City Council

City 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.

 

Mayor Roe 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.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte and Roe

Nays: None.

 

4.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak

 

5.         Council & City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe 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

 

Councilmember 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 solutions.

 

Councilmember McGehee reported she would also be attending that presentation and noted another opportunity for the public to attend that same meeting on October 20.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Mayor Roe 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.

 

6.            Recognitions, Donations and Communications

 

7.            Approve Minutes

 

8.            Approve Consent Agenda

 

9.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

10.        General Ordinances for Adoption

 

11.        Presentations

 

12.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration

 

a.            Review and Consider Adopting a City of Roseville and Economic Development Authority Public Financing and Business Subsidy Policy

As 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.

 

Mayor 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."

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte and Roe

Nays: None.

 

13.        Budget Items

 

14.        Business Items (Action Items)

 

15.        Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

 

a.            Fire Department City Code Update Presentation

Fire Chief 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.

 

Chief O'Neill advised he would highlight only those items since the last iteration for each chapter, and as per Attachments B and C. 

 

Chapter 902 - Fire Prevention (Attachment C)

Section 902.03

Mr. O'Neill 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).

 

Mayor Roe 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 section.

 

The request was duly noted by Chief O'Neill.

 

Section 902.07

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.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, but suggested general categories (e.g. commercial) may cover more things versus a reference to specific zoning.

Chief O'Neill stated he would consult with the City Planning Department and make appropriate revisions for clarification accordingly.

 

Section 902.08

Mayor Roe referenced Item B and locations designated in "Section 1.1," seeking clarification if that was referring to State Fire Code or a Roseville City Code.

 

Chief O'Neill advised that referred to State Fire Code, and at the request of Mayor Roe, stated that would be clarified on the next draft.

 

Specific to open flame fires on apartment balconies, Councilmember Willmus suggested "multi-family" balconies be used in the language versus "apartments."

 

Chief O'Neill 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.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that may be a cut and paste error from the Fire Code; with Chief O'Neill agreeing to check and reconcile the two.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Chief O'Neill responded that the intent was to prevent charcoal or propane type burning as frequently seen with grills on a balcony.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Chief O'Neill 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.

 

Section 901.12

Councilmember Laliberte asked why day care facilities were called out in this language while assisted living or nursing home facilities were not.

 

Chief O'Neill 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.

 

Section 902.07 (lines 161-163)

Councilmember McGehee asked why tank farms were no longer inspected, or if some other state or federal agency inspected them.

 

Chief O'Neill 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.

 

Staff was directed to refine the document again before presentation to the City Council for their review and approval.

 

b.            Review Finalist Proposals for the Comprehensive Plan Update; Receive Presentations and Conduct Consultant Interviews (PROJ-0037)

Senior Planner 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.

 

Mr. Lloyd 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.

 

While 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.

 

Mr. Lloyd reiterated that the information would be available other than digitally for those seeking that format.

Recess

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 engagement strategies.

 

Mayor Roe welcomed Andrew Dresdner, spokesman for the team consisting or representatives of the Cuningham Group, Cornejo Consulting, Tangible Consulting Services, and SEH.

 

Cuningham Group

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 Designer

·         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 Consulting

·         Mark Lobermeier, PE, SEH, Inc.

 

Proposal

Mr. Dresdner 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. 

 

Mr. Cornejo referenced his past work with Roseville in developing their Parks Master Plan, using that as a point of reference.

 

Mr. Dresdner also referenced the significant work over the years by SEH, Inc. in the community with various projects.

 

Council Questions

Councilmember Laliberte questioned how many cities the group was working with during the comprehensive plan update timeframe, and how many others they had solicited.

 

Mr. Dresdner 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.

 

Mr. Dresdner 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.

 

Mr. Leighton 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.

 

Mark Lobermeier 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.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Mr. Dresdner 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.

 

Mr. Leighton 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.

 

Councilmember Willmus clarified with Mr. Dresdner that Cuningham Group"s work in Roseville and Twin Lakes had been on the regulating plan.

 

Councilmember 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 process.

 

Regarding a 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 document.

 

Ms. Lee 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.

 

Mr. Cornejo 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.

 

Mr. Cornejo 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.

 

Mr. Cornejo 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 the engagement.

 

Councilmember 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. 

 

Councilmember 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 accordingly.

 

Mr. Dresdner 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.

 

Using another 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.

 

While finding 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.

 

Mr. Dresdner 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. 

 

Mr. Dresdner 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

 

With the Planning Commission serving as the statutory planning entity for the City Council, Mayor Roe asked how the team anticipated incorporating them into this process.

 

Ms. Lee 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.

Recess

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 Engineering.

 

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 expertise:

·         Erin Purdu, AICP, GISP, Project Manager with WSB

·         Jim Gromberg, Economic Development Specialist with WSB

·         Lydia Major, PLA, LEED AP with LHB Architectural

 

Proposal

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.

 

Ms. Purdu addressed the housing element of their proposal that looked at the changing people and fabric of the community and Roseville demographics.

 

Mr. Gromberg 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 strategies.

 

In conclusion, 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.

 

Council Questions

As a starting point for the update process, Councilmember Willmus asked where their team saw the existing plan entering in.

 

Ms. Purdu 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.

 

In community 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 involved.

 

Ms. Major 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.

 

Councilmember Laliberte asked if the team would use in-house or outside consultants for required engineering work as part of the plan update.

 

Ms. Purdu 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.

 

In reading 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. 

 

Ms. Purdu 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.

 

Ms. Purdu 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?

Ms. Purdu 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.

 

Mayor Roe 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.

 

Ms. Purdu 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.

 

In referencing 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.

 

When 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.

Recess

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.

 

16.                        City Manager Future Agenda Review

Councilmember McGehee requested that the body camera public hearing presentation include price information.

 

17.        Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

 

18.        Adjourn

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:52 p.m.

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte and Roe

Nays: None.