and their analysis of different approaches
to orient units.
Laliberte opined that it was up to Sherman as to how much more work they were
willing to do. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was very interested in
receiving the updated traffic study, as well as feedback from the community
survey process recently completed and scheduled for presentation on February
25, 2015 at the Twin Lakes Planning meeting. Following her review of that
material, Councilmember Laliberte opined that she could then pin down the
McGehee concurred with Councilmember Laliberte's comments; further noting that
the City Council would be meeting for their own Planning Retreat next week; and
until those meetings and presentations were completed, she was not willing to
commit to doing further work at this time.
Etten opined that there should be some work Sherman could do between now and
then to further help the City Council's discussion rather than them not doing
anything further. Without that updated information from Sherman as requested
tonight, Councilmember Etten opined that the City Council could not make
intelligent choices, and suggested Sherman complete their further due diligence
within the next few weeks.
Laliberte concurred with Councilmember Etten's comments.
McGehee stated that Sherman could do so if they so chose, but the proposed
project was not getting her resounding support right now.
George Sherman Response
Sherman stated that his firm wanted this to be a successful project for Roseville,
and therefore, there were some additional things they could do as requested.
Mr. Sherman advised that this included addressing the percentage of workforce
units in each building, which he opined had a high probability of success, but
reiterated that he didn't think those revisions would provide any huge
reduction if any in the amount of TIF assistance they planned to request for
Twin Lakes Parkway, Mr. Sherman again stated that, if the City chose to extend
the Parkway, his development team would work with them, but if not the
development could still proceed.
Sherman advised that he was unable to clearly identify a firm number for the
TIF funds request at this time, until they analyzed the financial gap further
related to the affordable housing mix. However, Mr. Sherman reiterated his
request to get some consensus from the City Council as to whether or not and
whether or not they would support using TIF for the project or not.
City Council Response
Laliberte stated that, in general, she preferred to use TIF for projects
bringing long-term jobs to the City. While being less desirous of housing use,
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she understood it was used for housing many
situations, and therefore would not rule it out. Given the TIF request, combined
with WAC, SAC, and HRA monies, Councilmember Laliberte opined that it was a
considerable financial request, and recognized that a public hearing would be
required in the future for establishing a TIF District.
Roe clarified that this would be part of the process after a formal TIF application
was received; and City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that it would be several
months for that process once an application was received.
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that SAC and WAC
credits were pooled or banked credits on hand and not from taxpayer funds, but
totaling approximately $1 million based on Metropolitan Council fees.
Laliberte opined that this was a valuable proposal was valuable to the City and
would improve housing options beyond existing options. Councilmember Laliberte
stated that there were people interested in living in Roseville and the City
Council was interested in welcoming them into the community; however, not too
heavily on the backs of current residents.
the project could be further refined to meet what the neighborhood and she
wanted to see, Councilmember McGehee stated that she was not opposed to the use
of TIF even though she preferred it be used for living wage job creations that
were severely needed in this community. However, Councilmember McGehee stated
that she was still on the fence in terms of this project, and would withhold
further support until she heard how and if it was supported in the community
and impacts to the general tax base, as well as how that housing looked in
welcoming people into the community.
Roe noted the lack of consensus, duly noted by Mr. Sherman.
Mayor Roe recessed
the meeting at approximately 7:57 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:01 p.m.
Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Joint Meeting
Members Present: Chair Dean Maschka and Members Susan Elkins, Vickie Lee, and Dan
Wall, along with Councilmember Jason Etten.
Maschka reviewed 2014 work plan goals and those completed or ongoing as well as
those yet to be completed, as detailed in Attachment D to the RCA. After the
City Council completes their upcoming retreat, Chair Maschka advised that the
HRA would revise their strategic plan and HRA roles for presentation to the
City Council to make sure they were partnering collectively. Chair Maschka
spoke to those projects that the HRA had been able to undertake and thereby relieve
the City Council of that responsibility, including the successful and
well-received residential and commercial neighborhood enhancement programs
(NEP), and educational aspects of that program and success of the associated
abatement program in improving overall code enforcement and livability of the
Maschka expressed his appreciation of how the rental registration and licensing
program was proceeding, and successful use of the housing replacement program
for redevelopment of a parcel on Hamline Avenue and future consideration of
whether or not this could become a revenue-neutral project going forward.
Maschka recognized the lessons learned and delays with the Dale Street Project,
which would be on the HRA's agenda at their upcoming February meeting and
options to 1) do nothing, 2) extend deadlines, or 3) change or end the project.
Maschka referenced the business retention aspect of the HRA and favorable
responses from the designated business page in the City's newsletter and other
efforts within the community.
Maschka expressed his disappointment in the recent completion of the Southeast
Roseville Study with results based on social aspects and not providing
sufficient information to clarify next steps.
the HRA perspective, Chair Maschka stated major areas for City Council consideration
in establishing priorities:
SE Corridor and jurisdictional issues
Maschka noted a number of programs available for the City to deal with housing
issues, which was a major problem. Chair Maschka noted further discussion was
needed to determine if outside consultation was needed to determine solutions
and identify funding mechanisms and how they could work.
Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area
Maschka opined that it seemed like this issue had been around forever, and
questioned if the dream was alive or dead. Chair Maschka suggested the need to
step back, since the synergy for the original community vision was no longer
there. However based on interviews with business owners in that area as part
of business retention efforts, Chair Maschka noted that they were very
successful, causing him to question if more concentration should be given to
building a business/industrial area and give up on the housing issues, perhaps
even through creating a moratorium on development to determine what made
sense. Under the current setting, Chair Maschka noted that it seemed the City
Council and community continued to react to proposed developments and that
situation continued to create a nightmare situation for neighbors and the City
Council. Chair Maschka questioned and suggested City Council discussion at
their upcoming retreat for the possibility of again seeking a master developer
under city control for this area.
Chair Maschka noted the need to address the changing nature of
retail, using the Har Mar Mall as an example of the bar for new tenants being
lowered rather than raised. Chair Maschka noted another change in the retail
landscape was internet retail and the bricks and mortar retail moving toward
experiential aspects. Chair Maschka suggested further discussion with Rosedale
as to how they saw themselves fitting in the community as the "Golden Goose" as
part of that consideration.
· Chair Maschka noted the need to review and reconsider the overall
entire transportation aspect for Roseville and area access, including other
agencies and jurisdictions (e.g. MnDOT) in how to improve that in order for
Roseville to remain successful.
Chair Maschka noted that the Har Mar Mall area provided great
opportunities with land and space for a transportation corridor; but questioned
impacts if the bookstore and grocery store move out as tenants. Chair Maschka
suggested future impacts the City Council may wish to consider, similar to
Brooklyn Park's West Side as one possibility.
Maschka opined that the City Council, once it determined its priorities and
metrics, could then direct staff on where they saw the City going and how to
get there, and what roles they saw for the HRA to play. Chair Maschka noted
the need for how to provide gap financing, with the Sherman project as a prime
example of that need. Chair Maschka opined that he saw this as an exciting
time with the need to address the SE corridor housing and exploring funding
opportunities. Whether the City Council decided it needed to establish an
Economic Development Authority (EDA) and whether or not that consisted of the
HRA or the City Council, Chair Maschka asked that the HRA be told what to do
and where to go, expressing the HRA's collective excitement and willingness to
follow their lead.
to Southeast Roseville, Mayor Roe noted some ideas he and Councilmember
Laliberte had heard at the recent LMC community engagement focus. Mayor Roe advised
that he'd already preliminarily reached out to the Mayor or Maplewood on how
those efforts may proceed and advised that he would bring up those ideas at the
City Council's retreat. Mayor Roe noted the need for the City Council to talk
about the process, and make sure residents, landlords, neighbors, businesses,
and other agencies and neighboring communities were all involved as part of
Maschka noted preliminary discussions on starting a project and coordination by
the Roseville HRA and Police Department, and School District, along with Legal
Aid and others, in addressing funds for educational opportunities to address
the high rate of English illiteracy among the community's adult population.
McGehee concurred with and personally shared the priorities outlined by Chair
Maschka; and clarified that despite her comments regarding Twin Lakes, she was
not afraid to put funding forward, including bonding versus TIF as a potential
to address the blighted southeast corner of Roseville. Councilmember McGehee
opined if taxes were generated through a bond in combination with additional
housing, it became a much more palatable package. Councilmember McGehee
expressed her interest in Chair Maschka's approach for the City Council and HRA
to work in partnership, opining that both bodies had been too uncoordinated in
the past in what they were trying to accomplish. Councilmember McGehee
expressed her excitement in potential bonding to address housing needs and
increase the tax base, while not become burdensome to taxpayers.
Maschka noted his request to HRA staff to have the City's bond counsel
available at their next HRA meeting to address potential general obligation bonding
options to address the blight in southeast Roseville that qualified the City
for a number of different programs, and the need for further exploration of
Willmus noted past discussions and his ongoing concern with how much the HRA
has on its plate and the scope it encompassed. Councilmember Willmus noted the
heavy emphasis on residential housing, and the ongoing lack of addressing the
"R" for redevelopment of commercial properties as well. Councilmember Willmus
expressed his appreciation that the HRA was stepping back to review and revisit
their current strategic plan. As a councilmember, Councilmember Willmus stated
that he'd like to hear how involved the HRA wanted to be in looking at
commercial areas; and sought HRA input in the near future as to whether an EDA
or the City Council using its port authority powers to assemble certain
part of the HRA's strategic plan, Councilmember Willmus encouraged the HRA to
look at what it was currently undertaking and what things could be dropped off,
such as the annual Home and Garden Fair, given the amount of HRA and other
department staff time and resources involved, creating a big hold in the annual
budget. Councilmember Willmus suggested there may be a different way to offer
the portions of the Fair that encompassed what residents found important, such
as a speaker series, which would be less impactful to the bottom line.
his personal HRA priorities, Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of Twin
Lakes, Southeast Roseville, Har Mar Mall, with Rosedale being more long-term
than short-term as a consideration. Councilmember Willmus suggested that the
HRA immediately address the southeast Roseville and Twin Lakes issue and
provide their feedback on what role the community should play, and whether or
not the City had missed the boat for housing development in Twin Lakes. Councilmember
Willmus opined that there was a need to balance viewpoints out and work toward
common ground. If a master developer was pursued or city-assembly of parcels
to market development projects toward head-of-household jobs, Councilmember
Willmus opined that this would move things along in the most desirable way.
Maschka opined that this involved in part the evolution of the HRA from its
initial formation to their current role. Personally, Chair Maschka expressed
his appreciation for motion.
Roe noted the partnership of the City Council and HRA that would be further
informed by the upcoming City Council retreat discussion.
Etten agreed that the City needed to step up to the development plate, and
noted the City Council's reluctance to do so if based on tonight's earlier
discussion. Councilmember Etten stated that this bothered him, and questioned
if the City Council was a willing player. As an example, Councilmember Etten
referenced recent infill development of blighting holes in the City of Mounds
View along the Highway 10 corridor, including housing. In his discussion with
Moundsview representatives, Councilmember Etten noted their comments that they
had various tools available to accomplish this redevelopment and were willing
to use those tools rather than second-guessing projects when they came forward.
Whether or not the City Council developed an EDA, which he supported the City
Council to take the lead on as EDA role due to major implications and the much
higher visibility of the City Council, Councilmember Etten questioned if the
City Council serving as a Council or EDA was willing to put up the significant
money required to acquire land in Twin Lakes, noting it was a big commitment.
In other words, Councilmember Etten noted the need to be willing to spend big
money and take a big risk.
Maschka opined that with a master developer approach, the money and/or risk
would not be as great.
Etten responded that the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area previously had a master
developer and that process didn't work.
Maschka noted that the Center Pointe and Lincoln Drive development areas were
examples of master developments that had worked in Roseville.
Roe opined that he didn't think the master developer process caused the
problems in Twin Lakes.
Etten noted the perception in the development community with Roseville's
Maschka concurred, opining that the development community needed to know the
City was going to work with them, and not continually get shot in the foot.
the City chose to work on something that big, Councilmember Etten opined that
the HRA needed to be a part of that. Councilmember Etten noted the success of
the Dale Street Project, at least the planning portion as it related to
redevelopment and housing.
Laliberte agreed with Chair Maschka's areas of priority and assured that they
would be discussed at the City Council retreat. However, Councilmember
Laliberte stated that she shared the concerns laid out by Councilmember Willmus
as to how much the HRA and staff could take on and accomplish and accomplish
well; and what items could be moved to the side or be delegated to someone else
rather than the core pieces led by the HRA which was yet to be determined.
Councilmember Laliberte opined that she found creation of an EDA an interesting
idea, since she had long been interested in more marketing of the City,
allowing it to be selective about its redevelopment by clearly identifying what
was desired and who was responsible to perform the work and how to envision
that redevelopment, all important aspects. Councilmember Laliberte noted the
current reactive approach to whatever pops us that continued to create a
patchwork and piecemeal approach that continued to haunt the City, especially
in the Twin Lakes area.
Maschka opined that if the City Council created the vision, the HRA and
Community Development Department should be taking the next step with that vision
to develop those relationships.
a practical thing specific to the Dale Street Project, Councilmember Laliberte
suggested development by the HRA of a dashboard or "work in progress" reporting
system providing status reports and updates included in City Council meeting
packet materials monthly to keep everyone accountable.
Maschka concurred that having those metrics of progression would be a good
priorities listed by Chair Maschka, Mayor Roe agreed with the southeast
Roseville and Twin Lakes redevelopment as needing immediate prioritization, but
suggested Har Mar Mall and Rosedale were farther out, recognizing that the
recent rezoning of Har Mar Mall was intended as part of a future vision. Mayor
Roe note that he and Councilmember Laliberte had preliminarily discussed the
value in marketing Roseville to the development community to take advantage of
infill development opportunities, and make connections and build relationships
now to take advantage of future options. Mayor Roe noted that there may be a
need to outsource this specialized work versus expecting that expertise from
Roe concurred with Councilmember Etten's comments regarding the City Council's
willingness to step up, but clarified that even with bonding unless via a TIF
revenue bond as used in Twin Lakes, there was no free money and money was
either coming from the project generating an increment or from taxpayers.
While there was always reluctance to do something that would impact taxpayers,
Mayor Roe noted that realistically there would need to be some impact to taxpayers,
and everyone needed to be on board when decisions were made even though
individuals had their personal points of view.
Maschka addressed the advantages of revenue bonds that could lock in current interest
rates now that may not come along again for a long time; thus the HRA's
interest in having those discussion with bond counsel.
McGehee opined that the HRA didn't have too much on their plate; to which Chair
terms of a partnership between the HRA and City Council, Councilmember McGehee
opined that the City Council didn't have enough things of significant value on
its plate. Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council needed to step
up to the plate when something came along that would raise versus lowering the
bar of overall benefit to the City of Roseville in general. However, Councilmember
McGehee opined that, in the past, the City had done a number of things that had
not raised the bar or been helpful to long-term development, and therefore were
not the right thing to do.
part of the City Council retreat discussion, Councilmember McGehee stated that
she wanted to address the reason Roseville had a bad reputation in the development
community due to not having a viable process in place and a vision that invited
all discussion with everyone pulling in the same direction. Councilmember
McGehee expressed her enthusiasm for the Dale Street Project process, which she
found to be amazing and credited the HRA for the time and effort spent pursuing
that outcome, and result that no one in the community told the City Council not
to spend TIF money on the project. Councilmember McGehee noted that, even with
unexpected delays with the project, residents continued to support the project
and supported the vision even if another developer was needed to complete the
project. Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council needed to achieve
that community support for any and all projects before bringing a developer
into the situation where they may be set up to fail, and further opined that it
could be accomplished by following a process similar to that used for the Dale
Street project as a successful role model.
Maschka opined that one thing that made that process work was that for the
first time, those residents people concerns understood the economics of the
situation and were willing to compromise and recognize that dollars needed to
be spent to make things happen.
McGehee noted that education was an important component to reach compromises by
Maschka concurred, however, he noted that at some point, the vote had to be
Willmus clarified that it was important to note with redevelopment on Dale
Street and use of TIF funding, while residents were part of the process, their
initial choice of single-family homes was not part of the final options of a, b
or c. Councilmember Willmus noted that their willingness to compromise was only
after they found that the numbers wouldn't work for their first choice, and
therefore they chose the lesser of three evils. Councilmember Willmus concurred
that the process in bringing everyone to the table was excellent, and the fact
that the wheels fell off the project now was due to a lack of oversight, which
fell directly on the City Council's shoulders and shouldn't have happened.
Going forward, Councilmember Willmus opined that assurances were needed that it
would not happen again.
whether commercial development was preferable for the Twin Lakes area, and
whether it should be under the auspices of the HRA or City Council,
Councilmember Willmus opined that was an area of concern for him.
utilizing TIF dollars, Councilmember Willmus clarified that there was no real
upfront cost, since it eventually came back to the City. However, Councilmember
Willmus expressed concern for those city services as an upfront and ongoing
cost that were not paid for as part of the project improvements, such as police
and fire protection. Councilmember Willmus opined that pay-as-you-go TIF was a
good financing mechanism; but noted that he had trouble providing TIF financing
for a project not having broader public support.
general when the Comprehensive Plan was updated, Councilmember Laliberte opined
that HDR zoning designation was plopped in a number of places as a
placeholder. However, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she continue to hear
repeatedly anecdotally from the community that the missing piece was for transitional
housing: not senior or assisted living, but middle-level housing for those
moving from single-family homes with maintenance to those not having outside
maintenance to address. Councilmember Laliberte opined that the City needed to
be proactive in finding places in Roseville for that infill housing option,
which was currently lacking. While the City had several options (e.g.
Lexington Apartments and Overlook Drive), they were insufficient to serve the
current and growing demographics and didn't turn over very fast, thus causing
the community to lose good members of the community elsewhere.
Member Lee agreed with those comments.
Roe noted that when the rezoning was revised, a lot of HDR was included, and it
may be time to review those designations.
Member Wall encouraged the City Council, at their upcoming retreat, to look
outward and look big, even to the point of being outrageous. Member Wall
opined that the City needed to find a way to get things done, and differentiate
Roseville from competing communities and seek opportunities to expand its tax
base. Member Wall suggested that the City Council agree on two things they
wanted the HRA to accomplish yet this year, tell the HRA, and they would build
their strategy on that directive. While recognizing that the HRA did have a
lot on its plate, Member Wall opined that it could pick and choose its projects
or focus, and by the end of 2015 should be able to have several projects
accomplished with measurable ends.
Wall encouraged the City Council to not be afraid to talk to major developers
and corporate CEO's for their ideas for high-end executive housing, a continued
need for Roseville.
Roe noted that a key part was how to measure success in what was being done or
attempted, which he found to be a missing component in the past in using
Wall opined that this was a responsibility to come back to taxpayers with
results of what was being accomplished with their money.
Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:42 p.m., and reconvened at
approximately 8:48 p.m.
Business Items (Action Items)
Approve Creation of a Police Cadet Position within the Police
Chief Rick Mathwig and Community Relations Coordinator Cory Yunke were present
for this item.
Mathwig advised that this request was basically to resurrect the Cadet position
removed in 2003; and provided an historical perspective of that former position,
and requested reinstatement of the position to link the police department to
and make it more representative of the community it served. Chief Mathwig noted
that the job description had been created in the 1990's as a reaction to
potential officer applicants nearing the end of their educational program who
were often attracted to other competing communities or agencies due to no
vacancies in Roseville until an officer position opened up.
Mathwig summarized requirements for officer licensure in the State of MN.
Chief Mathwig noted that the Roseville Police Department was now served by its
reserve officers and three community service officer (CSO) positions, but found
it needed the addition of the Cadet position to make it ready to recruit
qualified applicants. As with many police agencies, Chief Mathwig noted that
the City found itself behind the growing and diverse demographics of Roseville
in representing the City's minority groups within the department itself and the
community it served. Chief Mathwig advised that the Cadet job description was
modeled after the successful Brooklyn Center program and their leadership team,
using lessons learned from them and their recommendations to not mix the Cadet
and CSO positions. Further details were provided in the RCA, lines 41 - 45.
Mathwig advised that the intent was to prove the benefit of the program during
the remainder of 2015, convincing the City Council of the position's validity
for the 2016 budget cycle. Chief Mathwig advised that funding for 2015 could
be covered by grants, donations, forfeiture funds, and unused salary related to
timing of hires for two current vacancies in the department.
Yunke echoed Chief Mathwig, opining that this provided a great opportunity to
address disparities with minorities applying for jobs, and provided tuition reimbursement.
Mr. Yunke referenced his current work with soccer camps, and experience in
recruitment through Century College in support of this requested Cadet
Etten noted his request of Chief Mathwig by earlier e-mail exchange seeking
long-term impacts for a full year's salary beyond 2015 and hiring timeframe
compared to the estimated in April or May of 2015 and partial year costs.
Mathwig noted the estimates, as detailed in lines 57 - 59 of the RCA, mirroring
the CSO salary range. Councilmember
Etten questioned what advantages or abilities the Cadet position provided
versus the CSO position in finding minority candidates.
Mathwig advised that the Cadet position could identify community leaders among
minority groups through their interaction with those cultures and those potentially
interested in the law enforcement field, made easier by having those discussions
with someone they considered more of an equal especially when many of those
cultures come from a background that had a negative view of law enforcement and
needed a changed mindset beyond that provided from their previous experiences.
Chief Mathwig admitted that this would not happen immediately, but take time
and effort to change viewpoints from one-on-one contacts.
Etten questioned why the current CSO position was not or could not be just as
Mathwig responded that the CSO day-to-day responsibilities and positions were
already packed and they were not able to dedicate sufficient time to address
those diversity needs.
McGehee shared the concerns raised by Councilmember Etten, opining that to her
it seemed to be more of a scheduling issue, and if an additional CSO position
was needed, Chief Mathwig should seek approval for such a position rather than
creating a new Cadet position. Councilmember McGehee further opined that
efforts should be made to hire all CSOs to be language competent in an
additional and applicable language, and be available for the community to become
familiar with them as the face of law enforcement, and not simply pigeon-holed
into their role as a CSO.
another concern she had with packet materials on this item and similar job
descriptions, Councilmember McGehee noted her phone contact with Chief Mathwig
and Human Resources Manager Eldona Bacon and clarification that the Cadet
position was not actually considered "exempt," but was a typographical error
and the Cadet and CSO positions were both "non-exempt" positions. Since both
positions were part time, and did not receive benefits, Councilmember McGehee
questioned why the Cadet position would be eligible for tuition reimbursement
and suggested the need for the Police Department to consult further with Human
Resources to address this issue. Councilmember McGehee opined that, if this
position was eligible for tuition reimbursement, other part-time positions
should also be eligible. Councilmember McGehee opined that, from her review
and understanding in consultation with the Human Resource Manager, the CSO and
Cadet positions had identical job descriptions other than hiring requirements
for additional language abilities and the ability to assign additional duties
to the Cadet position as suited. Councilmember McGehee opined that, if the Police
Department did not have sufficient CSOs, they should ask for another CSO position.
to tuition reimbursement, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that a limited budget
was available for any and all eligible City employees. Mr. Trudgeon further
clarified that the Chief's request for tuition was specific to the Cadet
program and identified early on and not part of the City's existing tuition
reimbursement totally $5,000 city-wide.
those circumstances, Councilmember McGehee stated that she withdrew her support
for tuition reimbursement as it created a problem that wasn't needed; and
opined that the Cadet position itself should be separate from tuition; and that
there was no need for a separate position from that of the CSO position.
Roe sought to clarify Councilmember McGehee's comment as to whether seeking an
additional position was the problem for her or creating a separate job
McGehee opined that requesting another CSO position was fine with her if it
included similar duties outlined in the Cadet job description; and agreed with
the philosophy that each CSO position have an additional language capability.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Chief Mathwig reviewed current positions
openings (two) in the department and potential timeframe in filling those two
positions from a list of 2014 tested eligible candidates as approved by the Police
Civil Service Commission.
Mathwig apologized for his error in the Cadet job description, noting that it
should indeed by "non-exempt."
Laliberte expressed her lack of understanding in a need to create a separate
Cadet position from the CSO job description, other than to more easily identify
slightly different job duties. Councilmember Laliberte noted there were still
limited opportunities to bring in new officers, and obtain other great candidates
for those positions in a timely manner. Councilmember Laliberte admitted that
she was not entirely opposed to the Cadet position, but suggested only a pilot
program with review as part of the 2016 budget process and depending on budget
priorities at that time.
Roe asked Chief Mathwig to respond to the differing duties on the Cadet and CSO
job descriptions and rationale for both.
Mathwig noted changes to the existing CSO job description and reporting
responsibilities, as well as supporting the Police Department's administrative
efforts. However, Chief Mathwig noted that part of those CSO duties did not include
assisting diverse communities, which would be a function of the Cadet position
to build bridges for minority recruitment from within the community to become
Roseville police officers.
Roe sought clarification on the process if this 2015 pilot program was approved,
and whether a position needed to be formally created or identified and made
clear that it was only a potentially temporary position.
Manager Trudgeon stated that was at the discretion of the City Council, advising
that a job description still needed to be created either way and would be an
annual budgetary issue. However, City Manager Trudgeon noted that having a job
description approved by the City Council was a vital step to fill the position,
with every position subject to an annual review.
the goal was to reach out to community minorities, Councilmember Etten suggested
that a fourth CSO position be required to have multiple and diverse languages
that were represented as one of those 60 languages recognized by the Roseville
School District, and change the CSO job description accordingly for future
hires, alerting the commanding officer that this was part of the CSO job. Councilmember
Etten opined that this would eventually provide outreach for 3-4 minority
groups in Roseville.
Mathwig expressed fear that this risked damage to both CSO and/or Cadet
positions to include community engagement for all positions, fearing that
effort would be lost in the shuffle.
Willmus noted the funding mechanisms laid out by Chief Mathwig for the
remainder of 2015, but expressed concern in 2016 and beyond, suggesting that if
the Cadet position was created it may need to be revisited at some point.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of what the Chief was attempting to
accomplish and recognized his concerns in co-mingling CSO and Cadet positions;
and expressed his willingness to consider the position on an interim basis.
McGehee expressed her opposition to Councilmember Willmus' support for an
interim hire, and saw no problem co-mingling the positions based on her
consultation with the Human Resources Department and the positions having
similar job requirements, and ability for both to have positive interaction in
the community and interact with diverse communities whether they themselves are
diverse or not. Councilmember McGehee opined that CSO's and officers needed to
be able to do all things listed in their job descriptions and there should be
no separation at all, and only serve as a disservice to CSO officers.
McGehee asked staff to confirm that non-exempt employees did not receive
tuition reimbursement and report back; and if so, the City Council policy
needed to be examined for potential change. Councilmember McGehee advised that
she personally had no problem funding an additional CSO position as a pilot
program, but fund by separate arrangement.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Chief Mathwig advised that his proposed
funding mechanism was not being reallocated from other department needs, and
was being derived from other areas outside current program and not earmarked
for other uses, but was not sustainable long-term.
Laliberte noted the difficulty with a pilot program in attempting to hire
someone interested in a short-term hire, continuing to have good candidates
hired for other agencies.
Mathwig suggested he could possibly fund a hire through 2016 somehow, but felt
it should eventually be added to the City's tax levy beyond 2016.
Laliberte agreed with the proposal suggested by Councilmembers McGehee and
Etten to expand the role and duties for all officers on a rotation basis,
understanding differences in reporting and functions, but allowing all officers
and CSO's to perform some of that same work and pursue similar objectives.
leveraging Cadet responsibilities, Chief Mathwig agreed that some duties could
be rotated from year to year; essentially working off those efforts and relationships
into other areas in the department and taking proactive steps to increase those
Laliberte suggested tabling this request until those issues raised tonight,
including college tuition, could be addressed.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon and Chief Mathwig
reviewed the proposed timeframe for hiring in April or May or 2015; and staff's
ability to provide additional clarification on those issues raised tonight by
the February 23, 2015 meeting, and not further delaying any potential 2015 hiring.
Manager Trudgeon summarized tonight's discussion by recognizing that the
consensus was that this was something worth trying as a demonstration project
and as part of broadening the CSO position job descriptions to incorporate
these diversity efforts; and with the understanding that there are no
guarantees it will be funded in 2016. Mr. Trudgeon noted the need to further
refine the job description, including what to title the position and if and how
it differs from the current CSO job description.
Roe offered his support to take a further look at, especially related to a rotation
model and how to write that into the job description. Mayor Roe concurred with
City Manager Trudgeon that the concept appeared to have some level of support
from the City Council, and asked that staff review the current CSO job
description and develop a list of pros and cons for City Council consideration
at their next presentation.
the benefit of Councilmember Laliberte's concerns, Chief Mathwig clarified that
the tuition portion is not included in the Cadet job description.
moved, Roe seconded, TABLING action on this item and directing staff and Police
Department management to review whether they could rotate the CSO position to
cover duties outlined in the job description to incorporate duties of the
current CSO and proposed Cadet position descriptions; and to also investigate
and report back on the tuition issue.
Discussion of Civic Engagement Module and Request to Contract for
Module Development and Website Integration
Manager Garry Bowman and Community Engagement Commissioner and Website
Subcommittee member Scot Becker were present for this presentation, as detailed
in the RCA.
demonstration model entitled "Speak UP, Edina!" was presented as an example
from a current Granicus customer.
McGehee opined that this program clearly had a better look that others viewed
to-date, but questioned the limitations of and/or ability for residents utilize
many practical features based on current city website traffic (e.g. utility
bill receipts and/or recreation class sign-ups, alerting staff of potholes etc.).
Councilmember McGehee referenced the Roseville Issues Forum (RIF) website compared
to this pilot program, and ways to filter and archive topics without extensive
staff time to filter that information as well as staff time needed to become
aware of and remove offensive posts as applicable.
Becker responded that this module was built more for collaboration of comments
to shape discussions as a valuable asset beyond that of RIF built for dialogue.
Roe noted that this module was by subscription on notice and would better
manage participants not receiving unwanted e-mails in their inbox.
Etten asked if staff envisioned one staff member periodically reviewing the
site during the day to forward applicable posts to the appropriate department,
and how much staff time would be required.
Bowman responded that he thought it would require some investment of staff time
to stay on top of posts and steer them to appropriate staff for their response
and/or comment; as well as to allow the City Council and staff to throw out
ideas for which they were seeking feedback. Mr. Bowman advised that he
envisioned that he and/or Ms. Curti would need to monitor the site frequently.
Becker noted that the Commission was cognizant that they were adding to staff's
burden, but also wanted to be sure staff was aware of the issues within the
Willmus expressed his appreciation that it allowed a platform for broader city
awareness and the ability to weigh in with City Hall. Councilmember Willmus
questioned if staff had researched other communities using this module to see
how it was working for them.
Bowman advised that he had only been able to reach out to the City of Edina
to-date, but would further research current customers by asking Granicus to provide
a list of other communities using their product.
Willmus clarified that he was not concerned with Granicus but the concept in
general, duly noted by Mr. Bowman.
Laliberte expressed her appreciation that the module was open to the entire community
and not just one neighborhood of constellation boundary or organization.
However, Councilmember Laliberte expressed concern in how the module was
moderated and community engagement ensured to avoid degradation. Councilmember
Laliberte noted another topic addressed at the recent LMC conference was pros
and cons of module moderation by a third party hosting the site versus staff
filtering what is or is not seen. Councilmember Laliberte noted one suggestion
made during the conference was that the community could vote thumbs up or down
on items they found offensive and didn't want included on the site versus staff
having to choose what does or does not get posted. If the module is pursued,
Councilmember Laliberte asked that the follow/share option be used and an
option be included that provided a opportunity for community volunteers
connecting with issues; and that it include a process or ability to report issues
Etten noted that the City's website already had this function available.
Laliberte opined that there needed to be a way to promote it and make people
aware of that option. Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in
hearing about best practices and lessons learned from others using the product
since starting its use, and how much staff time. If the survey function was going
to be used, Councilmember Laliberte advised that she would want to ensure that
there was only one vote per IP address or that you could only weigh in once and
therefore not succumb to the 80/20 rule that could come into play and skew
Laliberte asked staff why CivicPlus did not provide a proposal.
Bowman responded that the CivicPlus module was bare bones and not standalone
like this module; and while introducing CivicPlus to the Request for
Information, they did not request additional information or to be included in
the RFP process.
Bowman advised that this module allowed the City to turn off or on which ever
function they chose on the module, opining that this provided a value aspect.
Roe noted that, given the pending issues and questions raised tonight (e.g.
moderation, staff time, research of other customer and city experiences), this
item needed to come back for further consideration and potential action.
Laliberte also asked for additional analytics from the City's website and what
residents are using, which should provide information on what residents may or
may not be interested in weighing in on.
researching other communities, Councilmember McGehee asked staff to bring back
information on external moderation options in an effort to understand the pros
and cons of whether to moderate internally or externally.
individual Councilmembers had additional items for follow-up, Mayor Roe
suggested they advise staff off line before the next presentation.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Request by the Community Development Department for Council to
Review and Comment on: Proposed Ordinance Revisions to Roseville's Rental License
Ordinance (City Code Chapter 908) and a Policy Regarding Memorandums of
Coordinator Don Munson introduced this request for revision to the ordinance,
Chapter 908 based on practical application and use in the field. Mr. Munson introduced
Dave Englund and Jan Rosemeyer in the audience who were also involved in the
rental licensing program.
9:58, McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, extending the meeting beyond the 10:00
p.m. curfew to complete discussion of this item.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, and Roe.
Munson reviewed the areas recommended for revision as detailed in the RCA.
Willmus questioned the recommended 90 day appeal period rather than a shorter
period (page 8).
Munson noted the needed time for the appeal process including staff consideration,
consultation with the City Attorney, development of an RCA for public hearing
purposes, and availability of agenda time at the next City Council meeting,
depending on their meeting schedule, allowing for more flexibility for property
Willmus noted the inclusion of the word "within," allowing for submission
before that 90 day expiration as well.
Willmus noted proposed revisions in the number of units available for
inspection and those re-inspected providing a good representation of units
overall throughout the cycle.
Etten spoke in support of staff's proposed changes after practical use.
Munson advised that staff was attempting to get the revisions implemented prior
to the next inspection cycle in May, and intended to return for action at the
City Council's February 23, 2015 meeting.
Laliberte advised that she was generally in favor of the revisions, and her
concerns with the 90 day appeal period had been addressed and including
"within" in the language; and expressed appreciation to staff for their review
of the document after determining how it worked in implementation.
McGehee thanked staff for the program, and their recommended tweaks, especially
their recommendations (page 3, line 8) regarding coordinating inspections to
avoid multiple inspections for residents.
McGehee suggested some type of incentive that could be offered to ensure
background checks could be required not only for the person on the rental lease
but as a follow-up for any and all additional people moving into a unit, that
they also be subject to the same background checks. Councilmember McGehee
opined that this could alleviate problems found in some buildings and around
the city in general; and asked that staff report back if that was a possibility.
McGehee sought further incentives to create smoke-free buildings that could
provide additional extensions for review, since fire was a big issue in many of
these buildings and would address the desire to reduce that liability.
Munson advised that he would look into those suggestions as part of staff's
Willmus referenced Attachment A (pages 2 and 3) and the inspection of units.
Munson clarified the inspection cycle, whether new or as part of the renewal
cycle, with 25% of 100% of the units initially inspected, and then 25% of those
first units re-inspected as part of the next inspection cycle; with the
inspector having a list of those previous inspected units.
Etten suggested additional language at the end of the statement to provide
greater clarity, such as "previously inspected units."
Attorney Gaughan advised that he would work with staff on wordsmithing language
before the February 23, 2015 meeting to further clarify that provision.
terms of the appeal process, Mayor Roe noted the difference in the response
from the property owner from 10 days for land use appeals to 30 days for this appeal,
and questioned the difference.
Munson responded that this language was similar to that used in the City's
Repeat Nuisance Ordinance, allowing time for a building manager to consult with
a supervisor if necessary, fund the needed improvements as applicable, and then
complete the work. Mr. Munson opined that staff found only 10 days to be to
short of a time for them to accomplish this process.
Development Director Bilotta responded to Mayor Roe's concerns, noting that
variances for land use issues were of a limited appeal nature; but with this
application potentially affecting numerous units, and whether or not covered by
code or not, staff required more time to work with the property owners, and
perhaps even perform another inspection or walk through the building with them
to address various issues.
Roe noted the need for staff to work with the City Attorney on language clarification
as noted, in addition to their other recommended changes and as discussed
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:10 p.m.