e e seconds microphone right live everybody call to order the Roseville housing and excuse me the Roseville Economic Development Authority wow that was a trip back that was for Monday January 13th 2025 uh Mr executive director would you call the role please member graph here member schroer here member Bower here member St here president R here uh and with us at the D we have our City attorney Rachel tney who will be uh hopefully not called on to do much HRA or excuse me Eda attorney work that's my second time saying uh and uh our city manager Pat trean who's also the executive director of The Economic Development Authority um would note for folks in the audience if you have a cell phone we want to make sure we silence it so that it doesn't disrupt the meeting uh and also um know no loud Outburst as Vikings score touchdowns or make great plays or anything like that during the game this evening uh we'd appreciate that um with that uh we'll ask folks to stand if you're able for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all next our agenda this evening is approval of tonight's agenda we just have three business items on The Economic Development Authority agenda this evening uh presuming there's no changes from a staff perspective this evening there is not presuming there's no changes from a board perspective this evening to tonight's Eda agenda all right with that then is there a motion to approve the Eda agenda as presented so moved second by member shter second by member stra to approve tonight's agenda as presented any discussion on that motion uh hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously we have our agenda for this evening uh next on the agenda then uh we will actually foro general public comment to the council meeting uh so stay tuned if you're here for that um uh and we'll proceed right into our business items as is usually the practice with our Economic Development Authority uh this evening our first business item is the uh the uh very uh glamorous role of uh electing our officers uh for the next year for the Eda alter over to miss Kelsey our housing and econ economic development program manager to bring this item to the board uh thank you president row and board members um your annual election of officers is required for your bylaws um two positions that do not get elected are your secretary which is automatically held then by the executive director as well as the assistant treasure which is held by the city's Finance director um that is written in your by so tonight you will consider three um uh individuals for president vice president and treasure thank you Miss Kelsey uh and uh just by way of a little bit of History uh for newer members the tradition on the Eda although I don't believe it's written into any rules or regulations or bylaws is for the uh president role to be uh handled by the mayor and typically the vice president role to be the the acting mayor as appointed by the city Council um obviously that's not absolutely required so we can we can make a change and then the treasurer is one of the other members uh what is the desire on the part of the board in terms of these positions member shorter I would um move that we um elect the mayor and as you know the acting mayor um as President and Vice President all right is there a second to that motion second all right uh member Scher moved and member Bower seconded to elect uh the mayor as the president and the acting mayor as the vice president that would be myself as president and council member gra is our acting mayor for this year so that would be vice president uh discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion any discussion makes sense all right short we any other discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I oppose that passes unanimously that motion is approved uh is there a motion with respect to the uh Treasurer position or a volunteer I'm happy in if no one else is interested do we have a motion I move that Robins rot be treasure right is there a second to that motion second second by m to appoint uh as our Treasurer again 2025 uh discussion well and first of all you said you're willing so that's we' got that base covered uh any discussion on the motion as the maker member grath she did an exceptional job last year so I think she should continue finances are in good order finances are in good order as the second remember B no I will Deo that all right any other discussion on the motion all right hearing none all those in favor of uh approving U member Sher as schroer as the um uh treasur signify by saying I post did you get unanimously I guess it was assumed he looked at me and I didn't say no so I asked if he was actually said he was Will to be Vice oh yeah I didn't hear any objections too late now the machine has moved forward suppose technically under our rules if there was a motion to reconsider since we all voted in favor of that's possible but I don't think we need to go there no all right that brings us to probably the highlight of the economic de develop Vel M Authority portion of our meeting this evening uh and that is our sustainable Steward Awards this is I believe the second year that we've been doing it in this format and so we uh third year wow my goodness how time flies second all right let's stick with the second then all right with that I will turn it over once again to miss Kelsey and Miss bachan uh to make introductions and talk about the uh Awards and who is our who are our winners this year great I'm just going to quickly highlight the program and then turn it over to Noel so that she can highlight um the winners and by the way very impressive that we had 24 applicants this year which is the most that we've ever had this program by the way was um originally um done by the HRA back in around I want to say about 2011 the program wasn't widely um being utilized we had a few applicants at the on early onset and then it kind of just laid um dormant um once we had Noel as a full-time employee here at the City of Roseville we were able to work together in 2022 to revise the um the application which we brought forward to the board for your your review um we have now awarded as of last year 2023 um and then this year of 2024 it was very hard this year for us to narrow it down but I got to tell you um there was some Wows in the application and one of them is tonight one of those um winners but um the one thing that we we do want to note is with sustainability there's always finessing that you have to do or look at the application and so Noel and I are going to be doing that this year most likely bringing it Forward just for you as a update of some of the things that we're incorporating to make sure that we're also giving that opportunity for some other improvements that people are um doing as recognized in today's um world but I'll turn it over to Noelle so that she can review some of those winners for you sure as mentioned we had many very impressive applicants this year we really I told one applicant that we had to really split hairs this year to choose our winners um so it was tough competition um but our our Bronze Award winner I'll start with bronze we'll move up to Gold uh Christina kPa is our bronze winner and we were impressed she did a lot of work this year she had a home energy Squad visit in 2024 she installed solar energy panels on her roof this year as well um she' also previously in the last couple years installed a programmable thermostat in an air source heat pump she had done some work on her garage which involved reclaim materials and then she also really notably she did a lot of community outreach work as well so she worked with creating grain Gardens at Lexington Park as well as serving on the menot Metro sustainability committee and she also volunteered with Habitat for Humanity in 2023 so we were really impressed by her work in the community so Christina I don't know if you're here so Dan would you like to sure and then Ian we're gonna do a quick photo too as well so I would behind Okay thank you for all the work you've done on sustainability in the community and your property congratulations on your Bronze award I think we want to get a picture here if that's all right thank you [Applause] and we should have certificates too did we have a certificate s is that in the Signature Pack it is signature P that's fine we'll make sure and get that taken care of um our silver Award winners were not able to be here tonight they had concert tickets so we very much appreciate the last minute um we weren't able to get them to come last minute but Carol and Tim wall were our silver Award winners um they've done quite a bit at their home um notably this year they did a home energy Squad visit and followed up with an insulation project as well as replacing their um their air conditioner with an air source heat pump um they had done a lot of previous work as well including Community work they adopted a couple of stor Rams near their house and also say they said they take care of others that they see as necessary when they come up um they recycle organic waste and food scraps at home and really notably they also bring their own reusable containers when they go get takeout which is an issue that's close to my heart after working on green too uh they got some electric lawn care equipment this past year and also are working on some native plantings so congratulations Carol and Tim and then finally our gold winners um are Ann frenchic and Ted Thompson um an and Ted had a really impressive application and it was so impressive that we actually included all their act actions in the packet um it was about six or seven pages worth of work that they've done not only this year but in the past few years as well so they've adopted storm drains they've done insulation they have installed efficient appliances um they installed an air source heat pump and an efficient furnace and they also this year got rooftop solar installed but what the things that really impressed us a lot were they they've done a lot of really good work with reuse as well in their yards so they've done a ton of repurposing materials for their deck for landscaping lots of minator plantings and all sorts of things um so they really kind of embodied what we saw as this award really blew us away when we saw their application and it was an easy choice so we're very excited to award an and Ted our um the Gold Award tonight so i' like to come up and yeah do it right for the picture the the money part the certificate part and I wanted to thank you again for all the work that you've done in your own property and in the community to help sustainability and can picture with the uh certificate excited about this well I'm glad to hear it this is like a kid all right and there's there's no pressure at all but you know you're the incumbent for next year so okay [Applause] we're not quite as polished as the Oscar awards show we didn't frame them because we wanted to get signatures first before putting them in the frames so yeah it was a very exciting Year we're very proud of all of our residents in Roseville and we included a list of everyone who applied just because in the packet cuz we were so impressed with all the work that everyone has done and I'm always just blown away by this the dedication to sustainability we have in the city so it's really great to see and I think this program continues to to grow in interest and and I think we just continue to have people innovating in how they are addressing these issues in the community and so we're really excited to see that and it's good to know that there's tough competition each year to to uh to win the top Awards but I think that that once again the the competition just makes us all better and our lives better in the community so appreciate it on everybody's behalf thank you back all right next on our agenda uh business items our final business item this evening is to receive a presentation on preliminary Market study data from stantech on our uh housing study to use shorthand language to introduce what it is uh once again I'll turn it over to miss Kelsey our housing and economic program manager to introduce uh the consultant as well as the presentation this evening yes thank you um president row and board members um it tonight I'm going to turn it all over to Tom lighton and he can introduce his staff member as well that is here um as you'll see we're not going to cover the whole presentation that was in your packet um and the reason being is time um the previous um presentation unfortunately because Tom's illness fell um we had to cancel the last meeting of the Eda um but we had that information in your packet again you can certainly ask any questions of Tom um and but I'm going to have him highlight some of the things he wants to cover with you tonight as well as get your feedback and any other questions you may have so I'll turn it over to Tom and his staff member welcome hello happy to be here with you again and I'm sorry I missed the previous meeting I was really spiking a fever right at the time of the I was like I should not go to this so I think you made the right call yeah but I know I may have inconvenienced you so I am sorry about that um so Tom Leighton worked for Stant my colleague zoai Works uh on my team at Stan uh stantech um she's responsible for a lot of the analysis in this presentation um I want to get clear on um the the timeline here because I can be as abbreviated as I need to or I can dig into some things so when would you how would you like me to Target should I this a half hour conversation we have allocated one hour for the this agenda item okay so you if you use uh you know 55 minutes we've got five minutes for discussion let's put it that way and and I I welcome you to interrupt as we go along so if you'll remember from when we outlined this work um I think it's really beneficial for policy makers to have an opportunity to to um sort of digest uh and work with uh the research when a research phase is done so the research includes your housing inventory it includes some things about the the market dynamics around housing here um it includes the demographics and the uh employment um context that has a lot to do with what you know who are the people that live here who are the people who who have needs here um there's some objective analysis here um that try to quantify and some ways needs according to certain categories and I I think it's all it's all um thought-provoking and establish as a baseline for for us to get clear on you know some of the main types of households and individuals um who have needs in Roseville some of the the um the types of housing the physical structures that may have needs and it really sets up in next conversation which is about what is a menu of potential strategies that can be considered to address some of the needs that we've identified so that's this is the conversation about the research what does it say about roseville's housing context and the next conversation which maybe in four or five weeks because we've already started moving down that path now the next conversation will be about how do you respond to these possible interventions or strategies or policy changes that are could plausibly be taken up to address some of these needs so that's sort of the long introduction to what we're doing tonight does that make sense all right I'm G to see if I can put this more in a presentation mode there we go check it out okay so in terms of context setting here we are looking at the City of Roseville um one of the things we like to do early on is understand the physical context and particular the what are your assets and sometimes there are cha physical challenges or locational challenges that sort of Define the desirability of a community and Roseville is rich in amenities and assets that um are are attractive to folks that want to live somewhere and you know with the the retail districts with the parks with the lakes also with nearby employment and I think a couple other fundamental locational aspects are your proximity to both downtowns um often times that's an employment destination the proximity the convenience in the whole to for getting on the whole Regional Transportation Network um you're also surrounded by stable residential settings in the other Suburban communities and in fact in the part of St Paul you're adjacent to so so I see Roseville as having these durable locational strengths that are going to continue I think you have as as sound and durable uh locational strengths as any place in in the region that it seems highly unlikely that at some point in time these strengths will not be sufficient to maintain a stable community that puts you in a very strong place in terms of um being continu to be a attractive to to Residents to new development but also to be able to incorporate development that meets needs of populations that need affordable housing or or um or of different kinds without you know I don't think a you know a deep concern that that is going to be a Tipping Point for Community declaim because of your underlying strength so I wanted to spent a little time just talking about how I see it I don't I don't know if you share that view but I but it seems like it has that very strong Foundation from a locational sense um in this study we did choose a small set of comparison communities uh this is primarily for when we're looking at demographic and and economic data if we say you have a certain percentage of families with children and you have no point of reference for that that doesn't mean a lot so we picked some comparison communities and these were some communities that we determined with your with your staff as well as comp being able to compare uh Roseville to the Twin States metropolitan area as a whole uh in a lot of these exhibits we start with um the underlying economy and you're probably familiar with this but you have over twice as many people coming into Roseville to work as you have Roseville residents who are leaving Roseville to go to jobs elsewhere that's a that's a very strong um employment base skip a couple slides here go to this one if you look at the I don't know if it's big enough for you to see it well but looks like some of you have it in front of you as well um we look at the different industry categories that make up your economy um and the one I'm going to draw your attention to is the one at the bottom because when you're so job Rich to compare your percentage of jobs to the Metropolitan percentage tells you less than the than the number of jobs you have per thousand residents because um that is a better measure of the job density in these industry categories so you you essentially have I'm GNA see if I can turn on pen um you essentially have three major industry categories here you have a healthc care and social assistance category that's very strong I think this is a little bit dispersed I think a lot of these staff are supporting some of your senior housing and Care Facilities um so they may also not be the higher paid um medical jobs that sometimes the the healthcare industry has um you have obviously a very strong retail trade and food service base in your you know your strong destination retail districts um and then you have a number of categories that are likely situated I'm not very good at drawing circles here or even rectangles that are situated in your um industrial districts but but a you know a really good number of of B you know strong businesses there and those tend to be uh workingclass jobs at pay better than average um so you have some categories that probably pay lower than average some categories that probably pay better than average some of these are professional scientific technical um careers which are probably well-paying careers um in terms of I'm going to move up to demographics one of the signs of your strength um as a location attractiveness as a location is that um Roseville has been seeing housing growth again over the last decade and it it tapers off a little on the population there's been population growth as well tapers off a little on the population because you've got this counter Trend in terms of household Siz is being reduced over time so um but uh household growth aligns with housing growth essentially you know what the driver is for that like if you were to put it into segments if you're on H it's a it's a it's broad demographic trends that are happening everywhere because the boomer generation is going to singles and couples without children um and as they age and another another wave is um young folks that are 20 to 35 which are often times pre-children so so given those two demographic bubbles we're at a time when household sizes have declined what your data is showing that's what's happening here in this this data for Ros does this take into consideration though the um large dump we put of new housing uh rental housing does that take into consideration any of here that's representative here not in this particular thing though right because this goes only through 22 Yeah and in fact uh when you're using ACS data the um it it isn't even as up to date as it looks because your 22 data is an average of 2018 to 2022 so really this is data that lags four years when you're using this census data we we in a lot of ways complement that with other data sources and you'll see that as we move through but ACS data is very strong consistent data set but it does lag so this is data on housing that so the data that we're using for this housing is data that is if you will pre-pandemic or like the change of housing for this for this slide it will be partly pre- pandemic yes and and you know you've had a lot of new housing built in the last four or five years so you may get someone who was surveyed in 2022 who's living in one of those new units but um you know some will be missed because of the era of this data but we do have other ways of looking at that a number of graphs now that are sort of this style and I just want to show you how they work so that we um they they look a little mystifying initially but you can see rosille is a cluster of bars at the left and then the Minneapolis St PA the next cluster of bars and then the four comparison cities and what this does is it breaks down the age of residence in age segments So within the Roseville cluster of bars the segments at the left are the younger age cohorts and the segments at the right are the older age cohorts and you have to if you squint and spend some time with it you'll notice that um the older age cohorts are 22 the oldest two 65 and up are 22% of the population of Roseville and that is um notably High compared to the comparison cities so older population on the average in Roseville as we go through the demographics also keep in mind that this correlates to your housing stock you have a high um relatively High number of older folks because you have a lot of senior housing there's 2400 senior housing units in Roseville which is 15% of your entire housing stock would you say that that's also a factor of people sort of Aging in place in their in their single family homes absolutely yep yep in both places yep in that slide will your final report also have the trend data for that to say over the past you know four years five years how that's changing key thing I'm looking for is like could data frage what demographic is moving in or moving out or like help to understand desirability amongst a certain Cort yes yes we can add on the CH we produced did it just then make it into this par so we can we can show the trend line for the different age ments um next one is household structure and the thing I would point out really aligns with the older population is the largest bars are um single people living alone those aren't all seniors uh but some of them are and and married without children um so those are very high demographics that doesn't mean you don't have uh some Married with Children you have 16% of your households are married with Children which aligns pretty closely actually if you look at the compar in communities in fredley New Brighton Richfield and St Louis Park 16% Married with Children so you're definitely continue to attract families is it married without children just how do you distinguish between those that are young 20s 30s without children versus those that are empty nest this particular uh exhibit does not distinguish between those so you're right it's probably some of both yeah given our older population I would expect that number to be high but i' be curious younger theer side of that yeah um I want to note two things on this slide first of all if you again this is for Roseville this is the a set of income bands the lower income households are on the left the highest income segments are on the right just compare that visually to the Minneapolis St Paul MS I mean obviously you have a the households that um are across the income Spectrum just broadly broadly represented across the income Spectrum it's almost identical to the uh Metropolitan statistical area as a whole in the distribution of that some of the comparison communities have are weighted towards low income lower income households St Louis Park is a little more weighted towards upper income households but uh it's striking in that in the representation you have across the incomeb bats now if you look at the uh the dynamic Trend chart at the top something else pops out and that is that Roseville aligned in terms of its median income aligned very closely with Fridley and um not sure what New Brighton is that the other one on the lower bands or maybe it's the Minneapolis St Paul MSA on the lower bands back 15 years ago and now it now it's um so aligned with some of the lower lower income communities it has moved over that period of time to being uh higher income you know you have it still have a broad representation but higher income on the average than a lot of your pure cities um you may be are the most memorable on this as far as how many units do we put into uh operation between the Edison The Oasis the harbor because those are all going to be people they're going to all be within the last two to three years that are going to reflect we may have somebody who has those numbers Edison Harbor and St Ed 6 total units okay and so it's about 650 total units amongst those including the aaso garden development on Rice Street y so you're adding some moderate income households in those no these are going to be low some lower yeah especially on the the two or at least on the uh the one side of either the Oasis or the AR whichever one it is that's right yeah affordable Senor in the one yeah but the Edison as well and the aaso gardens is is also affordable 60% so just feel like it might move our since you're saying this data lags yeah yeah so it might not be accounting for those those those populations will be in generally I think in this 40 to 60,00 ,000 um because median household income for a family of four right now in the metropolitan area is $120,000 so 40 to 60,000 is probably your could even be a little higher than that as your 50 to 60% Ami so it's it's the low to Middle bands in this income where you'd be adding households we don't know for sure how other households in other bands have changed over that time too Med grow as we've seen in the graph we have some interesting I want to jump to this one because we have some interesting data here that shows another Trend that's a little bit counterveiling to that so all of your comparison cities have had are having reduced home ownership rates but Roseville is the black line and over the last decade the story this is telling us is that there may be a number of rental PR properties that are converting you know desirable enough that they're converting back to home ownership properties I don't think we have a problem with that again though I mean if we added all those units of rental that significantly could impact the overall rate of home ownership when you look at all households um skip over that one this one just uh sort of illustrates that in terms of rent levels and in terms of home values Roseville is right in the middle of the pack in terms of the comparison cities the trends are looking very similar um aside from yeah and I'm gonna skip over this one too this is a this is a sort of a real world look at how much households are paying for their housing so a cost burdened household is a household that is spending more than 30% of their income on their housing cost so that would be rents and utilities or it would be their mortgage insurance and taxes and you can see that in Roseville Roseville has the highest percent of its V of its renter population that is paying that is severely rent burden and that means that they are paying over 50% of their income on their housing costs so between the two your rental households are paying 46 40 I should say 46% of your rental households are paying over 30% of their income on their housing cost considered to be cost burdent that's something that we break out a little bit more further in the slideshow um but it's it's a high level and it's and in some respects it's it exceeds the comparison um cities on this slide it would be interesting to see also in the raw in the data either raw also the um years of like C bur meaning that some of these as we shown in other slides and hear that mortgage is already paid for and Tak care of would be interested to see what the cost burden is of houses purchase say within the last 5 years 10 years somehow do that segment analysis because you have later on another side that is true that shows that but then I would expect what you showed to be there but we've broken out like more recent home ownership and I think part we don't break it out in that sense but I think part of um I'll go to the other Slide the other cosper slide I think part of um yeah that one this one I think part of why um there's much lower cost burden for homeowners is because many of you may have many homeowners that have paid off their mortgage already or or gotten their mortgages a long time ago so they're at no I can very much explain this I'm be curious to know what the recency because I think there is a um in a lot of the data that's presented here A Time bias right and so it would be interesting to tease that bias out and to look at that data and understand you know the those 20 to 30 to year olds that are moving into the city what their situation is yeah it's interesting to to think of the the notion of the of the cost burden too because I think we sort of traditionally have an idea that roseville's sort of rental rates aren't necessarily as high as others in the marketplace um in some senses because I know like when we when when they were building um one of the the projects recently that wasn't an affordable project but was a market rate at that time they were still asking for assistance from the city because the market rate rents necessarily wouldn't support the costs of the building um but I don't know if that you know that goes back at least a couple three four years so that might not be the case anymore but that was an interesting thing so when you compare the fact that there's a high percentage of people who are either cost burdened or severely cost burdened I wonder if that that comes from a little bit of our also our our spread of our incomes and and maybe having a a higher percent of people in those lower income categories even our rents aren't super high necessarily because of of the population that we're talking about that are in those income raes that might not drive well even if our rental rates aren't necessarily the highest around what two thoughts on that one is that um the development you have in progress right now market rate development parallel Apartments um are they receiving subsidy from the city for that that's what I thought and so that's a indicator that that market has come up and I imagine those rents are going to be $1,600 a month 2,000 a month $2,400 a month so do you take into consideration white what the um occupancy rate is in um multif family units in this situation to get a sense of how that compares in the cost yeah I'm jumping around a little bit now I hope that's okay because I I think these are good questions and we happen to be able to jump to some good information about there so we have a um this is our section on the housing stock um then we have a section on the market demand context and part of how we look at that is by looking at what's being built that tells us some about housing demand and you've got things that over the last 10 years have been built sort of ac across the across senior affordable market rate spectrums in this particular illustration we already also went a mile outside of Roseville because those are also good comps for the kinds of housing that you know would work in this market um the I'm looking for a a rent and vacancy maybe that's not in this section rent the rent and vacancy trend lines or did we lose those I don't think we have it in this package no no I didn't see that oh we lost those we had a in this market analysis section we had um metropolian rent and V vacancy rate and we had a um a Roseville rent and vacancy rate and we did what what was interesting to me is that for the um Roseville alone we looked at buildings that had been built up till 10 years ago um to look at what their occupancy was and how rents have grown for pre-existing buildings to the last 10 years not impacted by um you know to see how they performed over the last 10 years and um the vacancy rate was about 4 and a half% compared to a metropolitan vacancy rate that's over 7% right now so that's that's an indicator of demand and rents had been rising for your pre-existing apartment buildings at a faster rate than Metropol wide rents have been rising so those are both strong indicators of demand they're indicators of and so those are um that that's realtime data that's not lag data data um those are also indicators that folks who are renting in those pre-existing buildings are under some stress from those rent increases so maybe what had been thought of as naturally occurring affordable housing isn't quite that anymore yeah some senses yeah it still is it's just less yeah that's so right it's a matter of degree yeah and and we see this in the region where the natural affording housing stock uh because it's such a valuable commodity and people it's the housing people need that competition for that housing stock has been driving up prices I'm making it less afford it's a strain on households I'll go back to see where I left off housing affordability cost burden households okay but I'm jumping back just a bit to just to show you know our inventory um I like to think about when housing was built because that says something about what the needs are of that housing stock so um it this chart shows that in Roseville you know 75% of the housing was built between 1940 and 1980 so a good share of that house housing you know that housing has needed to be kept up repaired renovated or else it's not in very good shape so I'm sure you have some housing out there that you know really is passed due for that kind of improvement we looked at it geographically here so you can see the neighborhoods that belong in each of those categories would you be able to determine that level of keep by pulling permits remodels those kinds of things versus just purely on the age of the house I know if you look at Ramsey County data it will tell you you know that information of remodels not degree of accuracy I don't know but it at least give you some insight to say like here we're just assuming all us build at this time have not been upkept or not or just applying but we there's data there to tell us a little bit more right you're right and and we have sometimes looked at um housing inspection data if they've got a a good um coverage of housing inspection data we have something pulling permits or models or pulling permit you know those kind that bit of information helps understand like oh you know what percentage or degree of homes are being upkept or maintained by whether they're getting permits pulled for remod yeah for yeah improvements things like that it will tell us a little bit more of what the quality of the stock is it could sure yeah but that's not that's not in your report though that that isn't in a report and we hadn't planned to do that but that's not to say we can't we can add pieces if they feel important um this is a a little bit of an illustration of the housing mix you've got um 57% are single family homes 35% are um apartment units and 8% are town homes so there's a good amount of rental stock in there uh more than more than you see sort of in the MSA as a whole but pretty similar to these other communities that were built SAR when we think about housing types is it important just to think in these three categories or like when think about filtering right empty you know everything from first home to just married to one kid to multiple kids and that whole filtering process I know later on you talk you have a bullet point talking about filtering does it make sense to take a look at this housing type and see like oh actually we're short two-bedroom homes or we're short three yeah and understanding like because this whole transaction requires someone having a house available for sale to be purchased so they leave and this whole filtering process can occur yeah we do a little of that further on in this and that I think gets out a little bit of what you're talking about so as you know we mapped uh the affordable housing inventory here uh has a it's varied in terms of your built uh number of units some of it is um rent um subsidized in that tenants pay 30% of their income federal government makes up the rest some of it is red capped um so it's different affordability prototypes so but it's a nice mix um and have I'll lend those for you the senior housing landscape is just very abundant as I said 2400 senior housing units 15% of your whole housing stock this again has been developed over many years it covers really the bre of senior housing types and Care types um you know Assisted Living Memory Care Independent Living nursing care um some is Affordable some is market rate so just really a broad spectrum of those opportunities and yet we were talking with a developer the other day and he's considering doing a senior housing development here and I said that that's not daunting to you you don't see this as meaning that um Market is saturated and he said you know the need in the Roseville is a great place for senior housing and there's a need in the region not just Roseville so we wouldn't be looking just to Roseville residence for this we would be attracting ongoing need in the region do we have we um assessed vacancy rate of those senior units specifically I have not I mean because it would be important to differentiate as well between independent living assisted living and and uh skilled nursing I don't know if they have much in the way of skilled nursing but um there's quite a few that build themselves as Assisted Living which would have a different type of uh client but I think in the independent living um I know that anecdotally we had heard some of them had a higher vacancy rate so that does make me pause as you did as well whether or not there's a significant need for that unique type of um residents at this time we have access to um we have two tables here that that comprise our senior housing inventory we have access to Market data that will tell us vacancy rates by property it's more reliable for the newer properties but we can get some of vet pretty easily I'm looking back at Zoe to see if she's making some notes on these thank you Zoe well I think this this kind of raises a policy question too uh as a community do we want to be sort of the destination for seniors from around the region in the sense of what that does for needs for Emergency Medical Services in terms of what that does does that make our demographics even skew more older than they already do you know and and what does that mean as far as what we're looking to be as a community as we go forward so I think that gets to questions about if we start talking about tools you know where do we apply the tools and and you know and how do you prioritize exactly exactly I appreciate that comment because what we're doing here is we're observing Prim mostly without judgment you know i' had surprise to hear from a senior housing developer that they might be interested in this and had the conversation so we're collecting information when we get to our policy options you know that's when we you want to think about well based on needs but also based on all these other factors about wanting a balanced community and whatever feels relevant where do we want to prioritize our energy and our resources so they're they're slightly different conversation but they're both important I this is just a sampling right because this is not all inclusive I see it well between these two tables we think it's all inclusive of senior housing developments so we developed these through a number of research methods and then we had your very competent staff look at it as well and they plugged one or two holes um so we think this is inclusive but if there are senior housing developments that you're aware of that aren't on this list please tell us and we'll because we want it to be inclusive um so what where do I want to now I want to get into some of the um objective analysis so as we think about housing needs um there are three quantitative approaches that we took that just sort of shine a light on different aspects of what that the need might be in Roseville um the quantitative approaches aren't even the whole story in themselves we're also learning through the demographics and the understanding the stock and we have talked to we've probably talked to 12 or 15 stakeholders and developers already and get insights from that so but it but doing some quantitative work is important for you know some views into this data so this is the first piece of quantitative work we did that essentially put your household incomes in categories and put what the affordable rents would be in that those income categories in you know line them up with a category for what the affordable rents would be in that and did that for a spectrum of incomes spectrum of rents sure and the rents aligned with sorry you give context to what the color boxes mean on the side sure sure I will but let me finish the the setup here so the rents categories align with the income categories according to what rents would be affordable for those income categories so then if we look at the number of households in those income categories and the number of housing units in those rent categories we can there's a you get to look at sort of a basic alignment and so if it's if it's red it means there are fewer housing units in that rent category than there are households in that corresponding income category um if it's green it means there are more housing units in that um rent category then there are households in that income category so this gives us a this is I will say this is a very crude alignment and it understates the actual need in two ways one way is in that band of incomes people are at the top end of that or the lower end of that and in that band of rents rents are at the top end of that or the lower end of that so there are matches in there where people are still paying over over 30% of their income they're still housing cost print and the other thing is that people don't always rent the homes that are aligned in this way you might get someone who earns a healthy income who rents a home for $800 a month and then that's a home that's not available for someone who really could was lower income and really you know I like to be in that so this is a first cut at thinking about the alignment of your stock and your population but it it's an underestimate of um of that need and then this cper an is is the second objective analysis that really gives a more accurate idea of what needs in your communities are are out there how many households really are in a fragile economic State because of their housing costs again the lighter colored salmon is color means that they're cus burdened and the darker colored almost to Maroon means that they're severely cusper paying more than 50% of their incomes on house on their housing so you can see by this that you know really any households that are earning up to $75,000 a year many of them are spending more than would be ideal on their housing cost which which makes them fragile economically we also have that information for the owner occupied housing that's the lower chart and much less cost burden there but there's some cost burden there as well the third um objective analysis is starts with this slide and that is to look at a projection of your future um household growth future housing growth and this a Metropol Council projection that estimates 511 housing units in the next 10 years growth um the next thing we did is we distribute those that growth and we did that here by looking at a large sample of people in the metropolitan area who have moved in the last five years and this gets to a little of your sort of fine grain in terms of types of housing units so these five the these households that have moved in the last five years we have them organized by income level and what how many of them rented how many of them owned at those income bands uh what size of units did they rent in those income bands so this is an an estimate of sort of a distribution of demand these are people who are moving if you had all these housing types at income levels or at rent levels that and ownership levels that work for these people this is the housing stack they might want in Roseville um so it's a way of thinking about how that demand gets distributed of the 500 11 units in the lower right corner you can see almost as many of those recent movers rented as owned so that's a trend we've seen recently where more households that are moving are looking for rental prits and then you can see that there's a on the ownership side there's a great benefit for larger homes which may be harder to find in Roseville but larger homes um four plus bedroom homes on the rental side you know the the demand is for twos and three bedrooms and you know lower lower cost rental units so that's just a picture of where sort of on a metropolitan basis people what are they're looking for and how that might array in with the 51 households in Roseville once again that's the 51 that met council is projecting over the next 10 years right is likely to end up in Roseville and that can obviously be impacted by you may be able to be very assertive and attract more than that or you know maybe you don't reach that number so um this exhibit helps us to think about what kind of housing is available at different income levels because just because there's demand for things doesn't mean you can meet that Demand with brand new housing in every case sometimes certain needs have to be met with things existing housing and what are some of those housing typologies that can meet existing needs that can meet new housing needs so that sort of a little bit of a bridge to thinking about given the needs that we're discussing a little bit of a bridge to thinking about what are those the housing typologies that correspond with that that we might choose to try to Foster in one way straight perform so um we're didn't do a lot of further analysis with that but I think it's a thought piece and the last thought piece is is is this which is just a way of humanizing um who are these people who earn you know 50% of area median income 60% 80% so for these occupations at the left if there's one income earner in that occupation that's one end of the barbell and if there's two wage earners a two person household at that occupation that's the other end of the bill so you can see a retail salesperson if there a single person household is making 30% of Ami and if there's two retail salespersons they're making 60% of Ami and you can see construction laborers licensed nurses machinists Elementary School teachers many of those occupations um are earning 50% of Ami if they're single persons or if there's single-headed households so it's just a way of into account children or dependents uh no this is just the householders so if someone this just the earners so if there was two waiters or waitresses but they had four children that would keep them from being at a 60% Ami they would their earnings would still be at a 60% Ami it doesn't go by household size well when you get to qualifying by units I think you you know you know the next layer of detail on this when you get to qualifying by units and by unit size it does break down to household size you're you're right about that so this this just looks at earning what are wage earners earning and it it Compares it to that um 100% Ami level that is established for um that's based on a family of four which also is not a universal metric but but that's what it's based on so all that being said um we did a little uh summary work here and you're familiar with the SWAT analysis this ended up with the important criteria here in our minds ended up being assets challenges needs and opportunities that so fell out of this work but also fell out of all these conversations we've been having so I don't know if this should be called an acne and analysis as opposed to a SWAT analysis except there's an O at the end no can't be acne AC no this is our acno analysis but soon soon to be copyrighted or trademark soon soon to be copyrighted um these are just some takeaways that I'm going to put on the table they're not we could have put different bullet points on some of these um but I think it it's a kind of a conversation starter for you and this is where I would want to pause if we even have any time left and just say what based on this conversation what are you seeing as needs that you're tuning into here that we ought to be thinking about as We Gather strategies so for the assets I think we talked about the Strategic location in the region you know going to be a stable attractive Community for a long period of time talked about your broad diversity of existing housing types which is an asset to your whole community at every income level you have a strong organizational infrastructure and expertise already in this area that's unusual not only that but developers are saying by and large that it's an easy City to work with which isn't a really attractive thing for developers so that's an asset um you've been doing zoning code amendments you've been developing programs um all of those are assets challenge is land availability fully built suburb for the most part developers are facing challenges in this environment with Workforce costs with interest rates um homes are homeowners are facing and renters are facing challenges with home sale prices rising rent levels Rising that means also that people aren't moving as much um some of the local affordable housing organizations are facing challenges and so they're less capable partners at this moment in time that's hopefully getting worked out um in terms of your needs we see the need for affordable housing at all levels so you get to choose what feels like a niche that you know is is targeted where you want it to be targeted but that that need is across the board um M maintenance of older housing stock again we don't have all the data that says how many homes but we can presume that there are homes out there that where the homeowner could use support keeping up that um that housing unit uh support for older residents and financially precarious households you know they're out there um stronger networks and Partnerships of resources is is another need to build to keep building that those partnership networks uh and lastly outlined a few opportunities again I don't know if these are necessarily the key opportunities or if some other ones might be more important but we we're throwing out there you have a remaining opportunity to do new housing in it at and near rosale some of the other major destination districts are uh malls are doing that uh you're going to have continued opportunity to do smaller scale infill housing and to think about how to make that easier for developers to undertake uh preserving the affordability of some of the affordable apartments would be an opportunity to look at some Target addition zoning changes to ease small scale production and obviously you have this new resource that you can think about how to leverage in the in the Metropol sales tax um so that's the research update any followup from members of the board or questions uh or things we want to look for as we go to the next stages strong I just wondered um were you able to take any into consideration anything from work from home as far as visits through Roseville um jobs in Roseville versus jobs out of Roseville just kind of that postco um either fully remote or vant scenario and what the impact that might have on housing yeah I don't I don't have a good way to we could look at that some more but I don't currently have a good way to think about um how many Roseville residents are fully remote or or semi- remote certainly understand how it impacts their housing choices their desirable housing they want to they need an extra room or really attractive kitchen island you know uh to do that so but Zoe is that something that you have a sense of where there may be official data on um you know the percentage of people that are working remotely okay we have um we've done some work in um Northfield and see a lot of commuters F Twin Cities from there and have always suspected that a lot of those commuters aren't commuting to the Twin Cities from Northfield they're just doing their work at home anecdotally the traffic on Mondays and Fridays is much on 36 than it is on Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday so I would assume that work from [Music] home so lives a mile from our office and she's in on Tuesdays Wednesdays and Thursdays well I think one of the things we've noticed just specific to that on on Highway 36 Highway 36 used to be primarily a backup westbound in the morning and Eastbound in the evenings and much more recently the westbound evening traffic has has grown and has created issues you know and so you know I've even had some conversations with the people at mindat about looking at what they need to do to deal with that so they they've said they haven't got answers yet or or even whether something needs to be done at the levels we're talking about but certainly I think people in Roseville have recognized that that is that is a change from years and years and years of a pretty consistent pattern you know westbound morning eastbound evening much much more of a mix now you know which I don't know exactly what's contributing to that but obviously that's a change from what we've seen in pville remains a desirable place to live even if the commuting is less less frequent because of your proximity the proximity can still be very important to the downtowns or or labor centers it may even make uh Roseville a little more desirable in terms of congestion on the on the roads up to a point to a point have the more issues we'll have in terms of reducing the condition other thoughts or questions from members and certainly we provided some feedback over the course of the presentation as well so' made notes of that and that'll be uh you know to the extent you can incorporate that into the the next phases of things I think that's what we'd like to see great we'll look forward to talking to you next time about a range of strategies that can be considered as part of your housing policy I think that would be great I think this would be good for this presentation to end up sort of living on our Eda website somewhere um to help with uh people in the community who may want to see some of this data and and understand it as well so we kind of direct that comment to staff all right great thank you again for all the work you've been doing and look forward to those next stages yeah great right that brings us to the end of our business before The Economic Development Authority this evening uh the only other item on our agenda is a motion to adjourn the Eda meeting second by member gra second by member St uh no discussion on a motion to adjourn all those in favor signify by saying I I oppos that passes unanimously we're adjourned from the Eda and there'll be a short break to transition the room for the council meeting e e e e e e okay call to order of the rosille city council meeting for Monday January 13th 2025 will note and it is uh 7:13 p.m. uh we'll note that the uh roll call stands as called for the prior Eda meeting all members present uh once again our City attorney Rachel tney is joining us as well as our city manager Pat trudon Uh and various other folks uh staff and others will be participating and introduced uh as they come into the meeting discussion um we've done the Pledge of Allegiance as part of the Eda meeting so we'll forego repeating that um the next then would be the consideration of tonight's agenda uh and I'll check with staff once again is there any change from a staff perspective to tonight agenda no Mr Mayor there's no changes to the agenda and uh from a council perspective uh I know we've only got a couple of business items and so hopefully will'll be fairly straightforward any changes from the council perspective all right I think it would be appropriate then to entertain a motion to approve tonight's agenda move second it's been by council member shter second by council member St to approve tonight's agenda as presented uh any discussion on that motion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I un so we have our agenda for this evening uh next on our agenda uh is an opportunity for general public comment uh we will certainly provide for opportunities for uh public comment on agenda items as those items come forward uh but we do always at the start of each meeting provide an opportunity for public comment on items that are not on this evening's agenda but may be of interest to people in the community or otherwise related to City business uh once again the uh the rules of the road for come on up for for general public comment are the same as they are for uh public comment on specific agenda items we do ask folks to introduce themselves either say their street or address for the record at the beginning of their comments uh and their name uh and then also uh direct comments or questions to the council and we do have a three-minute time limit uh which I try to generously but gently enforce welcome this evening for a general comment hi Roger has Wagner please um I just happen to notice tonight that in on April 20th 1944 the State Attorney General ruled that a city could not help an American Legion build a building I don't know if that has anything to do with what you're playing with the BFW but hopefully somebody has actually looked at that and then also I like how you streamline your meetings late in the last few months and year and one thing I noticed that you don't reite your oath of office every meeting but you do do the Pledge of Allegiance myself I don't think you need to do the Pledge of Allegiance every time the beginning of the of the year and maybe when there's a flag holiday or flag remembrance thing but I don't think you need to be doing it every meeting just like you don't do your oath of office all the time and then my last thing is a question which I don't know if you can answer or not but it appears there was possibly some voter fraud during the election on for the State House of Representative and I don't know if the city has investigated that at all or if a different entity does that but someone should at least be looking at that whether it's police or City attorney or another entity so I just wondering do you know if anyone is looking into that uh I don't know of anyone that's looking into it I believe and certainly our attorney can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the jurisdiction especially in in a legislative election that's not a City municipal election uh would probably be something like uh the uh State Office of administrative hearings or somebody like that but I will defer to our attorney uh it's really about the the level of the you know the seat that is that's I was wondering if it's a different entity looks into that yeah and I think it has to be based on a complaint as well but I don't know Miss tyy if you've got additional thoughts in that regard I can say for sure my I have I do have a recollection that it is actually comes full from the Secretary of State's office okay um it may be the General my understanding is it's not the police department I can certainly look into that question I'm just curious because I don't know if it's what you know if it's a criminal crime or how how voter fraud is handled so I think I just hope somebody has actually taking a look at it I think to the extent that that there's accusations of it those accusations have to take the form of a complaint with the appropriate entity to then investigate you want a judge ruled that whatever yeah well once again I think the the ruling of a judge on a particular matter is kind of the answer on that matter uh but I think we have to kind of leave it there because we're definitely approaching liit of our expertise at this table so thank you is there anyone else here for general public comment on items that are not on tonight's agenda all right very good well thank you again for those who participated in in the general public comment and uh we'll then move into our agenda this evening uh we do have under business items our first business item is to consider approving a temporary liquor license and I'll turn over to Mr trudon for introduction of this item for the council's consideration yes thank you Mr Mayor B brelly is asking for a temporary liquor license for a winter winter luau event on January 18th as that's coming up that's why we did put it on this agenda we got the um application late but uh he's asking for a temporary liquor license and this will be their first event in 2025 um and they are allowed any applicants allowed up to 12 calendar year uh 12 per calendar year for average temporary liquor license so uh the consideration tonight is a motion to improve the temporary liquor license for Ben BR stillery for an event on January 18th thank you Mr treas are there any questions from the council for staff on this item I think you clarified once again that it is a one of 12 that they're eligible to apply for and correct and receive uh each one is considered independently uh by the council and requires Council approval uh I'll just double check is there anyone from the public here who wishes to speak as to the uh request from B Bruery for uh first of 12 possible uh temporary liquor licenses under state law uh this evening anyone from the public wish to comment on that item does not appear to be the case uh do we have a motion from the city council with respect to this request second that's a motion to approve the request all right that's moved by Council M gra second by Council M schroer we had a former council member Sher with us a few meeting a couple meetings ago so that's what's getting me discombobulated among other things all right we've got the motion once again to approve that temporary liquor license uh any discussion on the motion as the maker council member graph right council member Sher other discussion all right once again we've got the motion before us all those in favor of approving that license signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously that license is approved uh that then brings us to sort of our main event this evening uh which is to uh begin some conversations with respect to next steps uh that result from the uh request of the City of Roseville to the voters uh for the ability to put in place a uh half% sales tax uh for the um funding of a maintenance facility project uh as well as the outcome of the vote uh that the voters did not approve the sales tax for uh the associated license center ADV Dance Studio uh project as well uh and so uh to get it the process kicked off uh I'm going to momentarily turn it over to C manager trudon to begin the process but I did want to just maybe set a little bit of context which may be repetitive of what Mr tron's already going to say but um certainly this is conversation number one of many that will have to happen uh on something like this uh obviously depending to a certain degree on some of the direction we might give this evening uh uh which we don't know the answers to to that yet until we have the conversation uh but but making the temporary presumption that uh that there is something going forward from this evening uh there would be as will no doubt be outlined a number of steps in the process and so uh this is certainly not a case where the the council might take a vote this evening and all the decisions have been made for the rest of all those steps this is uh only uh I think an attempt to get some preliminary Direction and some understanding uh further uh maybe questions Council may have more information we may need uh Etc to to go through any additional steps that are warranted based on our conversation this evening uh so with that I'll turn it over to Mr trudon after having stolen some of his Thunder that's right I have a lot to say tonight so uh thank you Mr Mayor and members of the council as mentioned uh this is the first of many many conversations the council will have uh regarding uh this project and so as we've not had an opportunity to really uh have a conversation as a council and staff about the results of of the uh election in November this is the first uh time we have that ability to do that and we do want to talk about any next steps for the construction of the new maintenance Operation Center that did receive approval uh to be funded by local sales tax and also talk about the license center uh itself and what to do about that there is a lot of ground that will be covered tonight as noted in the staff report I think um what I tried to identify are the larger components and under each of those components are dozens hundreds of other decisions and and thoughts that we need to factor in uh throughout the process so as mentioned by the mayor this is not a night that we're making any uh final decisions and actually probably any really preliminary decisions we are looking for some guidance about next steps so we can bring back additional information so the council and the public can see more information about what uh we could possibly do moving forward so uh there is a lot of ground to cover but as I said we're not looking for any final decisions to be made I know uh there is going to be a lot of questions that will come up about um particulars and the thought process of how we proceed will depend a lot on that information I think uh one thing the council will see is that uh in order for us to probably get some better information we'll need to have some people uh help us do that uh whether that is the public or Consultants to help decide some some um directions and get more information so the council can be better informed to making those decisions so with that I have eight items that I kind of want to cover and this is covered in the staff report as well one is just the implication of the sales tax referendum results second is moving forward with the maintenance center operations project talk a little bit about imple implementing the local sales tax what needs to be done then we want to discuss the license and passport center kind of what's next what we want to do with that and then if we uh decide to move ahead what that funding options would look like we also want to talk about the next steps for uh getting to the final design and project management also talk about Community engagement and then there's uh some miscellaneous items that are still very significant that um we'll just touch on briefly here tonight so with that just as a reminder uh for the council and the public uh what we're talking about is a project that was um approved in 2022 as as a pre-design as a concept not as a fully uh fleshed out project where we would basically U Move the current maintenance facility which uh you can't see my mouse uh is uh kind of um where number two and three is and six and seven to across the street where number one would be the new maintenance facility uh it's on the north side of Woodhill Drive that would be uh primarily in the area of Veterans Park in the VFW and then stretch all the way over to Lexington with a yard and some storage bins and that's where the Lexington shops um buildings are right now then as a result of that um uh shift in in uh building location the VFW is proposed to be located at number two and then the license and passport center along with the dance studio um would be number three and then there' be a parking lot in the middle there to serve that then additional Green Space at six and seven uh that would um uh could be some um some small park that also just Gathering space uh for the public everything else that's labeled on there um well I shouldn't say everything else we also um identify pretty early on the need to have buffering around the project on the north side of Wood Hill so that's 9 10 and 11 talked about making some more pedestrian connections 12 and 13 and then uh eight is the city hall five is the oval uh and four is the fire station dist put um that all in perspective this is just the rendering I'm sure you've seen it many times already and how the finished product would look like at least based on the predesign so enough about that so uh as mentioned we did have um two questions in the ballot this fall November 5th one for the creation of a local sales tax to pay for the public works and Parks operations facility and another for the license and passport center question number one passed as you can see and question two did not pass so to simply stated the voters really approved just the creation of a 5% 5% local sales tax to pay for the construction of a new maintenance Operation Center but did not approve the use of the sales tax to pay for the license and passport center I want to note that the fail Val of question to does it necessarily mean that the license and passport center cannot be built or needs to be built uh just that the funding for that project could not come from sales tax as noted uh throughout the report uh the existing license and passport center located in The Lax shops will need to be relocated uh if the maintenance center project goes ahead and we still have some uh space needs in the existing facility that we do need to address at some point so the need is still there uh just the funding mechanism uh cannot be sales taxed so um probably the first um thing we should um have the council consider and I think we'll be answering these questions to the council at the end of my presentation after public comment and some Council discussion but one of the first things uh we should have the council weigh in is really uh giving those results of a split vote and giving um any other context you want to bring to the conversation does the council want to proceed in exploring and planning for uh this project primarily the maintenance and operation Center and talk through the license and passport center and see what's available you will note that um I did change my question slightly and so I appreciate the feedback uh from others and really just asking the simple question shall the city proceed with the planning and implementation of the new maintenance center previously I talked about as shown generally in the pre-design plan I think as we get into it uh the pre-design plan is what it is but there might be some additional considerations that we may want to alter or some of that site plan uh especially in location the license and passport center and maybe the VFW so it's really uh amassing the council the question do we want to move ahead and continue planning and looking into uh options for the planning and uh and of the maintenance operations center and the overall project we know there's a lot of information that needs to come and it's going to be really hard for the council to say def a yes full steam ahead until there's more uh options but I also wanted to ask the question because if the answer is no there's no interest at all in moving ahead with any part of this project uh then we can cut this presentation very short tonight and uh catch the Vikings game but um um but I anticipate that uh there's going to be a need for some additional information here but so as a baseline question I just would like to have the council weigh in and that as I said we can get to those questions U at the end of my presentation so uh want to talk a little bit about the uh mechanics of actually implementing a local Sal tax once again this will just be for the maintenance operations center we do uh need to notify the Minnesota Department of Revenue at least 90 days before we would look to start collection of the sales tax and we need to pass uh an ordinance and provide some other additional information uh down to the Department of Revenue to have that take effect it needs to be done 90 days before they would collect it they start collections on the first day of each quarter so as we sit here today for instance if we were to approve those uh documents to tonight which we don't we're not prepared to we don't have documents ready to do that uh as soon as we can start collecting local sales tax would be July 1st um 2025 if uh we are desirable to hit that date uh at some point we would need to pass the ordinance and Supply the other documentations before April 1st of this year if we go beyond that date uh then uh we would have to wait till October 1st to collect the date there's really no rush uh to start it but there's also no need to delay that as long as the council is comfortable moving ahead with some form of the project once the collection starts the clock starts ticking for the 20-year uh collection uh and if if we find that we reduce the scale of the project or maybe not go ahead with the project fully uh we would just collect what we would need to capture our cost and then the sales tax would be over but as the state law is written right now it's up to 20 years and or uh the total cost of the project we're looking into some details and what that means with the license and passport center not being in there but we'll come back to that at a later date but real simply the mechanics are just providing information having the council pass an ordinance instituting the local sales tax and I think that's fairly straightforward and that can come at any time once the council feels comfortable so one of the questions I do have is is there what information would you need to have uh in front of you or decisions made uh maybe more appropriately before you'd be comfortable in instituting that sales tax and getting that process started and if nothing else is just for scheduling purposes so we know kind of when we need to factor that in so let's talk about a little bit about the license and passport center first off um I should mention in Shand we're calling this license and passport center as shown in the pre-design plan uh the license and passport center always had uh the dance studio uh that's operated by the city as part of that I think conceptually on the second floor the first floor would be licens and passport center as you may or may not know uh we used to have um the dance studio at the Fairville Community Center uh that changed over to PKA and there's no longer space for the city so we have moved the dance studio into pretty small space all considering into one of the Bay's the lexin and shops and so that picture that you see there is um us an operation there so my understanding we have about 400 or so um students uh that's take classes there and that's used year round so when I talk about the license and passport center if I fail to mention the dance studio that part and parcel with that however if Council makes some decisions to um for instance the first couple options leasing or not going ahead we still would need to figure out some solution for locating uh the dance studio I'm not saying necessarily need to build a new facility but we need to find Space somewhere uh for them um to operate effectively so just with that caveat um I want to go over maybe four options for the city council to consider regarding the license and passport center before you go into those options is is there some aspect of of the what was the sort of the broad category license and passport center that was also some storage for City needs uh in addition to the dance studio and the license and not necessarily uh storage but office space uh thank you for bringing that up so currently our seasonal Parks folks these are the U typically college kids and younger that provide our program uh there was a need for some office space to store shirts and and other information and have meetings they used to be downstairs uh in the lower level but we had to move them up for make room for the police department so they're currently in an old office uh bay at the lexon park shop so it's not necessarily used year round but it's something that um is needed I think if we were to have a dance studio license and passport center uh as as a year on program the staff uh for the dance studio would use that and we could also use that in the seasonal so the storage we are uh hopeful that the maintenance facility would cover all their storage needs that we would have thank you for that thank you for that question so four options uh to consider and and there might be many more but here's the four that I've identified one uh is we could just close the license and passport center and that would remove the need to replace anything that's not something I recommend I believe it provides a really good service uh to not just the community but the surrounding area it does bring in revenue for the city to use towards property tax relief and I think overall it's been a very successful license and passport center we're one of the busiest ones in the state but that is an option second is uh you can look to lease a new facility elsewhere in Roseville there's lots of uh vacant storefronts that we could certainly go into in commercial areas I would remind the council that uh we originally started talking about U the need of owning it when we rented from the Lexington shops and the decision was made uh years ago to setad of paying rent that's own the facility and so when we make improvements into it we can actually see some benefit from that it's just not as intended Improvement but that's certainly an option the last two options are uh locating at uh the building on the campus uh number three is if we just kind of go along with the pre uh design study and put it as a separate building a two-story building kind of in the northeast corner of uh a vacated spot from the maintenance center the the the fourth option is really to look at located on the campus but perhaps using an existing building an existing maintenance facility I know that's been brought up a lot of times that was obviously built as a maintenance facility while there's some offices in there there would need to be some retrofits and um don't know what that cost is and how feasible it is but that's certainly a possibility I also added If We Were Somehow to keep the facility on the north side of Wood Hill um that is a possibility I think we run into some issues with that given the amount of yard space that we're trying to get and space but that's something we can look at so um what I'm looking for uh here is one of my questions and what should we pursue regarding the future of license and passport center um my um I think that perhaps the council can't maybe fully answer that but if there can eliminate some some options that would be really helpful um I think um having some additional review and study of possibilities on the City Campus might be uh the appropriate move but that's for the council to discuss but certainly any of those are on the table for the council to consider so um as mentioned the uh sales taex did not pass for the license and passport center so if we were to build the license and passport center we would need to find some funding alternative and uh as you know the estimated cost per the predesigned study was $12 million um and we'll touch on this later uh I think we really need to freshen up those numbers if you look closely at those numbers from the pre-design about half of that $6 million is contingency and soft costs and that was purposeful and that was the same with the maintenance uh facility there was a lot of um contingencies at the time we um estimated those costs were coming right off the the heart of Co construction costs were really uh crazy uh and we factored in 7% inflation rate for three years of construction as well well as added a lot of contingency because of the unknown here so um I think that number can be reduced but we really need to get a better sense of what the market is at right now so uh just so for right now the $12 million is what we'll use and maybe that will change um in the packet uh Bond Council Attorney Mary ipple did um provide three different options for the city to potentially uh borrow uh funds for that construction one would be the Port Authority General obligation bonds the port authority is special legislation that we received Port Authority Powers I should say a special legislation we received in 1987 uh the city did and this is something that we are able to put General obligation bonds which are backed by property taxes however as part of the Port Authority we do do not need to go uh for referendum um but it does use property taxes to back it up in 2011 uh the council did approve instuments of Port author bonds to fund about $27 million of Park renewal improvements throughout the U City and the new Fire Station um and that was a big uh amount and we're paying closer to two uh $2.4 million each year in debt service back by property taxes the last payment for that will be part of the 2027 budget of $2.4 million and uh that capacity so to speak is available for the count ccil uh to consider starting as part of the 2028 budget as you will see uh that timing um as we sit here today could work out uh very well as we about the time we' be building a new facility if that's the path we go uh towards and so there might be some existing um Levy uh already in the budget that we would not have to raise any property taxes and still have some left over uh to do whatever the council feels U needs to be done with that remaining balance so I just mentioned that uh that's we've had some past history with the port authority and have used that in the past and we have one that's rolling off through 27 uh the second option is to do an economic development Authority Revenue Bond we just met as The Economic Development Authority and this would be basically that the Eda would own um the property and the project but the city would lease back uh from the Eda uh the cost of uh the project and that would back once again by property taxes I would mention that and does not require a referendum revenue bonds do not require a referendum I would mention that both with the port authority and the Eda Revenue Bond um while it is backed by property taxes it can be supplemented by other funds so for instance with the license and passport center it would be an ability to take some of that excess Revenue to put towards payment of that Bond uh there would not be enough uh to cover the full payment uh of such a bond but it could help contribute as you know we put about $200,000 from license and passport center to the general fund for property tax relief so there's usually some dollars left over obviously if we were to use that that would have an impact to the budget and we'd have to make that up elsewhere but that's always a possibility with both number one and two and I think that is a reasonable approach to look at as we look uh at trying to fund this is try to blend some of the um uh Revenue we get from a license at passport center along with property taxes third option is a city Revenue bond this is a straight Revenue Bond meaning that the debt uh incurred for the project of the license and passport center would be paid solely by the revenue of uh an entity uh of the city and that in this case it' be the license and passport center while that's an attractive option it just doesn't pencil out there's not enough excess Revenue uh to cover that debt service so while that's an option it's not a real feasible one so those are the three main um um borrowing financing um uh opportunities we have here and once again I would want to check in at the end of the meeting if there's any preferred type or have a conversation about what you would need for additional information once again I think even if you were to give a preferred type we would want to bring back a lot more information including Miss ipple to talk through all the particulars of how that would work then we wouldd also have to think about the timing of that that's not necessarily something we would do tomorrow it' be down the road but I think the council uh would want to have sorted out as part of the license and passport center discussion to understand how we are even if we're not making the affirmative decision to do certain today we want to have a sense of where we're going to go so having that information would be helpful for staff just to plan and then bring back additional information so uh also to consider as far as some next steps is um eventually move to final design of the project this is assuming that we're going ahead with the project so there really two main components of that one would be to hire an architect to um look at the final design and then also um we look to hire bring out a firm for project uh manager there's two main types uh construction manager advisor which uh the uh uh company would serve more as an advisor the city would own all contracts and enforce the contracts and be pretty deeply involved uh versus the construction manager at risk which my understanding just um was made available for cities as part of the 2023 legislative session and this uh really shifts the risk and the work to uh a private firm that really handles everything from start to finish as with a project they would uh work on the timetable the specs they do the bidding they award the contracts they would hold all the contracts they would do the construction uh management uh to make sure uh it is done in the way it was designed and would also guarantee a final maximum price for the project so this is really a way for the city to make sure it's going to be done in a cost effective way and also be done um uh in in a way that we can be confident that it's going to U be finished in the way we want it to be there is a third alternative which I haven't mentioned is to have staff being the project manager quite simply saying this is too big of a project and we lack the expertise and the bandwidth to to do this in the past we've done some of these projects I think of the uh Cedar home um community building where we did manage that uh and that was a lot of work for sure but that was a much smaller project I would not think we should seriously entertain having staff uh uh manage this project I think we need some thirdparty assistance so you know my original ask I asked about the fact that hey can we have permission to start running rfps so we can start going down this road I think I probably put the cart before the horse I know there's going to be a lot of discussion here tonight about some design Alternatives um especially around the license and passport center that we already referenced uh there might be even some work we want to do uh north of woodill and so uh perhaps the most prudent measure would be first to have a conversation about bringing on board an architect to really look at those Alternatives work with us on the Alternatives and come back with some options so we can sort that out so the council can make a better informed decision I think the full or the final design as well as the project management uh probably should wait until we have some of those sorted out and the council gives direction that they want to go you might go through the Alternatives and find that you don't like any of them and and we're not going to go for the final design I I don't know but I think we need to do that first so I'm going to narrow my question to really say would the council be uh interested in us drafting an RFP to really hire an architect for the very specific purpose of looking at some Alternatives and um trying to sort that out as we move forward then then that will inform us for the next steps which uh could lead to a final design and bringing a project manager uh next I want to talk a little bit about the community engagement uh plan for the project one of the main components is the creation of and this is a mouthful so we have to come up with a better for civic campus final design stakeholder group that will provide uh feedback on the final design of the project I try to the initials it just doesn't work doesn't flow so but anyway this would provide uh feedback on the final design of the project and the intent is to uh involve stakeholders including residents around that area as well as our commission members in the VFW to really look and provide feedback on the final design this group was would not be intended uh to debate the merits of the project and whether it should go forward or not that's really at the council level it's really to look at the final design we are purposely trying to create this group uh at the level of involve and collaborate on the iap2 Spectrum that's the International Association of public participation to really bring forward uh voices um and be intentional about that by operating at this level of Engagement we plan to work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that their concerns are understood and considered we also plan on partnering with the group to help develop Alternatives that that identify the preferred solution and we'll look to incorporate the group's advice and recommendations in the final decision to the maximum extent possible so not only would this help staff as we move forward I think it really help the city council uh and and sorting out some of those details and getting um feedback um that's really important for this project the actual group um and uh I would be looking for feedback on all this uh here later tonight but looking to have a membership of about 10 uh we would have three residents of in property owners and that's the grig street uh residents there's also folks to the north and lexingon apartments and town homes there's also folks on east side of Lexington be great to get a distribution of each of those areas I'm not sure if that's possible I know uh the Greek Street folks have been very involved in the process and I'm sure they they would certainly um want to be very deeply involved in that so that's something we can uh talk about and sort out also we need to have a representative of the VFW as part of that then I'm looking for one citizen representative of uh for five of our commissions and it's a reminder all of our uh commission members our residents of the community and volunteer their time and they all have an interest in this project on some level so I would propose that there'd be one um member from the equity inclusion commission Finance commission the Parks and Recreation Commission Planning Commission and the Public Works environment and Transportation Commission I would also uh suggest maybe adding one city council member to be part of those discussions and involvement and um uh help the process and be there as part of the process and not only could they contribute and uh understand uh the background of the project they can hopefully represent the group uh forward as the council discussions and certainly we would welcome the group to come and present to the council as well uh anticipating that the work of the this group would really be in three phases and really basing this a lot over uh on how uh our Parks and Recreation Department does playground planning this really three phases so the first phase is really prior to anything being put on paper is kind of a brainstorming uh idea feedback and input about um issues that they may see or things that they would like to see as part of the design uh and all that as part of that there'd be a listening session uh both with staff and an architect um and this is I should preface this is all if we're at the final design stage right um so and then we would take that feedback and input and then come back with some Alternatives this is what we heard this is what we believe you want to see and maybe there's some several options and once again get that feedback loop going again say that looks great that needs to be worked and then a third U phase would be uh coming forward with some file designs and trying to gain consensus on that final design and make a recommendation to the full city council so I say three phases um so that's at least three meetings but each of those phases might take a couple meetings I know this is a lot of uh details here so may take a little bit longer than we anticipate but that's kind of the concept of how this group would work also uh would want to uh involve the city commissions as a group uh or as a whole commission not just individual members so once again on those five identified commissions that they uh would have a couple touch points one I've instructed uh the staff LA aison to make sure in every mie meeting there is an update on the project in some months it might be very little to none other ones that might be pretty involved so just be a standing agenda item that may aison would be able to report back on of where we're at where we're at at the process and what new information we have to share also there' be very specific things that uh each commission may work on so for instance the finance commission may look at the financing options and make any recommendations or review some of that um the issuance of the debt uh Planning Commission is going to uh need to do uh some action on zoning and comprehensive plan uh reg guidance at some point Park and Recreation and and Peet uh we thought could be involved in maybe drafting of the RFP for the final design but certainly looking at the final design as those are covering the operations of those commissions so those are just some examples where there'd be some very specific asks of the commissions and really we need to factor them into the whole process then we would do some general public engagement obviously would have a dedicated City website page I'll promote that through the social media and newsletter and Beyond just the project status I want to really uh have a page for transparency sake about the sales tax and what we're collecting and how much we've gotten in and where we're at uh with the collection uh because I I know I heard some feedback from people how do we know this is going to be spent where it needs to be well I could say pretty categorically it will be spent where is because there state laws govern it but that doesn't mean we can't be transparent about it and talk about what we've gotten in so far and just for information I looked again at the report this afternoon uh based on the study done by the univ of Minnesota uh if we had the sales tax effect in 2021 so this is four years old now we'd get about $5.4 million annually um so I would expect the number would be maybe a little bit higher but I have no idea what that would be um that just gives some context on the amount of dollars that we could be bringing in uh for the sales tax so once again I'll be asking uh if is this engagement approach appropriate and what changes should be made or added to um this approach last few items um want to talk a little bit about the VFW I know that is uh a really big issue as they're um Central to the whole uh shifting of buildings and Facilities so I would mention a couple things um um the city will need to purchase that uh facility the existing facility if we move ahead um and that can be used by sales tax dollars and they would need to relocate I think the particulars of how they will relocate uh still need to be sorted out I know Miss tyy and I have had lots of conversations about that and we'll continue to have conversations but identifying options on how the uh VFW could be on city land um and we'll bring that back that discussion for the council to consider options on that uh under the uh plan the BFW would be responsible uh for building their new facility so but we do want to consider other options as part of that but we be restricted on what we can do can and can't do um I've had several meetings with the BFW in 2024 with uh the post commander and their leadership and talk through some of the project generally speaking I think they're excited about the project and opportunity um certainly there's a lot of details to be worked out and I can um be assured that as we get into the details those conversations we're going to take some time to sort out all the details on that I do have a meeting scheduled uh with leadership on January 30th so we'll begin beginning that discussion about um kind of how this the framework could be uh taken up I know even though the VFW won't need to be relocated for a couple years if we go according to the plan I think the council wants to have some assurance that um we have something at least um tentatively planned or conceptually uh framework out so we have some confidence and moving ahead so I think that's pretty important to get done here in 2025 I mentioned this zoning and land use things we need to change uh the zoning designations of the park the park uh to institutional the VFW and Lex and shops are zoned I can't remember the exact classification but it's business we need to be res zoned institutional and the comp line we need to be guided in addition the park um I guess we call it easement would need to be vacated officially because that was part of a plat so we'll have to put all those things in motion here at some point in 2025 that uh real estate transactions already mentioned the VFW we need to purchase uh depending on how we end up having them located on the campus there might be some additional transactions uh there uh also mentioned the Lex and Shop tenants um we required to provide relocation dollars to them I already have a relocation specialist working with uh those uh folks and once again this is still two plus years before they would actually have to move we have to tear down that facility but looking and working with them so there's other transactions we're going to need to do along the way so I just want to point that out to the council mention real quickly the park replacement uh the council has talked about this several times already but uh losing veteran Parks is not uh necessarily desirable but it's needed for this project and we want to make sure that we look at replacing those amenities uh some way somehow throughout the city could be potentially in one location it could be over a series of uh different places uh we've had initial conversations with the school district but we don't want to rule anything out here so the uh Mr Johnson The Parks and Rec Department is just starting to go through some of that process and that will be a separate parallel process but that's something that um I think we want to sort out and I know the council has been really determined to make sure that we have some replacement going on replacement of the medes in the space and then finally the timeline I'm just going to switch files here well one two things here's a very broad General um uh guideline and or timeline um and this needs to be tightened up and having somebody on board can help us tighten that up but um roughly speaking really spend the year of 2025 is I originally indicated final design but that's everything leading up to final design and susing out all the details that we need to and and most likely start at 26 the phase one would start in site preparation where the park is and start constructing um portion of the new maintenance facility then after that is complete and we move uh our m operations as much as we can across the street then we need to look at tearing down uh the existing maintenance facility and then start constructing um or having the site ready for the construction of a licens and passport center once again if we go with the with the U predesign and the VFW construction as well so that's going to be a pretty long period as you as you phas that in and then um 20 to 29 we complete the U maintenance facility uh building U the final parts of that and then really construct that Y and the storage bins on there and then also create the green space that I call new Veterans Park that hasn't been decided by anybody but new Green Space so really looking over a period of four years before this project potentially could be done obviously as we move forward I think we can tighten up that timeline and have a better sense of it uh earlier this afternoon I did provide the council with a slightly different timeline that provideed more detail there are copies in the back for folks um and trying to really look at some of the decision points and things we need to take up this is a very highlevel approach there's a lot of more details that need to be worked out but um I just want to identify them because I think there was some still screen what happened there try that again there okay not sure why that defaults to uh blow this up but you do have copies so uh really try and look at some of the major components this is a very highlevel approach the uh cells that are in yellow are discussions and or uh decisions and I just put some months to it and I would say this is very very very preliminary I was looking at again later this afternoon oh there's some things I want to add and change on here so would love your feedback on it too it would be helpful and uh we'll continue to work on this but this is just kind of showing how it would play out the rest of 25 so um you know starting at the top I won't go through every um cell here but um sooner than later we need to really sort out what we're doing with the license and passport center meaning are we going ahead to consider constructing something uh on City Campus and Then followed by that look at um uh what the funding would be and then try to also and we might hear this tonight some um preference to look at uh existing buildings uh on the site and and that would lead into some other work on our part the VFW we uh want to be working on negotiating the transaction uh for the final design stakeholder group um and once again this is this months that I pick but we can shift we need to the formation of the design stakeholder group I think we probably don't want to begin those meetings until we're pretty confident their Project's moving ahead and we're ready to go to the final design so that could be shifted uh even further into 2025 and it gave us six what was that six months of or five months of working time whether it takes that long I don't know so the architect and the construction project manager um this is one of the things I would change based on um some of the feedback is that instead of having the full RFP for the full architect for the full design and bringing on a construction project manager I would narrow that down to look to hire just the architect to help us um determine some Alternatives um layouts and or uh options to consider especially with the license and passport center so that would probably be the most immediate ask and the other things would follow down the road as we uh move ahead with the project if we do the sales tax uh once again these are just ones I put it in we may be in a position if we do want to collect it uh starting July 1st to look to approve the M mentation sometime in February or March uh the financing uh I um would mention that the um so there's going to be two types of financing one is the sales tax revenue bond that we could issue uh then also the second part would be what we're doing for the license and passport center uh which would come down the road most likely uh even if we decide to a particular uh type of bond we probably would still it would take us some time to later in the year before we actually issue there's a lot of procedural things we need to do and everything like that so I'm too optimistic with that may may 25 even if the council is comfortable so being closer to the end of the year so so just so you know um you noce the maintenance operations center doesn't have a lot of work on uh anything until more the end of the year because that uh we need to sort out other things first and then if we get to the final design uh process that needs to be completed before we uh start looking at approving the final design talked about the land juice um about Planning Commission involvement and making some decisions and I just put in here commissions will be constantly updated each month so that's a little bit more uh detail on there um and this is something that I think is going to be a living document and something we can continue to help out but hopefully this provides some sense of order or some sense of things that we need to do at least in the large slats so let me just wrap up the presentation the last thing um mention is uh here is the cost this is per the predesign to presentation mode again yeah sorry slightly bigger yeah wonderful there we go thank you um my screen shows something different so I don't see so these are numbers from the pre-design report and as I mentioned uh there's a not lot of numbers in here that are contingency and inflation so if you look at the left hand leftand column we have design contingency of 8% construction contingency of 5% inflation 21 28 35% of the costs soft cost and owner contingencies owner cost so all those things um especially those last four or five the building constructions like construction are probably fairly decent numbers there's a lot of sway in those numbers here and uh we'd want to U make sure we dial that in a little bit and have some real numbers and so you can see how they broke into phase one phase two and phase three really can't answer what's making up all these numbers although we have some detailed spreadsheets I think um we need to have somebody else on board to really help us do this but I just show show you this just to uh show kind of what all the components of the project are and the fact that we have a lot of contingencies in there so the hope is that the uh end costs aren't going to be as much but I can't guarantee that as well I would note to if you did the addition that says $65 million for the maintenance operations center and we only only are authorized for $64 million uh I would State unequivocally that we would not look to spend $65 million $64 million of sales tax and make it up from property tax we will be living within the means of the sales tax authorization so no more than $64 million if the Project's going to come in higher than that we're going to have to make some cuts and some choices to keep that with and I there's no sense of me that wants to add to the property tax burden for the maintenance and operations center when we when we have a funding s so so I just want to make that very clear so that's the end of my presentation I'll put up the questions here when we get back to it um you can certainly uh go down that list to the extent you want to and that with that that's the end of my presentation be happy answer any questions thank you Mr treant and I do want to emphasize at this point for the council's benefit uh that these should be questions and clarification I don't think we're ready to to hear people's points of view necessarily quite yet on the uh the questions that we're being asked not the least of which because we haven't yet heard from the public so I really want to make sure that from a council perspective we TR try to limit ourselves at this point to to clarifying questions of what's sort of been out there or what may be missing from what's out there uh so I'll open it up for Council questions at this point council member thank you in clarification of the first question is that at the location as indicated specifically uh yes council member strong um I'm asking if we want to go ahead with the planning to have it shown in the pre-design plan Main in Center North of w Hill certainly the council can consider different directions but that's um what we have cost for and an understanding of of how that would work um so going to a different location might add some additional costs or less hard to say and other operational needs that probably be a different discussion but but yes to directly answer your question it would be for north of woodill other questions I did have a a couple of questions I just wanted to clarify and it's certainly okay if we don't have the the the full answer or or an answer this evening on the sales tax I know we talked about the sales tax revenue being used to pay the revenue bonds uh that would be issued on the project however I also know we're potentially talking about incurring some upfront costs for say some architectural services and things like that can the property tax revenue also be used sales tax prior excuse me sorry sales tax be used uh prior to the issuance of the bonds to pay some of those upfront costs or are we totally restricted to only use it to pay the the bonds the revenue bonds once those are issued my understanding is that we can use those sales tax uh funds um after the fact we passed a resolution and looking to miss Petri back in the back row that we can reimburse ourselves for Bond processes after the fact so similar we talked about that with some of the water projects and stuff like that so like for architectural costs if we're doing architectural costs in the first quarter of this year and we haven't started collecting the sales tax we can reimburse ourselves for those costs from yes I believe so now put a a point on it if we're talking about this license and passport center correct we have to we have to differentiate between those two things which may lead us to if we're depending on if we're doing both of those things talk in terms of perhaps separate contracts and things like that just to keep the accounting extra clear but similarly if we were to issue a bond uh for license and passport center we may be able to recapture those costs since we've identified certainly reimbursement for that um so I just want to make sure we've got some options because otherwise we're fronting those costs out of essentially either the general fund or other City funds and I should mention mayor the reality is until we issue those bonds and receive those we'll be incurring some costs that would you would use existing fund balances that would then subsequently be reimbursed once we have those those B that's important to understand um and I already asked my question about the the storage or the other aspects of what might have been part of the overall category of the the license center um uh let's see and so uh with the as you said the the legislature only approves cities to be able to use the the uh whatever is all uh construction manager uh risk type um within the last couple years so we did not use that format for the for any of our prior projects okay there are several cities as I mentioned that have just recently us said White Bear and Oakdale come to mind for current projects they the recently completed projects and talking to their administrators they really like that process I thought it was really helpful for them and either I imagine that either the that construction manager is incurring those costs and getting reimbursed for those or the city is incurring them in some fashion and also reimbursing ourselves for those or we're doing it right exactly because it's not like those Services happen for free no no that would be covered by sales tax for the maintenance center side got it and just to be clear in terms of the conversations to date with the VFW folks um we have not been talking to them about building them a building or something along those lines in terms of the maybe the question that was brought up earlier in our meeting in terms of sort of building things or providing things to a VFW or an American Legion that's not really what's been part of the conversation at this point we have we've had very general conversations I think if anything we've left it as more that they would need to construct their building themselves um and I think there's probably some practical limitations under the law about building building for that but um we'll continue to explore that and bring that forward for conversation with the council thank you for clarifying those points other questions from Council Members Council uh Power uh just know the dance studio I believe I saw some DS earlier that would be more not just a dance studio it would be a flex space as well like for senior programming or other events not yeah I think I think it could be and I'm going to look to Matt Johnson uh for anything but I think primarily a dance studio but certainly it be an open space that could potentially be used for other uh uh things I'm not sure we've gotten that far down the path yet but Mr Johnson please help me thank you mayor and Council uh I I think you answered it quite well um our current dance studio is pretty much limited to dance and yoga because of the tight confines as with anything that we buil we want multi-functionality so something that would be built from the ground up would serve for be built with dance in mind but we' certainly want to put things there as much as we could so multi-use would pretty important to us yes thank you right thank you Mr Johnson other Council questions Council memb thank you I had a question about the cost of purchasing the VFW um and how that figures into the city breakdown that was indicated um do you have the cost of the real estate itself and how that fits into that total uh $6 million so um I don't have an exact cost we would have to get an appraisal uh it's currently assessed over a million dollars can't remember the exact amount so tax assessed value tax assess value so somewhere above a million I would think I'm not sure exactly where we' end up on that that would had to be sorted out through an appraisal negotiations and and that could be covered by the sales tax um because that's part of the project to purchase that property to make the mten CER moving forward and are those costs included in the 6.5 because it's not a total VFW cost it's our cost yeah you're talking about that would be in the 64 million the 64 is that part of the soft costs or one of the other yeah so it's it wasn't wasn't identified directly in the pre-design study but it would be under um the construction design or one of those contingencies I should say the owner cost could cover that if you see that um but amongst those numbers on the 64 $ million who would come out of that uh it's not particularly identified in this breakdown and just to be clear and I'll yield back to you that the any discussions we have about particular uh offers we might make or or negotiations along those lines certainly would be closed sessions until such time as a deal is ready to be made public just in terms of so in the numbers we have to that's why we're kind of talking in some of these couch terms about the numbers because there isn't a specific deal or a specific price that's already out there than just sort of some some budgeting figures C and so then whatever amount then that would offset their total cost of 6.3 million if they were to whatever 400,000 we offered they said sure yeah so what whatever dollars we give to them can certainly be put back into their project for construction of the building that 6 million it's just like everything else is is inflated as well um there as well it's it's the overall project but regardless whatever that cost is they could put um that towards it and then do we know what the total size of this project is what is the total area of the needed space based on you talking about the maintenance facility the pre-design plan yeah it's in the predesign I don't recall of hand I'm going to look at Mr Fry Hammer actually the maintenance was uh 112,500 is that the square footage of the property or the building the building ah okay the property is several Acres yeah say it might have been eight eight plus but I that might be a low number that was in the that was in the predesign yeah I was looking more that yeah other questions uh Council M sh speaking of square foot I was looking at the license center and that is 8,685 and the when I looked at the cost per square foot it came out to be about $1,400 which seemed high so which would tell me either maybe it's not including a second floor as a square footage or there's something um extraordinary put into that so I was just kind of curious on is it is it mainly that there's something else in the cost or is the square foot not quite right uh Council M shorter it's good questions I don't know if I can answer um I would think that uh the 8,000 square feet does include the Second Story um just in looking at the pre-design we'd get clarification on that but those costs are awfully High uh I I think no question and you know obviously the contingency stuff drives some of that but we really need along with everything else but really in that number we really need to understand for the council to have a fully informed decision in front of them you know on how much are we planning on spending for that because that just seems awfully awfully awfully High especially when you compared to the other two because the BFW could do by square foot is 613 and the U maintenance center is 579 and so when the license center is so much higher then that's why I was wondering there must might have been something else in there maybe um um soil mitigation or something that may you know because of the gas station or who knows what so okay I'm just kind of curious about that piece so we'll put that on the list to try to understand what the pre-design um numbers come from if we can determine that but certainly strive towards getting um another calculation on that as we move forward so we move ahead I appreciate that thank you other questions for clarification from Staff All right well I think this is an opportunity then a good spot to uh look to give some uh public input as part of this discussion uh we appreciate the fact that uh I think we've got a good representation of folks in the neighborhood uh who were invited to be here this evening are made aware of this discussion um we'll just do a quick uh uh overview of the rules of the road for public comment uh we've got uh the two seats here certainly if one person is speaking and somebody else is ready to go next they could have a seat in the in the other seat and vice versa as we go forward um so that we you know we we kind of keep the process moving in respect to everybody's time uh if you're want to be the next person to speak certainly people can queue up in the kind of the seats right in the in the front of the audience there to uh to be ready to go after the two people that might be at the table are done speaking assuming we have that many people interested in speaking um but just wanted to kind of give people some some idea of the logistics there uh we do have by Council rule a 3 minute time limit per speaker uh and you do get one opportunity to speak uh on each agenda item so uh that is uh part of the the rule of the council we would ask that you begin your comment with your name and either your street or your address whatever you're comfortable with to help identify for the official record if you have a name that isn't uh something we're going to easily figure out how to spell uh once you're finished with your comments you can step off to the side there's a clipboard here and you can just spell out your name uh to be able to help folks when they're putting together the meeting minutes for the official record um and we'll try to move that a little closer to Pat so it's not right in front of people that might be trying to speak um and uh let's see one time 3 minute time limit say your name address Council uh comments or questions to the council uh we will try to accumulate the questions that may come up uh and work to try to get answers once the public comment period is over um there may be things that we won't be able to answer but we can we can try to direct staff to come back with answers uh on that sort of thing um and some questions may be more philosophical or questions that the council has to answer through its own discussion uh so we may not be able to answer those until we have that discussion as a council uh so hopefully that helps uh kind of give us the the rules of the road and what's what's to to happen here during public comment but with that uh and certainly the other thing I'll say is that um you can um refer to anything that's been presented up to this point on this item in in your comments if you've got comments about you know any of the questions that the staff has sort of put forward uh or one specific either way uh feel free to participate in public comment at this time to provide that feedback or ask any questions that you have with that we'll open up for public comment and I see we've got our first commenter here uh to kick us off Roger has white your place and let me know about 30 seconds left got it okay so this has been going on since before Co been talking about this and every day you delay it it costs more money so I really don't like that your thinking of building in three phases I just want to get it done and really to build the shelves the walls and the roof they just bring in the panels and lift them up and put them together so it should only take a few months to actually build the building for the maintenance center so the main thing is to get everything else out of the way so you can get going on that so myself I think you should move the license center onto property that's rented for about two three years and then the VFW I think you should just pick it up and move it to toward Lexington and then swap land so they own their own land and you don't have to play around with anything just move it a few feet to the east alongside lexingon that'll give you a buffer between Lexington and the beginning of the maintenance civility property plus they'll be on their own property and if you just pick it up and move it cuz I've watched guys my dad D's friends move way bigger buildings than that and therefore they wouldn't have to build a building it wouldn't cost them anything CU you'd pay to move it and you wouldn't cost anything because you just swap the land you give them a piece of land the exact same size what they got now and then that's all done now that everything's cleared out of there and you can start building this maintenance facility which we need really badly and I believe there's someone in the midwest area has built one recently that might be very similar to what you need and I would just say go and look at it get their plans and get started on it rather than spending months or years redesigning it's nothing special it's just a big Warehouse basically with some office space in it so you don't really need to be Reinventing the wheel for this thing and then you gives that gives you two or three years to figure out what to do with the license center maybe you'll wait and build a new one you know when the other bonds are paid off otherwise the police department needs space why don't you just move every the license center and everybody else into the old Public Works building and give the police department all this building except for the council chambers then everybody you guys could have all new offices for all the other departments over at the public works because I'm telling you when they redid my building updated building some of us built in 41 that the building looks beautiful inside now and outside so they can do amazing things with buildings with old buildings and you've got geothermal and solar panels there so it doesn't cost much to run that building 15 seconds okay so there you go and I don't like the manager with the risk thing because whoever the manager of risk is has to somehow figure out what the costs are going to be and add a bunch of padding to make sure he's right whereas if you just get a manager and you pay the bills you're paying what the actual bills are this RIS guy is going to have to try to get some padding in there it's going to cost the city more money than just paying what the actual costs are thank you and good luck thank you and hopefully lots of other people will talk to that end we have an open uh mic hello and welcome Tyler we're at uh Grigg Street 2750 there and uh can you say your last name for the record clo thank you um preferably I think we would you know not want the building directly in our backyard the first thing we walk out of our door and look at this monster building but uh you guys need your space so I guess uh I'm kind of curious on some of the plan details could you pull up that uh that like pre-planned slide that you had there here we go so I'm curious like Lexington Avenue elevation wise you know it's a lot higher than where you'd say our backyards are it's kind of like a slow gradual slope so I'm curious as to like what kind of grading you're going to do there for that building itself um are you planning on like leveling it all out as to where like the back of the building one is there and keeping like a level uh parking lot going up to Lexington or you going to like bring dirt in back towards the back of the big building there and my concern is the building's what like 30 some feet tall and we sitting in the backyard you're going to bring in you know four feet of dirt that's going to raise the building up even more so I'm just curious uh you know how tall is it going to be when we're just sitting in the backyard there make a note of that question follow up uh after the public comment is over sweet any other questions and then I'm just curious you know what does the park uh do to our property values you know having it right there in the backyard I just do a simple little Google search and it says the park can increase your value by you know 8 to 20% so what does that mean you know it's not a really nice new updated Park even on the lower end of our house let's just say it's 300,000 you know that could be $30,000 and uh property value we're talking about losing so that's just something I wanted to keep in mind and talk about too so perfect thank you thank you other public hello and welcome good evening I'm Matthew draw 2736 GG Street North uh like my neighbor just said I think primary concern as residen is number one we would encourage the council to not put this in our backyards there is no other city in the state that has a public works facility in a residential neighborhood like this it belongs in an industrial area on the outskirts of town where it's not taking away from residents and our Green Space and our property values and I I think that is something that we're very concerned about I mean I've been here for 10 years we use that green space for our dog all the time and you know I I like the community I like the neighborhood we're in and this will significantly alter that and like Tyler said I I do think that um there needs to be something done to address the impact on our property values and there should be some compensation for us if this does go forward then secondly I've like to ask a question about um when this was all put up to a vote there was a frequently Asked question section and in that uh there was a question about why this particular location and it's stated that the city already owns all of that land which we know is not true and that is something that may have influenced voters to agree to pass this where if it was stated that they' stoed a purchase from the VFW that might have influenced things a different way so you know I have some concerns because that was clearly misstated right additional comments questions you've got some time I would just encourage you all on behalf of us living on Griggs to reconsider the location and and put it to more of an industri or where it belongs not in the neighborhood thank you appreciate it thank you for being here this evening thank you other uh public comment on this uh item this evening more opportunity is there anyone else from the public that wanted to speak to this item this evening all right we'll go ahead and close the public comment then we thank uh folks for being here and for participating uh to this point um and certainly uh want to continue to make sure that we are doing uh engagement with folks in the community about this um I think there was a probably the most specific question as it relates to the grading and the height of the building and uh I'll I'll start with my suspicion uh and then perhaps if there is any further uh Clarity from from staff my suspicion is that typically when there is a project where there is sort of elevation differences uh there is uh some lowering of of high parts and some raising of low Parts uh but sometimes it may be that everything gets lowered to the lowest point uh so I'm not exactly sure but I think the idea is to try to be as efficient with fill versus removal and things like that as possible I'm imagining it's going to be a pretty level site otherwise but I'll turn it over to Mr Fry Hammer if he's got additional information just G to swap this real [Music] quick all right so this is thank you mayor console uh this is from the Civic campus um M or the predesign project so this was just a concept of showing what it would look like leveling based on just some plary design so certainly subject to change um but they did show the off the property line it's approximately 65 ft is where the face of the building would be um showing the height of the houses to the roof which is 19 ft they show this building um approximately 28 ft to the height the one thing this graphic does not show is what the difference is of to that elevation so I we'd have to look in a little little bit of detail but that gives a little bit of of of scale certainly that's something that would have to be worked out in much more detail in final design but that's kind of a a preliminary concept of what that would look like but obviously if you move the line East or West change the height of a wall or something or even a foot or two a grading that can change things significantly and also things like burm height could correct he what you see plantings different thing like that so Stone in any way but it's correct but that that was the concept that was presented in the predesign okay that's helpful at least to get some some perspective on and certainly ultimately the detailed plans would give us exactly and if we try to attempt to provide some Direction One Way or Another especially based on what we're hearing from people in the neighborhood that you know can be factored in and we look at you know what the additional cost might be and whether that makes sense to do it or whether it can be done in the budget Etc so it seems to me there's there's some ability to to work with that uh but at least this gives us a starting point the other thing just in relation to like a burm on that side I'm imagining that uh from a storm water perspective uh the site has to take care of it storm water on site we can't be putting water onto another site so for instance at the bottom of a BM where water might be running down there needs to be potentially drains or collection points or rain Gardens or some combination of that to get the water from running into neighboring properties correct just like if anyone else developed their property we wouldn't allow them to discharge any additional water um onto that property so if we need didn't add additional storm to that would be included with the project all right and in terms of if there were existing problems in in the area that already are coming off the site is there potential that we could try to address some of those with the project as well correct most likely typically with any Improvement you can solve those problems and that's largely because we're meeting 2025 Water Management standards as opposed to 1977 or whatever correct Char more Str and what's my point all right uh I think that gets to probably the the the biggest technical question I think a number of the other questions related to more you know the the the project uh itself um I don't know that we can answer a couple of the questions as to uh like accelerating phasing or doing things differently until we perhaps get more information as a council um so I'm I think at this point other than having our Council discussion there may not be a lot more that we can address by way of questions that were brought up but certainly if Council has uh thought of more questions as part of the public input or as we've been moving through this process and want to get uh some some feedback or answers on those I think that would be appropriate uh uh at this time uh to maybe start conversation with that if there's any further things we need to fill in or more information we need for subsequent decisions I think let's kind of open it up and start the process here Council memb strong so have we given any consideration to U Mr dra's um suggestion about compensation for neighborhoods with their concern about um a reduction in their property value based on having this instead of a park um or additional costs that might come in from like sound mitigation and other things like that I know there was the soft cost but I didn't know what those could potentially include I don't know that we would I don't know I'm not sure what the expectation or what that was meant to include Mr TR well no we haven't given any official consideration of paying the neighbors money for um perceived value loss I think that would need to be talked a lot more I'm not sure we can even directly do that um way it's set up but I think we want to talk about that issue with them for sure um and um certainly the buffering um other mitigation efforts uh could help in that situation I understand and the fact that the the building may be visible and it's not no longer a park um so we're going to have to have continued conversations on there the cost for the burm and the softscaping Landscaping is factored into those costs to what extent that is um um hasn't been determined but I think some basic premises is want something that is um desired by the residents that they think is going to be effective we want mature Landscaping instead of stick trees we want some developed trees that can provide your round screening if that includes offense that would include offense I think there's things we can look operationally to make sure that uh there is no um other disturbances to the property so there's a lot that we don't know but we have to continue to talk about so I really can't answer directly uh uh on that but I think we would want to work continue to work with the neighbors to mitigate all impacts as much as we can I just don't know to what extent we can mitigate any Financial loss if that's proven at this point yeah cuz I would expect that to be light um mitigation there be sound having a 24-hour facility um adjacent to their homes that wasn't there previously yep so and I would mention that the way the building is orientated at least in the pre-design there's no garage doors opening up to the west to their backyards it's all north south there is a drive around the building as you can see there on the west side in the west side and that's really for fire Cod purposes uh we require all buildings including any private development to have access uh paved access around a building so it means there's a fire and fire engine needs to go there so we don't expect that to be used on a regular basis certainly not operationally um but um it's it's something that uh would be in place we um while we are a 247 organization um typically we do not have activity there after 4:00 uh except for emergencies a waterm break or obviously snow plowing and uh before I talked to to Mr Fry Hammer about uh doing what we can to mitigate the sound just from the back up beep beep beep uh there's some um technology you can use that have a lesser beep beep beep that's a really technical term I guess uh but you know some other things we can do operationally so I think we would want to continue to do that because it fully in recognition that a park is a park and that brings some noise and activity there but this is a different type of noise and activity there so we want to mitigate that as much as possible then just finally um that question about being somewhat unconventional and having this um a maintenance facility in a residential area and I know we are largely built um and I've definitely noted every time I see a building in Roseville that maybe could be used and told you about it um so um can you speak to I mean obviously this has been part of the bigger process but just if we have all these other implied costs that NE that this necessarily is going to be the more most cost effective um potentially the most cost effective in the long run well I think as part of the consideration there was um acknowledgement that we did didn't own all the land but we own quite a lot of the land so the land cost themselves would be cheaper to locate I think there was a very conscious conversation about operationally it was felt that it for the continuity it'd be good to have it close to City Hall um center of the city uh you know we've been operating as a maintenance center there since the 50s I suppose you could see in a residential area this brings it obviously a lot closer um no no doubt about that um I really can't speak to Across the state if there's no other facility like that I think truly they're they're done in large spaces where maybe there is some separation whether that's industrial or just open space the city owns a Parkland for instance we don't have a lot of those great options in front of us we're fully built out and so um you know the decision was made to keep it here on City Campus and use some existing land and uh so that's where we're at today and we're going to have to kind of work through that there's always alternatives to think about but that would kind of u means starting over in some respects and I would caution that if we start over too much I'm not sure how that would affect uh the use of the sales tax uh because we had to very specifically show the leg and what we were using it for and what the plan was for and what those costs are so I think that would that'd be pretty big decision to make that might alter how we could pay for it I can't answer definiely one way or another that would need a lot more conversation but just just a a note other questions from the council or items of discussion direction that makes sense to the council Council mcrath um number one I think it I'm really pleased we're having this discussion uh because three people here have not been involved in this from the beginning the mayor and I have been but there's a lot of information and we went we started many years ago this and and collected information and asked questions at that time so it's changed but I was going to just mention that the cost update of course is crucial because these are almost like just general numbers now so for me to make any decision further I need have that down at least as much as we can because we have we have a shorter timeline if we go ahead with this now and also I think coming off as uh as city manager mentioned coming off of that time when we first got the numbers we were coming out of a very high inflationary period for construction and everyone was kind of Shell Shocked by it and was very cautious about putting out numbers that we were thinking would not last down the road um see I had a couple other things here I think I was just wondering uh return on investment of the U if we do build the licensing center I would like to see numbers sometime in there if we're getting 200,000 back into the general fund how does that balance out with building facility for them what's the payoff and how many years out is that because buildings do have a lifetime and I'd like to kind of know more about that um construction manager at risk what would happen if they don't meet their number I mean we went down the road and they said oh I'm sorry I'm off byon what is what are the remedies so my understanding and um I'm not sure how well versed Miss churny is I know she's somewhat but um my understanding is they give you a guaranteed maximum price and that's what they're stuck with so if they have project cost overruns on their own they eat that or we don't get charged more I think the only exception might be some change orders that are approved by the city of course I think that might be correct but please add anything Mr Ernie I I don't want to I don't want to you know get out over my skis here this is a pretty pretty specialized area who I have people that know it um so I know just enough to be dangerous but I think that it is it is a guaranteed maximum price and um the construction manager that's part of their bis their bid they build their risk into their bid um for for that role and you know if they got out if they um spent more money and couldn't pay it or something like that the construction manager risk is the entity that holds the contract so they would be in breach of their contract with the with the other companies so um and that would not affect us as far as uh leans against our Properties or something like that because sometimes when construction contractors don't get paid they Place leans against the property owner I believe that the construction construction manager risk statute and all of that covers all of those issues I don't know the intricacies of it and I don't want to give you bad information appreciate that but this is a model it isn't a new model it's a new model for government this kind of situation has been going on in the private sector for a long time so this is nobody nobody reinvented the wheel here it's just something that governments are now starting to do I think it's probably fair to say that that potentially the bid cost for a construction manager at risk would be higher than a construction manager advisory because they're building their risk into the bid uh but they would all be doing everybody that's bidding on it would be doing that and to the extent you know the differential comes from their their project costs how much they put in for the risk and all the other things that they factor into their business business model of making a bid on a project um but I would note that I would imagine that if we um City takes on the risk of managing the contracts the city is incurring some costs and exposing ourselves to some things that we're building into our contingencies and things like that as part of our cost of doing the project as well so it's not like the risk that that the cost of the risk goes away it's just that who's kind of paying it and how ultimately we're paying it as the person building the project it's just do we pay it through the the costs incurred by the construction manager at risk or through some other means but ultimately the the the people building the project are the ones that would tend to pay for the risk one way or the other just one one more thing then I'll be sure I want to ask uh city manager Tron if on that advisory committee I really think that the people on Griggs are more affected than the people across Lexington so I know this is just a general idea on that committee but I think having at least two people from there is more important than having it spread around um because their voice in my opinion is the most important in this project certainly it could be 11 instead of 10 to accomplish that as well yeah other council member thoughts feedback try to give everybody one shot at it first here if if everybody yeah Council shorter yeah great um um actually you asked a few of the questions so good thank you um first of all so so really the first question so it just to clarify what what we're asking is are should we go ahead and continue the conversation on this project the things that would be set stone I guess would be that that we would be doing it with the property we had have and in general where things where the maintenance um building is is situated is that true yes that's correct that's what I would be asking okay but then the rest of the detail would be very wide open when it came to like the license center in the VFW and because I know there's some questions on if the VFW for some reason didn't want to sell that would very much impact the design of the maintenance center so that um thinking if if kind of if then thing if the BFW decides not to sell what does that mean you know so and I I know you can't answer that tonight but that's one of the the questions and you know that I'd like to you know think about I think our attorney might have a thought there I think you mean that the city can exercise it's eminent domain Authority in order to take the property from the BMW and that that's when we start talking about kind of like the end of the we start about relocation that's part of the a part of the eminent domain process one of the first steps is is to tell the property owners or renters in in in the case of the license center that they have a right to to be compensated for the property that they're on and and to have relocation expenses paid as well so that that the beginning of that process is already moving it's not it's not IR retrievable but the beginning of that process is already moving I would just say from my perspective and maybe I'm hitting what the city manager might say um it's certainly preferable to have a willing buyer and seller transaction um so uh that's kind of the starting point yeah exactly that um to date there've been good conversations we have to work with the details but the intent would be to purchase that in a quote friendly transaction while eminent domain is a possibility that's a policy decision for the council uh to make and I don't think we're anywhere close to having to use that solely to get the property um and I think we want to continue the negotiations that's not been brought up to the VFW as far as an option because we don't need to because we're talking uh collegially to each other and trying to figure out what we can do the best but as always there's always other options doesn't mean you have to do them it's just just option so so and then we could address that at that time to and then just one more thing on the eminent domain since it was mentioned or the the notion of taking um it is still a compensated yes thing it's not something where the literally the government is just taking it and not giving the other owner anything it is compensated they this government has to pay fair market value there there are yes absolutely opportunities to contest things through the process absolutely yeah yeah so I just want to make for people in the public that might have been watching and hearing the words taking and some of those things that are sometimes can can create uh angst or concern it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be angst or concern related to the eminent domain process but certainly our intent is to to do the friendly transaction to have a willing seller buyer um and I think especially from the point of view of some of the tenants legally the city is obligated to do some of these imminent domain type steps related to compensating for relocation things like that and so it it is in our interest to start some of those processes which I think we've been having some conversations for years since the city acquired that that license center property well and then on the um license center um and I think getting back to the square foot and the cost you know because it goes to wanting to take a look at some projections um Revenue versus cost on that particular um um operation I guess just so um to see what that looks like going forward because I think the costs that are in there may be part of the dance studio and so when you're doing a projection or looking at it if you put the full amount of it in there it may be not showing exactly how much of that is really for the um license center so I guess it'd be interesting to see breaking that out so you can do kind of a projection on will it still be um profitable if we do this and I do know we have some other other things in there that um you know we pay for on that so I mean again I agree with what um commissioner graph was talking about on that um um let's see um and then the I agree on the um to the architect piece um so so what we're thinking on possibly if we went ahead with this would be then possibly have a separate P this this would be to help us figure out different pieces but it wouldn't be we're not hiring this person to come up with the master plan is that the idea based on your direction but that's what I'm suggesting that the first step would be to um just nearly focus on design Alternatives and we'd want to flesh it out a little bit more about what the council would want to see versus having a full contract to do the full design it' be separate contracts whether or not it's a different architect that does each depends on what come different contracts different contract yeah that's what I meant more different contracts on that so on that and yeah and again um then I think I just have one last thing um at this point is on that the contingencies you're right they are you know when I went in looked at it some of the contingencies were like 90% so at that um um so I think some of these numbers um are definitely inflated and I understand why that happen so to try to figure out that a little better would would help and I you know I do um appreciate you also saying that that 64 is the cap and we would not go over that because that was one of the questions as you know I had and so I appreciate you talking about that as well and of course there's a lot of little details but I I think I'll stop at this point okay uh council member Bower thank you um I do like the rewarding of the first question uh I think controlling that scope my question would be uh on that question regarding bringing on a architect to look at Alternatives you would need direction from the council this evening then to mitigate or uh Whittle down that list of Alterna I that you presented earlier so two things one we would want to craft an RFP you know but the scope of that we need to talk about uh about what the council would want to have considered um and that might even be hard to say um until we get further into the process but generally outlin so I guess if I'm thinking this out that we would bring back a discussion at a future meeting with maybe a draft RFP with something that's blank anding okay what's the scope that we want to do and have the conversation we can certainly have some suggestions and offer those to the council then um assuming there's some agreement on what that scope is then we would just ask for authorization to issue that RFP go out to the market uh get bids and then come back and make a recommendation for to hire somebody and then the council would approve that then we'd start that work in Earnest that would seem to be the most appropriate way forward to start answering some of the questions the council uh has at this point so at this time you would be just looking for permission to put together that RFP for a future meeting at which time we could scope out what RFP is thank correct Y correct RFP request for proposal sorry yes RFQ too request for quote um I wanted to I think I've got most of my questions answered up to this point uh other than things we can't answer at this point um I I just to kind of maybe start the conversation on some of the specific questions um I think definitely probably the most important question to address this evening is question one um and and just kind of the the that aspect of it I think uh you know there there may be some guidance we can provide this evening as to what more we need to know to answer some of the other questions uh and perhaps we're able to say let's start the RFP process for an architect or something like that based on how the conversation goes um my initial take on because of the fact that the question related to the license center dance studio did not pass um I think we need to be really conscious of of our costs and of our of our approach there um so I'm sort of starting to lean at least my initial lean is towards looking at trying to do something on the city hall campus with existing buildings we have I think we've got at least a couple that are um you know are are larger in square footage than some of the the pieces that were being looked at for whether it's license center dance studio or VFW that may provide us some some opportunities now obviously if somebody comes back and says you know all the city the city hall campus buildings that are in the maintenance center aren't able to be used which seems pretty unlikely but there may be costs associated with it it still seems to me that that may be a lower cost Point than than certainly than building a new building um but I think that's sort of you know I would at least like to consider that option and perhaps as part of that narrow in on costs for the building a building option although I'm still leery of that one just because it seems to be quite a bit more expensive than than what we may be wanting to to pay for as far as what we do there and we still can preserve our ability to potentially look at another off-site location for the license center uh but still get some more answers as to some of the questions about how we might be able to approach it onsite because I think there are still some benefits to having that onsite um especially if we have some spaces that are larger than what we were projecting in the studies uh that gives us some ability to address some of our other City needs for space because one of the things that uh was identified in the earlier study that led to the pre-design was some other City space needs for things that happen in this building uh as well as our our operations more broadly uh and if we can preserve some square footage that we already have for some of those purposes in addition to addressing some of these needs that may be may be beneficial um and I would just express my bias towards uh if if we can at all make it work and it makes sense to do uh having even a facility that maybe the VFW uses be a city-owned facility that we can potentially use for something else 100 years down the road I me that's too far uh many years down the road if for some reason the VFW model changes or the VFW wants to look at a different site for their own reasons obviously they are their own entity and we don't want to tell them what to do but I think that preserves some flexibility once again for the city to be able to repurpose space uh for other purposes down the road as opposed to uh the the whole complicated transaction of sort of land swaps or land sales and land purchases and some of those aspects once again all the answers that might come back from the experts on that might say you can't do it that way um or you shouldn't do it that way but that's just kind of where I'm at right now so just to kind of start some conversation so I think I'm okay answering question one as we should proceed with the planning and implementation uh as as outlined um and then kind of you've heard some thoughts on some of the other questions but I open it up for other council members to weigh in uh so we can try to narrow into uh to some guidance for staff um no I agree with what uh your comments mayor I do think since the sales tax wasn't passed for the license and passport center that keeping costs down for residents should be The Guiding Light on that project the idea of using existing facilities and buildings that we currently have I think is good opportunity um and I will reiterate there are definitely some space challenges for different departments in here so we may end up um being able to alleviate some of that with this again this is dependent on uh some Consultants coming in and Architects looking in to see if this is a fe well approach I also will uh uh reiterate um the idea of of owning the property and leasing it back uh to the BFW or some future entity at that time but to keep that as an owned um owned City owned just had a couple extra question uh comments because I hadn't talked about the license center in my comments before um I Echo uh member council member who are we oh yeah council member graph's uh comments about the ROI um one of the residents brought to our attention that there is a new facility on transfer Road um just 5 and 1 half miles from this place right here um and they are open on Saturdays um so I don't know if we were going to continue the use of our passport center making sure that it um could eventually pay for itself and whether we would need to expand our services service days in order to be useful a lot of people do tell me they would appreciate we had service on Saturdays but also so I think we need to take into consideration that uh licensing and passports um take different resources a lot of those items can be take it done online and a lot of the people who are in person have a lot of really intense needs so it is a very different entity and a different process than it is before um and then I I guess the one thing I haven't heard anybody mention is you know people are often asking for a community center we do have the resource of this oval if there was any rather than build a whole new building if there was an opportunity to add to expand um a section onto the oval where a Dance Center so that maybe it's more of a family One Stop Shop that um that could be more of a community amenity than just a bunch of separate buildings um that would take up it would you know unearth less Green Space and potentially be a a little bit step closer to our goal of having a community building where people are conquering C gra I thank you so to get back to the first question shall the city proceed with the planning I think uh for me the big question was uh this this evening doesn't change the original question from years ago we need a maintenance facility and we need space there I've gone through it a couple times with different um Public Works directors and it's obvious So my answer would be yes I think should thoughts feedback that's sure yes and and now that we have clarified um you know what question one is asking I'm feeling comfort more comfortable about saying yes let's continue to figure out how we want to do this um with it sounds like that we're willing to look at many options and how I mean this we do want to go ahead but how exactly that's going to happen is yet to be detered so that's how I'm seeing this and feeling comfortable with going ahead with question one seems to provide some feedback on question one council member strong I just want to check is are there any situations that would occur that would stop us be like some information that would come forward that would say oh you know this maybe isn't the best plan so I mean I guess you know if we're going out we're saying yes we're going to start planning we're implementing is there a piece of information a design cost uh something we hadn't planned on that could potentially I guess it's good for the residents to know if this is a for sure going forward regardless you know is there something in our minds that could potentially change where it was what it was how it worked I think there's a long list of those possibilities and that's why I saying yes to the first one and investigating that that's and bringing it back to this Council to look at evaluate I think allows us the ability and the flexibility to say to decide on anything that we want at that point in time mean for all costs are larger than we want timeline is what we know um property is not available the list could go on not so I think you know which is why with question number one you know is a nine binding thing it allows us to go further to be able to get to that definitive answer I appreciate your comment I I just want to make sure that's the thought of the whole body because I think prior members I don't know that I felt that there was that flexibility to make other adjustments along the way well I you know and and I think what this is saying is we we need more information and we are very interested in getting that we still would have to approve anything to actually build it and so so I think that's where I'm looking at this as you know we are getting more information stage to we know we need to address this issue but we still have to approve whatever it is we come up with well I think I would go maybe even a little further and that's okay we don't all have to be at the same place um and I would say that um you know we've we've been pretty darn conservative with all the estimates up to this point um with the intent that because we're going to the legislature to get approval to do a sales tag we can't short ourselves you know so I'm not saying that the numbers are are absolutely right but my hope is that we're we're actually high with those estimates and that we can we can come in within that uh but also noting that and I wanted to say it earlier say we came in within it and that meant we could potentially do more for mitigation I think that would be something that we want to keep the ability to to do within the overall 6 $4 million limit um because I would rather put more dollars into mitigation you know now if we said well we can't even get the square footage we want at the 64 million with mitigation as it's sort of envisioned you know then we got to have those conversations and so I think that's one of those points where we need to understand because we have this limitation we know what our Revenue source is going to be and how much it's limited to uh so we've got to do everything within that and I think we want to make sure that we're not compromising in what we're trying to achieve with this project I mean if we have to cut the budget so much that we're we're ending up with the same facility we have now obviously that's not the objective here so um you know but I I'll also say I don't necessarily Envision that happening but certainly you know if that's where numbers were coming back that's that's a definite uh point where we got to got to re relook at this more closely which is why we need better numbers to that's why we're saying yes to the first question given that we get good I mean yeah it's kind of contingent yes on this sheet that the manager gave us that could possibly come up things whenever you have a project things have to be adjusted y this none of this is going to go as planned I mean we might have the best plan in the world but something has to be we we do our best to get as much information as we can but we are going to be collecting i' say more information for maybe six months to a year even especially on some of the longer out items but I think staff is still looking to have some some clarity sooner this year than later on exactly what we ultimately end up with the plan for the license center and stce Studio side of it because that does impact some of the plans for the what we do in the in the in between phases and things like that yeah correct so I think it was mentioned that the that the um fire station and park renewal bonds payments uh go offline after 20 27 yeah it be the 27 budget I think the actual payment occurs in 28 but it's part of the 27 budget so largely 2028 2028 free of that okay um and that was you said something in the neighborhood of $2.4 million $2.4 million yeah so I mean you know certainly whatever we do for our license center and dance studio solution um you know is not going to cost as much as both the fire station and the all the park renewal which was $27 million so our debt service for those things even if the interest rate wasn't the same as that is going to be lower than the 2.4 million exactly and so one of the other things I'm saying is that uh depending on where else we are from the point of view of our budget and everything else you know my my objective would be to reduce the levy by as much as possible of that you know since we're no longer having to pay off that debt service so just as a philosophical perspective going into it you know that's kind of where I'm coming from but certainly we asked the taxpayers for that additional property tax to pay for those bonds uh with the expectation then that when they were done being paid for uh that they wouldn't have to necessarily pay that uh that continued property tax amount uh but as always as things go forward and cost of the city change on other programs and other areas um we've we've already made some decisions in regard to some of our pass bonding money uh red tax revenue that we've we've used it for other purposes and maintain that level of property tax but certainly the the the objective going in would to try be to try to minimize that as much as possible other thoughts do you feel like you've got an answer to question one I I believe I do that we want additional information and I think I have a sense of what information is bring well we should talk about it but bring back an RFP uh for architectural uh services to help us answer some of those questions those alternatives was looking at the existing building and other things and have a conversation as part of that RFP drafting about what the scope is so we could really pinpoint so we don't have to get into DET details tonight necessarily but bring that back for a discussion and then from there we go off and hire somebody and is this specific to the license center options as opposed to hiring an architect for the maintenance facility project I'm suggesting is for the license and passport center Alternatives now if there's anything else you want to add if you want to relook at something I think that for the maintenance center that is when we're at the final design stages to look at material and and all that stuff so I think that can wait see front and center question is the license and passport center where does it fit on the campus or not um respect to the architectural services exactly thank you for clarifying that it's not just the license of passport center and we're also looking the dance St as well but also um sorry yeah dance conceivably the VFW solution as well if there if there is an existing space that can work you know for VFW I think we understand that we have existing buildings yes because there there are other you know other thoughts on on congestion in our city property that you know if we can reuse some of those buildings that'd be great you're talking about congestion within the buildings in terms of space you know like the police traffic congestion yeah no no the actual you know with using the buildings and trying to squeeze everybody in and everything in we're we're outgrowing some areas so I think that kind of gets to the both the architect question and the uh Operation Center question one uh do we have uh does council have a sense yet if we're prepared to provide any insight on the construction manager with risk versus the adviser or um is that something that can be a subsequent decision Point yeah I think I can be I can wait a little bit I mean we introduce the subject we can have further conversations I think we focus right now on just the short-term architectural things and then as we get ready to get to the final design if we get there then we'd have those conversations and once again it'd be the same process we draft an RFP and run it through the council and maybe the commissions and just get the feedback on the scope and everything we want and have a more firmer understanding of the process uh so you all are comfortable with that and then issue the RFP and issue the contract after that I like to know the difference between the cost of those two types of I mean it might not be exact but i' like to just have a general idea is it 20% they add- on is it 50% it may be possible to get bids in both formats from people potentially I don't know have to do it in two separate bids or something but uh that's about the only way you're going to really know the cost difference I'm not sure people are going to voluntarily say unless there's other entities that have some experience with the two different approaches so we did talk to one company to understand it a little bit more just the general process and um they gave an example where there's a $20 million process or uh project um going off my memory here but I think the cost difference between the advisor and the address was about 180ish th000 maybe $200,000 I $20 million rough about 10% yeah um and I don't know how specific that is if the cost escalated if you triple that thing or if it's if the costs are fixed or or percentage may change depending on the size of so I wouldn't rely on that too much but that's just just some information we received just give you some scale dollars you're talking about um on the engagement approach uh Council feedback we've already heard may be looking at and I would tend to agree more representation from specifically the neighborhood to the West um other thoughts as to sort of the the general plan or the idea the concept of it and and how that's commissions on there I liked having representation from our different commissions absolutely um commission I would like to see probably from it might be important to have someone from the passport center I don't know if that are the licensing center or is that not Tobe a staff I think a staff person yeah would be kind of serving as a staff person if there's question said BFW so I just was wondering why they were probably because the passport and license center is us I think it might be helpful to have someone from the east side of Lexington as well since they have to look at that wall right oh yeah I think it's definitely something we want to include I was just I think the point being is more representation we could to add someone on I was just saying it and potentially someone from that um apartment building yeah that was definitely one of the one of the ones listed and obviously you know if we have more than one person from the East side and more than one person from the building I don't know that that's a bad thing necessarily I don't know that a group has to be constrained to a certain size if it's 30 people that's a different question you know if it's 11 or 12 versus 10 I'm not sure that really significantly the the performance of the organization the harder it is to schedule meetings inconsistency um uh level of engagement on the iap2 spectrum is that kind of where we want to B uh does that uh does that make sense for those who might understand that I did have a sheet in there that kind of shows the different levels of Engagement so just for reference to I know some of us are familiar but so it's the involv and collaborate area right I thought it looked good but can't believe that's the correct right involvement seems to be council's perspective all right staff uh any any other feedback or takeaways from tonight or information that you need from the council um talk about the sales tax yeah oh the sales tax yeah yeah yeah okay what that part um yeah you have any sense of timing when you would want to do it do you want to hold off on doing that until you get through the architectural stuff or would you rather get that rolling now so we can start collecting July 1st I would rather get it going because what I don't see what's going to change that we're not going to do that uh what's the difference between a decision on that tonight and a decision on that at a meeting in February no we don't have to make the decision too but but if you want me to bring it back for consider there was a particular question I had is you know just to the council member st's point about you know if we hit one of those things that says oh my God this is like something's not driving right um you know what is if there is what is the process to sort of roll back the implementation um because certainly you know uh that's something to to to have in mind I would rather not collect millions and millions of dollars in sales tax if it turns out you have to be so that and that might influence exactly when we the Nuance of when we might uh put it into effect so I think I'd like to know more about that okay thoughts Council I'd be curious to know if we at what point uh along the process can we contact the Rue Department of Revenue and terminate this meaning like what's the last hour possible meaning that if we were to decide now you know since they started on the quarter can you do it the day before the quarter I mean oh yeah when the even before they start to collect even before they start I think part of the reason that 90 days they had to put out instructions to the retail everybody that says it and so they have to change their software so which is where I want to know day before probably not but I also I also or 90 days I can also see them saying like no once you do it it's in the process and it's going to happen I would like to know that answer so what I'm hearing is kind of the before it actually starts getting collected part and if there is any way to roll it back after that point either and the other thing too is three-day recision period yeah and again the proceeds oh sorry did you have a specific thought on that maybe we're presuming things that we don't have the ability to do well mayor council members you can terminate the sales tax at any point when you no longer need the money um there legally probably have to as a matter of fact there's there's an open question of what would happen with the money you had collected it appears I don't think the statute anticipates that you would start sales tax and then decide not to do the project but but if that did happen I think from a fair reading of the statute is that you you would owe the money then to the state you can't obviously pay it back to the people who paid the taxes so um the state would then collect them the state would then receive the money from the city go into whatever appropriate fund at the state I'm sure they have one yes because it happens sometimes that that that cities raise more than they need because they do turn this on on and off on the quarter and so sometimes cities get more than they need so whether they always collect that or maybe only collect it when it's a significant overage I I'm not sure but I can find I can talk to the Department of Revenue about it back what the timeline on that would be and I was just going to say so I think I'm hearing that we want to bring back perhaps in February another conversation about implementing it but also answer these questions and if the council's in in a position where they feel they have the information we could potentially take action in February if we for July 1st we have all the way through March too so we can bring it back a couple times but maybe we can start the conversation in February and provide the information and uh go from there and that certainly knowing that March time frame is important yeah because just our agendas we may have to shift things around so it's always good to know how much ability we have to shift anything else we need to provide the insight and feedback and guidance and I don't think I need the answer here tonight because I think you need funding for the license and passport center is way down the road we have to figure out what the heck we're doing first and the cost but um um so certainly as we move forward we will be talking about the financing mechanism at some point but I think that's well down the road so I don't think I need any direct feedback Beyond just trying to answer any questions that you that you have so I think and just on just to that point I think knowing that the debt service for the fire station and park renewal is coming offline at the end of s um you know to me it makes sense to to to use the the property tax to pay the bond back to the extent possible we can certainly mix in revenue from the license center and potentially D Studio Revenue um but you know I I don't want to do it to the point where we're actually you know taking away the the the the approximately 200,000 that is being used for tax relief now so it would have otherwise rather otherwise Center if possible sir there's any objection to that approach okay no so I think I have what I need for now there's a lot more work to follow up and I think as we all recognize there's going to be a lot more conversations on there and you're not in a position to really make any firm determination till there's a lot more information I understand that so we keep working at that all right well thank you everyone for being involved in this process both of the council certainly a lot of staff and attorney time members of the public um you know we want to continue the conversations as we go forward there's definitely a lot of decision points uh yet to happen uh so we'll be working through those and and keep everybody informed as part of the process all right uh council do we need to take a break or we've only got one I guess one two agenda items left just roll through let roll through okay thank you the next item then is uh item 8A which is to provide Council Direction on council member initiated items per Council rule uh in this case I don't know Mr Tran if you wanted to introduce it or I certainly could just take it item okay all right uh yeah it's a little different than than other council members in that sense um this just deals with uh something that came up at our last council meeting which was we had a petitioner from the public specifically petitioning the council representing a neighborhood um and in my enforcement of the time rules I made the interpretation that he was a general speaker and I realized afterwards that really probably wasn't the the best interpretation of the rule and that he should have been given more time now you know tell me if I'm wrong about that but that's I think based on our past practice that's how we've dealt with people who say had an appeal of an action of the city before the council or people who are uh applying for something from the city and or people who are uh the subject of dis of potential of citation by the city for liquor violation or something like that usually those folks get such time as they need basically to represent themselves so I thought it might make sense to put a rule specifically in our rules that that makes that clear to everybody going forward so that's that's what I'm talking about and I think if the council wants to put that on a future agenda uh that's what we're looking for tonight I'd be happy to answer any questions I'd be open to having it on a future agenda I think it's a good discussion to have because I have had comments from public where there was you know where we have a presentation from an expert or from the staff and they'll take 35 45 minutes and then they say and then we get three minutes to for rebuttal and it doesn't seem fair to them so I would like that discussion okay other it's other thoughts the only thing I would like to make sure is that if there is a presenter for an item that is clear that that is the kind of the focal presenter that there's not a sub presenter and a sub presenter and a sub presenter who each get 10 minutes so maybe if there's someone in this case someone who initiated the petition and spoke on their behalf I think that makes sense but then I think that the subsequent people are aware that they get the standard three minute time limit and make it really clear and so I think that's why it's worth a conversation well I was just going to say that uh that we can certainly have some of those conversations when we have the conversation I appreciate that that Insight this is that's a little fine line when we have these these counc initiated items discussion bring you up for the next meeting um the just logistically it sounds like we do want to have conversation so it's not something we would just put on the consent for you know as is we want to have the conversation okay perfect I I did want to check in on that and and note that uh for any council member initiated item that is always an option we can discuss as part of this discussion if the council all says great idea we should just put it on a consent we don't need to have a discussion for any council member initiated item I want to make sure you're all understand that that's my intent is to make sure that we have that option um because we don't want to make this process any more more arduous than it has to be or than it already is set up so uh with that uh Mr trudon could you give us a speaking of the future agenda uh some idea of what's coming up for the council yes uh so we'll add that to the 27th uh meeting um so our next meeting is not next Monday it's MLK holiday so January 27th we claim Black History Month optimistic we also uh receive um a report presentation from Chief brahan about fire department Staffing I think he's reached out to all of you to potentially have some conversations prior to the meeting but uh we'll present his information we will be uh considering an ordinance Amendment for the computer Channel Billboards that came in front of the council in November it has gone back to the Planning Commission last week and so that recommendation is coming forward there also a minor plat I think is just creating one line lot on roson Avenue look to approve the recycling agreement and Recreation management software agreement those last two are intended to be planned on uh the consent agenda I think we've worked out the details of the recycling contract but certainly uh if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of it we can we can talk about it but I think all the policy decisions have been made around that and this is just the agreement uh the 10th of February um I think we'll hopefully add more items I think we had a couple items we talked about tonight but all we have officially on is discuss less May then uh the 19th and 20th just remind you to hold those open for commission applicant interviews um I think it's been a little while since we've took two days but there's always a possibility I think we have quite a few vacancies so that might U be happening this year then 24th uh we don't again have a lot officially on women's history month and we'll uh plan to receive uh have the council receive a volunteer program update just kind of all the things we're doing and I just put down the future dates in March just so we have some reference points oving forward and that's the future agenda right thank you Mr trudon are there questions from the Council on the future agenda uh other requested future agenda items reports announcements Communications from the council to catch all category uh just an announcement the League of Women Voters Roseville area had a a a program on Sunday yesterday and it was called behind the gavel and it was really interesting because it covered they had four judges there talking about what the role of each of the courts is and what the the judges do and how you become a judge and I just thought it was really good information because there's so much misunderstanding about what the courts do in order you know people feel they can make up laws and rules and really know they're very very structured on what they can do so it was uh informative did you okay I thought I heard you say and then I decided it was a plug for one p one group and I I'll I'll tell you all later got it okay that's what that's what email through pis for all right if there are no other Communications announcements reports or future agenda items the only item left on our agenda this evening is to adjourn so move second Mo by coun gra second by coun schroer to adjourn uh no discussion on a motion to adjourn all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimous we Jed at 9:24 p.m. thank you everyone