View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2016
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:20 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
advised that Councilmember Etten had previously indicated he would not be able
to attend tonight's meeting due to a work commitment.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Approve Agenda
McGehee moved, Willmus
seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.
Willmus, Laliberte 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
5. Council & City
Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
announced the availability of absentee voting at City Hall in the City Council
Chambers beginning on October 24th during normal business hours with various
extended hours closer to the General Election from 11/3 to 11/8/16
Laliberte provided a recap of the most recent Roseville Community Health
Awareness Team (CHAT) session, reported it had been well attended, with future
topics and sessions planned based on evaluation cards completed by those
attending sessions to-date to determine future topics of interest.
In her role as
part of the Ramsey County League of Local Governments (RCLLG), Councilmember
Laliberte reported that she will be attending the upcoming State of the Waters
meeting sponsored and hosted by the Ramsey Conservation District with speakers
scheduled to address heavy rainfall and available water resources and potential
McGehee reported she would also be attending that presentation and noted
another opportunity for the public to attend that same meeting on October 20.
McGehee reported on a meeting she had held earlier today with city and MnDOT
staff, at her request, to address pedestrian overpasses in Roseville. Councilmember
McGehee reviewed highlights from that discussion, including the anticipate by
Metro Transit to obtain a long-term lease at Rosedale Mall at which time they
plan to revamp the cloverleaf as part of that. Councilmember McGehee noted
there may opportunities to address other transit needs in the community since
BRT would be on both sides of that location. Councilmember McGehee advised
that MnDOT sought additional needs of Roseville, stated she was encouraged that
they appeared to be seeking a more proactive approach in working with the city
on some of those needed issues, especially as they could be incorporated with
the comprehensive plan update and with other proposed or in-process
transportation improvements in the area.
announced that he and City Manager Trudgeon would be attending the St. Paul
Area Chamber of Commerce annual political leadership luncheon, with the City of
Roseville having been nominated for awards in two categories.
Recognitions, Donations and Communications
Approve Consent Agenda
9. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
Review and Consider Adopting a City of Roseville and Economic
Development Authority Public Financing and Business Subsidy Policy
detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA), Community Development
Director Kari Collins noted action by the City Council on September 26, 2016 approving
a Public Financing and Business Subsidy Policy with minor amendment.
Subsequent to that action, Ms. Collins advised that Roseville Economic Development
Authority (REDA) Attorney Martha Ingram clarified the statutory process for
approving such subsidy policies for both the City Council and REDA bodies,
including a public hearing held with both entities prior to adoption.
Therefore, Ms. Collins advised that the policy was being presented again for
public hearing on the document.
Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 6:29 p.m. with no one
appearing for or against.
Mayor Roe noted
there had also been an opportunity provided at two previous meetings in the
past for public comment. Mayor Roe further noted previous discussions held and
revisions had been made to the document at that time.
Willmus moved, McGehee
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11369(Attachment C) entitled, "Resolution
Approving Business Subsidy Policy."
Business Items (Action Items)
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Fire Department City Code Update Presentation
Timothy O'Neill and Deputy Chief David Brosnahan were present to update the
council on revisions made to fire related city code since the last draft
presentation based on those discussions and direction from the City Council as
the Fire Department began reorganizing its Fire Prevention/Inspections Program.
advised he would highlight only those items since the last iteration for each
chapter, and as per Attachments B and C.
902 - Fire Prevention (Attachment C)
advised that many of the sections referenced in state fire code identified
single-family homes as "R-3" and advised that this was similar to City Code designations
for LDR-1 and LDR-2 districts (Attachment D).
suggested it would be helpful in the language to clarify that reference as
"Fire Code Group R-3" in accordance with how it was called out in the definition
The request was
duly noted by Chief O'Neill.
In line 131,
Councilmember Willmus stated he found identification of the B-1, B-1B, B-2, and
B-3 Districts confusing, and suggested bringing those into alignment with
existing city zoning code designations.
concurred, but suggested general categories (e.g. commercial) may cover more
things versus a reference to specific zoning.
stated he would consult with the City Planning Department and make appropriate
revisions for clarification accordingly.
referenced Item B and locations designated in "Section 1.1," seeking
clarification if that was referring to State Fire Code or a Roseville City
advised that referred to State Fire Code, and at the request of Mayor Roe,
stated that would be clarified on the next draft.
open flame fires on apartment balconies, Councilmember Willmus suggested
"multi-family" balconies be used in the language versus "apartments."
advised that State Fire Code would be Group R-2, but agreed it could be changed
to R-2 and duly noted that request.
On the heading,
Councilmember Laliberte asked if the heading (line 233) "Open Flame and Fuel
Storage Prohibited" would also be changed as well.
suggested that may be a cut and paste error from the Fire Code; with Chief
O'Neill agreeing to check and reconcile the two.
McGehee asked if someone had something burning on their balcony, what the difference
was whether or not it was UL listed or if that meant it could be hooked up
directly to the gas line, even though it still resulted in an open flame on a
balcony. Councilmember McGehee asked what the goal was, how something was
fueled or addressing any open flame.
responded that the intent was to prevent charcoal or propane type burning as
frequently seen with grills on a balcony.
McGehee asked if there was a significant difference in the type of fire with a
gas or propane grill versus something tied to a gas line coming from an
apartment as it related to causing a fire on a balcony.
responded that obviously there was no difference in the fire, but the
difference was in how they were used. Chief O'Neill noted that a propane
storage vessel would sit on the apartment balcony and/or be transported back
and forth through the apartment, prohibited by Fire Code. With this
prohibition, Chief O'Neill advised that would remove the possibility of that
transport through the building, and avoid storage of the source of flammable
liquids between uses.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Chief O'Neill advised that the "listed" meant that
electric barbeques or smokers could be plugged in and were accepted if UL listed.
Laliberte asked why day care facilities were called out in this language while
assisted living or nursing home facilities were not.
responded that those facilities were inspected by the State of Minnesota, while
day care facilities were inspected by local fire departments by trained
personnel to do those inspections.
902.07 (lines 161-163)
McGehee asked why tank farms were no longer inspected, or if some other state
or federal agency inspected them.
clarified that they were still inspected by the fire department, with staff
retaining a good relationship with those entities. Chief O'Neill advised that
annual suppression inspections of racks at those facilities were done. However,
Chief O'Neill clarified that the intent of this reading isn't that those
inspections are no longer done, only that the City Council doesn't have to
annually review those permits.
directed to refine the document again before presentation to the City Council
for their review and approval.
Review Finalist Proposals for the Comprehensive Plan Update;
Receive Presentations and Conduct Consultant Interviews (PROJ-0037)
Bryan Lloyd summarized the intent of tonight's interview by the City Council of
the two finalists' proposals for the comprehensive plan update as detailed in
the RCA, and the process to-date. In addition to this televised interview of
those two firms, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had prepared a short survey for
residents to take online on the city's web page related to the comprehensive
plan update, with links to the full proposals from both firms. After tonight's
interview, Mr. Lloyd advised that a video of this meeting would also be linked
to archives on the city website for public review and input. Mr. Lloyd advised
that paper versions could also be obtained at City Hall by contacting Community
Development Department staff.
reviewed the proposed timeline going forward, with the City Council decision scheduled
for November 7, 2016 on which firm was chosen based on the interviews. Mr.
Lloyd advised that at that time, staff would also provide the City Council with
aggregate survey results obtained from all forms of community input received up
to that time.
For the benefit
of the public, Mayor Roe noted that a paper copy of that survey was included in
meeting packet materials and identified as RCA Exhibit E; and later asked Mr.
Lloyd to briefly summarize the document. Mr. Lloyd noted that in addition to
the yes/no survey questions, there was also a text field for residents to
provide further feedback.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Lloyd advised that while not expecting a
dramatic problem with multiple responses from the same resident, staff would
still be able to identify if and when multiple responses were received by reviewing
IP addresses and call them out accordingly when aggregating surveys if problematic.
expressing appreciation for the information available online, Councilmember
McGehee noted the need to also have copies available for those without internet
access; and suggested having that contact information displayed as part of tonight's
televised presentation so they could have them mailed or otherwise accessible.
reiterated that the information would be available other than digitally for
those seeking that format.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 6:58 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:04 p.m.
Mayor Roe reviewed
the interview process; and acknowledged and thanked the Community Engagement
Commission (CEC) in preparing the checklist to evaluate their firm's community
Mayor Roe welcomed
Andrew Dresdner, spokesman for the team consisting or representatives of the Cuningham
Group, Cornejo Consulting, Tangible Consulting Services, and SEH.
Mr. Dresdner, Senior
Associate with Cuningham, introduced their team established specifically for
this Roseville comprehensive plan update proposal and their areas of expertise:
Andrew Dresdner, AICP, Cuningham Group Project Manager and Urban
Chrissy Lee, AICP, Cuningham Group Lead Planner and Urban Planner
Dan Cornejo, AICP, Project Advisor, Cornejo Consulting
Tom Leighton, AICP, Urban Planner and Implementation Specialist, Tangible
Mark Lobermeier, PE, SEH, Inc.
led discussions in reviewing the expertise of their firm, past experiences, and
components of their Roseville-specific proposal, with each member of the team
participating in that presentation based on their areas of expertise.
referenced his past work with Roseville in developing their Parks Master Plan,
using that as a point of reference.
also referenced the significant work over the years by SEH, Inc. in the
community with various projects.
Laliberte questioned how many cities the group was working with during the
comprehensive plan update timeframe, and how many others they had solicited.
advised that for the Cuningham Group and this particular team they had one
other proposal still pending.
For the benefit
of the community as well as for her personal interest and noting that Mr.
Cornejo had referenced his past work with the Roseville Park and Recreation
Department, Councilmember Laliberte asked if any other members of the team had
worked in the community.
advised that Cuningham had worked privately with several churches in the
community, and approximately 4-5 years ago, had worked directly with the city
on a Twin Lakes project.
advised that while he hadn't had an opportunity to work with Roseville yet, he
had worked with for the City of Minneapolis for 15 years, and just developed
his planning firm three years ago emphasizing feasibility and planner. Mr.
Leighton advised that he had worked with 4-5 other cities on their comprehensive
plans (e.g. Burnsville, Mendota Heights), several in the metropolitan area and
one in Valley City, ND, as well as other interesting work with other cities.
noted the long history of the SEH, Inc. firm with Roseville dating back to the
1950s. Mr. Lobermeier advised that his first project with Roseville was in
1985 in developing the city's first Water Resources Management Plan, noting he
was currently working on the update for that plan. Mr. Lobermeier further
noted their firm had been involved in lots of infrastructure projects in and
around Roseville, including Highway 36, painting of the city's water tanks.
Mr. Lobermeier stated that integration of the plan is a key role for him as
part of the team.
Mr. Cornejo noted
beyond the one project he'd been involved with in Roseville, he'd worked on
three different projects with the City of Falcon Heights as well as working on
their last comprehensive plan update. Mr. Cornejo advised that he had served
as the St. Paul Planning & Development Director in the early 1990s as well
as public and private work in other cities in Ramsey County. Mr. Cornejo
advised that he had been involved in economic development, tax base and integrating
businesses in many of those projects for core cities and inner ring suburbs.
Mr. Cornejo advised that the team had consciously selected where they wanted to
work, specifically in urbanized inner ring suburbs such as Roseville, which
they considered the best fit for their talents.
Laliberte asked for the team's justification in making the case for using
outside consultants versus an in-house staff approach as the basis for their proposal
and selection of their team members.
noted those at the table had addressed that in their comments and areas of
expertise, notably that Cuningham Group didn't have in-house expertise with
engineering, but relied on their various areas of expertise with inner ring
communities to best meet the needs of those communities throughout the comprehensive
plan update process.
concurred, noting the depth of expertise available with this team in different
areas that were beyond what was available from his firm in-house. Mr.
Leighton suggested that the City Council focus on the assembled team, not only
their strong expertise, but how well they work together to integrate those
skills in a cohesive group. Mr. Leighton stated he could say that the team
integrated well together and enjoyed working together, respecting clear lines
of authority making a clear and uncomplicated process for the community as they
had enjoyed in past projects.
clarified with Mr. Dresdner that Cuningham Group"s work in Roseville and Twin
Lakes had been on the regulating plan.
Willmus asked what the team envisioned for a starting point for the update,
from the ground up or taking existing aspects of the plan and improving on
them. Also, Councilmember Willmus asked when discussing outreach to typically
underrepresented groups, what model the team would use to engage them in the
starting point, Mr. Dresdner responded that they already understood that this
update was not intended as a complete overall; and therefore advised they would
start with the existing plan through an individual and group audit of that plan
with the City Council and staff to determine what was missing, what needed a
simple update and where there were gaps. Mr. Dresdner further advised that the
team would bring their knowledge of regional and national trends and recommend
how fill those gaps with regular or non-regular market input. Mr. Dresdner
stated that the team's first step would be for the team itself to audit the
current plan without involving staff to form their opinion of the plan going
forward, then involve staff as most frequent users of the plan as a guiding
addressed community engagement outreach, such as "meeting in a box" and
anticipated efforts to reach underrepresented groups, using broad principles
and meeting people where they are versus asking them to attend traditional
public meetings. Ms. Lee noted often there may be barriers to a public meeting,
such as transportation, culture differences or language skills that would
prevent meaningful interaction or engagement with underrepresented groups. Ms.
Lee advised that the team would build on existing engagement efforts in
Roseville (e.g. recent policing forum) using other community events and
existing groups by adding on or building a comprehensive plan component into
those events to broaden the reach of engagement without having people attend
multiple and separate meetings.
referenced a recent tool used in Apple Valley in developing their bike plan by
attending three nights at various city parks and displaying reports and other
information to interest those biking and walking, with musical events planned
later that same evening but allowing earlier interaction with display boards
and Post-It notes as hands on tools to get feedback before the scheduled
event. Mr. Cornejo also noted they had several language interpreters
available, and even if not utilized, it sent a message that efforts were being
made to communicate with and hear from the community.
referenced another technique used in St. Paul (Summit and Grand Avenues)
developing neighborhood plans by putting display boards and Post-It notes in
stores for feedback; personal on street interviews that were videotaped and
played at future meetings; and visiting local high school civics classes. Mr.
Cornejo noted the point was to go to them and personally invite their participation,
and asking those students showing interest their plans for their community
after graduation; and then asking those students to find others for
participation as well.
opined that the key was to reach out to those already involved (e.g. race
forum) and those community leaders and then branching out from there to expand
McGehee stated her appreciation for their presentation; but admitted she didn't
mind reading through a 100-page hard copy document "the current Roseville
Comprehensive Plan." While appreciating the ideas voiced in their
presentation, Councilmember McGehee stated her personal feelings that this
critical document should be familiar to everyone, including its purpose.
Councilmember McGehee noted a positive in the team's presentation from her
perspective was in agreement with her thought process and the opportunity to
update the plan and look ahead to the future to accomplish more.
McGehee stated she was very pleased with the answer to Councilmember Willmus'
question about engagement, with the Roseville community older and most
development involving redevelopment, meaning change. Councilmember McGehee
opined that she thought one failure of the existing plan was that the former
process didn't involve specific neighborhoods that could see immediate impacts
and make them part of the process and solution. Councilmember McGehee stated
her preference to hear how this team would identify areas where people will
experience change or are likely to; and then engage them to see what that change
might look like, and assist the City Council in involving those residents
noted that a comprehensive plan was typically high level and long-term and some
had difficulty understanding that, but in some cases, he noted big plans may
happen in the first five years of the ten year cycle. Mr. Dresdner recognized
that some areas of Roseville would change more than other areas; and admitted
change was hard for all regardless of their age.
As a result,
Mr. Dresdner stated his preference in showing how change will contribute to the
overall well-being of the community, and if that can be articulated to that
neighborhood, they will want to contribute to the community. Mr. Dresdner
noted the team's preference to turn language around and engage people about how
change can contribute positively, providing answers for the development community
who usually built the city whether or not those developers actually lived in
that community. By focusing on that language change, Mr. Dresdner opined that
it put people more at ease with change versus pushing them away; and allowed
them to see how they could improve their lives and get them engaged if they
have a difficulty with overall city policy issues and long-term viewpoints.
example in the City of Edina, Mr. Cornejo noted while updating their 2008
comprehensive plan, their mayor was aware of several people who had lived in
Edina for a long time, but had recently moved out. As part of the plan
process, MR. Cornejo advised that those former residents were invited back to tell
why they had moved away from Edina. Mr. Cornejo advised that this allowed the
city to know why they lost those residents and what the city needed to do to
change and entice people to stay, or choices they had made that were not productive.
Mr. Cornejo noted this opened people's minds up to future needs and who the
community wanted to cater to in the next 10-year period. Mr. Cornejo opined
that not only current, but former residents were an untapped resource.
those ideas for engagement intriguing, Councilmember McGehee asked how the city
could get the community to buy in and feel those ideas originated from
residents and their individual neighborhoods as part of those engagement
opportunities and tools.
Ms. Lee noted
in their proposal they briefly touched on introducing a totally different voice
in the comprehensive plan. Ms. Lee opined that there was already a lot of great
policy language that may carry forward in the next iteration, but suggested
more plain spoken language was important through introducing a community
voice. Ms. Lee stated that part of that more user-friendly language would come
from collecting first hand comments from the public that might make their way
into the actual plan document, making it their plan, not that of this firm's
plan for Roseville.
Building on the
getting started process and then further along the pathway, Mayor Roe noted the
City Council's decision for an update versus starting over. As part of that
update, Mayor Roe noted the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process
done in 2005, and asked the firm's plan acknowledge, update and incorporate
that rather large and not user-friendly document into the comprehensive plan
update. Mayor Roe asked how their team would determine if that vision was
still relevant today going into 2040 and how their process might engage with
the community to make that determination.
sated that, prior to doing that, it would be necessary to develop a community
engagement plan as part of that analysis. Mr. Dresdner stated he could imagine
part of the response would be an understanding of who wasn't part of crafting
that vision and then reaching out to that populations, whether online or in
person distribution. Mr. Dresdner suggested that could include a kick-off
event for the plan update as well as integrating the process into other events
and activities the city already has going on versus having one full meeting.
Mr. Dresdner noted this could involve a postcard distributed at different
meetings already scheduled. Mr. Dresdner opined that should be part of the
community engagement process already going on as part of earlier tasks and
multi-channel efforts involving online, print and in person strategies.
Mayor Roe noted
that, along the way, his take away from the last plan update process was that
the process itself was disjointed with the public hearings at the Planning
Commission, then the City Council, with no real sense of the bigger picture and
routine updates for each body, perhaps through checking off those milestones
throughout the process.
noted the team had anticipated those check ins as noted in their proposal,
right now estimated at four during the process.
Mayor Roe opined
the more, even if brief, the better' along the way
Planning Commission serving as the statutory planning entity for the City
Council, Mayor Roe asked how the team anticipated incorporating them into this
responded that it would be accomplished through regular checks in of the
steering committee, consisting primarily of staff, and maybe incorporating members
of the Commission into that group making it an internal and semi-public group
with more technical knowledge of what a comprehensive plan is and what all goes
into it. Ms. Lee stated that she anticipated regular communication with them
and more check ins with the Commission than with the City Council and/or
advisory commissions to ensure they remain tied in directly to the process.
As a parting
thought, Mr. Cornejo noted everyone in the region is doing their plan updates,
as well as other things. Mr. Cornejo referenced a brochure from MSP and their
recent summit, noting that while all cities in the region are competing against
each other, the region was competing against other metropolitan cities in and
out of state. Therefore, Mr. Cornejo advised that the team would do their best
to keep the City of Roseville aware of that larger regional picture to ensure
Roseville was marketed to that regional audience.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 7:58 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:03 p.m.
Mayor Roe welcomed
Ms. Erin Purdu, spokeswoman for the team consisting or representatives of WSB
Associates, Inc. and LHB Corporation (LHB) Team
As the proposed
Project Manager, Ms. Purdu advised she would serve as the primary source of
contact, but all on the team would be working together on collaboration to
accomplish the goals for a comprehensive plan that worked for the City of
Roseville. Ms. Erin Purdu introduced the rest of the team and their areas of
Erin Purdu, AICP, GISP, Project Manager with WSB
Jim Gromberg, Economic Development Specialist with WSB
Lydia Major, PLA, LEED AP with LHB Architectural
Ms. Purdu led
discussions in reviewing the expertise of their firm, past experiences and
components of their Roseville-specific proposal, with each member of the team
participating in that presentation based on their areas of expertise. MS.
Purdu noted this was a unique team concept developed for Roseville with considerable
expertise with inner ring cities in addition to Mr. Gromberg's expertise in the
economic development field, making them a good fit for Roseville.
Ms. Purdu reviewed
highlights of their presentation, including community engagement; housing;
economic development; and developing a plan update that was visionary,
implementable, and realistic incorporating things they believed were of
importance to the community.
As a landscape
architect over the years, Ms. Major stated her specialty was with community
engagement, and referenced her involvement with the Roseville Parks &
Recreation Master Plan process where she'd learned those engagement tool from
that great experience. Ms. Major opined that community engagement was more
about attitude in an authentic and real way to engage people. Ms. Major opined
that community engagement should be "fun" and not considered painful to imagine
the future of one's community, but if it was a fun process for their firm and
the city and its residents, it made the end product that much better (e.g. meeting
in a box tool); with relationship build during the process lasting and people
involved owning those decisions that served to continue building momentum.
While a comprehensive plan might be nice, Ms. Major opined that vision should
come to life in a community.
addressed the housing element of their proposal that looked at the changing
people and fabric of the community and Roseville demographics.
addressed economic development components of the plan update, including how and
when they worked, based on the four pillars of economic development: infrastructure,
workforce, finance and governance.
Ms. Purdu noted
the importance of implementable and realistic measureables of a plan, and the
unique aspect of WSB in providing funding analyses for those implementation
Ms. Major noted the need for the plan to allow decision-makers and staff to carry
those strategies forward to make good decisions later rather than the plan
carrying forward some aura of mystique that it was guaranteed to answer every
question for the next ten years.
As a starting
point for the update process, Councilmember Willmus asked where their team saw
the existing plan entering in.
responded that she had reviewed the existing plan, opining that it pointed the
city in a very good direction as a starting point, and didn't suggest tossing
it out, since it provided good goals and objectives (e.g. redevelopment of Twin
Lakes area). Ms. Purdu noted the document provided a lot of focus that would
inform how those strategies ended up working, with the overall goals pointing
in the right direction with a few updates needed. As part of her conversation
starters in working with other communities, Ms. Purdu advised that she
typically provided homework assignments for the Planning Commission and City
Council taking the basic goals and objectives for review if they're still
relevant, if they've already been accomplished, or if they need revising.
engagement outside Roseville and beyond the Park Master Plan efforts,
Councilmember Willmus asked the team about their experience in other
communities and their logistic approach to drill down more on groups not typically
clarified that there was no magic bullet, with many residents who didn't understand
bureaucracies, with wariness culturally, or other barrier that didn't provide
an off-the-shelf solution that proved useful. Again, Ms. Major opined that
what worked best when dealing in relationships was to start with things already
happening. In Roseville for instance, Ms. Major referenced the work by the
City's Human Rights Commission with the Karen community, and the first step to
seek their input on what worked well and then building on that. Ms. Major
noted in the past, they've found it helpful to orient exercises with schools
and minors - but recognizing the sensitivity of reaching into that area - and
use those existing areas to feed the plan in a meaningful way to shape populations
going forward. Ms. Major opined that the goal is to use build on those relationships
and customize them to ensure they don't end after the plan update process, but
that they continue.
To build on
that, Ms. Purdu provided some examples of things she'd used successfully in
other areas, including Early Education classes, neighborhood walking tours
allowing those in an immediate area to point out positives and negatives in
their neighborhood and build interaction on their turf, and allow them to give
their input. Ms. Purdu reiterated that the goal was to make it easy for
Roseville residents, not necessarily their firm.
Laliberte asked if the team would use in-house or outside consultants for
required engineering work as part of the plan update.
clarified that in-house staff would be used for expertise between the firms of
WSB and LBH (e.g. transportation analyses) for engineering needs with that cost
included in their proposal.
their proposal, Councilmember McGehee asked how their firm had elected to
divide the focus into the four specific areas identified in the slide presentation
(issues map) and how they arrived at those areas.
advised that they had started with discussions with Ms. Major based on her past
work in Roseville as she pointed out areas she was aware of; and then
referencing the existing comprehensive plan for ideas, particularly the Twin
Lakes Redevelopment Area that was well-known, even though it represented a
challenging but successful model. Ms. Purdu noted that not all challenges are
problems, but sometimes examples of good things happening (e.g. Rosedale Center
and Har Mar Mall).
As part of the
process in looking at areas of interest, whether good or bad, Mr. Gromberg
addressed opportunities and challenges, opining they could have picked out ten
other sites in the city as well. However, he identified these selected areas
in the presentation as areas that resonated with the community and the
uniqueness of each of those areas that provided opportunities, especially on
the economic development side based on his perspective.
Mayor Roe noted
the team's reference to homework assignments, opining that the City Council
considered those exercises positive experiences, and stated that neither he nor
his colleagues were averse to them. Beyond existing goals and policies, Mayor
Roe sought to better understand how the team would address the overarching
document from 2025 entitled the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning
process, asking how they would provide a check in to determine if that vision
was still relevant with the community.
Ms. Major noted
that the document had been key in providing a community vision for the Parks
& Recreation Master Plan process, providing a clear touch point to
continually return to whenever another Master Plan step was taken. Ms. Major
opined that a balancing act was required between building on what people did before
so they don't become frustrated with you and the process, while providing space
for new ideas. When facilitating meetings like that, Ms. Major advised that
she included confirmation or a check in exercise and space for new ideas to allow
that balance to happen. No matter what tool was ultimately used as a starting
point, Ms. Major opined that the important thing was how you asked the questions,
allowing both support of the past and open-ended enough to allow new ideas.
suggested the community visioning might be a good starting point on the website
project to ask those key questions, such as:
Do you want to live here?
Do you want to stay here?
What would make you stay here?
opined that this offered some ideas for respondents with guiding principles
rather than starting with a blank statement, and allowed quick touch points or
interactive activity with people for outreach at events and other areas
providing that interaction. Ms. Purdu noted it also provided a way to
determine common threads creating a good basis in a future vision or new
aspects to the existing vision.
Ms. Major noted
it was intentional with their team to not sweep in and provide answers to
questions. Ms. Major opined that city staff, the City Council and the community's
residents and business owners are the experts on Roseville and understand it
best. Therefore, if their team presumed to ask those questions in advance, it
would not be as meaningful or positive as building on the knowledge already in
place in Roseville.
emphasized the response to his question to address goals and documents in the
existing plan that area based on Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning,
that may need to be removed if no longer relevant and so indicated.
Mayor Roe asked,
as the Planning Commission's role is statutory in nature, how did the team
intend to fit them into the process; and how they saw them working with their
team throughout the process.
advised that their intent was to work closely with the Commission as guided by
staff, with several meetings and check points with them programmed into their
proposal. However, Ms. Purdu stated the team welcomed the Commission's input
at any stage, and the process would work best in organization with them, particularly
for specific topics. Ms. Purdu advised that it wasn't typical for their team
to draft a particular element of the plan update for the Commission's review
and editing, opining that wasn't a good use of anyone's time. Therefore, Ms.
Purdu noted their team's heavy reliance on homework and specific questions for
the Commission to get them thinking about before meeting with the team in
addition to the regular businesses before them. Ms. Purdu advised that their
team would rely on staff to program additional meetings as needed with the
Commission, recognizing that the Commission would continue to serve in their
role to the City Council throughout that process. Ms. Purdu advised that the
team would like to invite representatives from other boards and advisory
commissions as appropriate either through engaging them at their regularly
scheduled meetings, or by inviting them to a joint meeting.
the Rice Creek Commons development and working cooperatively with the City of
Arden Hills, Councilmember Laliberte asked what the team saw as Roseville's
responsibility in updating its plan as other cities were doing; asking that
expand on their thoughts about that Rice Creek Commons development shared with
Ramsey County and two other communities.
considering economic development, Mr. Gromberg responded that it was necessary
to consider the region, not just one jurisdiction, but to identify what else
affected Roseville. Mr. Gromberg opined that the Rice Creek Commons development
would have a significant impact on Roseville and the area and require future
decision-making to take that into consideration. Ultimately, Mr. Gromberg
opined that forethought and regional perspective would make for a better comprehensive
plan, and rather than multi-jurisdictional competition adversely affecting all,
it could prove a win-win for all. However, Mr. Gromberg noted that would
require conversations to develop those relationships; but reiterated that
economic development was all about relationships.
Ms. Purdu noted
this economic development strategy was a unique part of their proposal, but was
optional for the City Council's consideration as their new REDA moved forward.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:46 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:48 p.m.
For the benefit
of the public, Mayor Roe reiterated that staff would be providing the City
Council with copies of tonight's presentations, and that they would also be
available on the city's website or in person to the public to encourage their
feedback as the City Council evaluates the two firms.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
requested that the body camera public hearing presentation include price
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
McGehee seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:52 p.m.