2012_0709_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AttachmentH come from the community or from other communities; and 3) what additional expenses will those 312 employees create for Roseville and at whose expense. 313 Mr. Fernandez questioned why the City Council would not protect its community rather than leaving it 314 vulnerable to proposals such as this, or will Wal-Mart sufficiently compensate the community for the 315 additional infrastructure, public safety, traffic congestion and delays, and increased crime victims; as 316 well as what will happen to the local, small businesses established in Roseville and providing its 317 character and quality of life. Mr. Fernandez opined that Roseville was fine as it is, and asked that it be 318 left alone. 319 Vivian Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road 320 Ms. Ramalingam sought clarification on the responsibility for construction and maintenance of 321 roadways around this proposed development. 322 Tim Kotecki, 3078 Mount Ridge Road 323 Mr. Kotecki questioned what the three (3) most attractive reasons Wal-Mart had for building in 324 Roseville; whether surrounding retail bothered Wal-Mart or the City Council; whether TIF was part of 325 this development and if so, would Wal-Mart develop in Roseville without TIF. In fairness to Wal-Mart, 326 Mr. Kotecki reviewed his mileage calculations of other Wal-Marts in the immediate metropolitan area 327 (Saint Anthony Village, University at Prior Avenues) and questioned if it was normal practice for them 328 to build that close to their other stores. Mr. Kotecki questioned the accuracy of traffic studies and their 329 projections, and safety of cars potentially stacking on the freeway for others going at or over speed as 330 they encountered that stacking. 331 Jane Auger, 1880 Roselawn Avenue W 332 As a twenty (20) year resident of Roseville, Ms. Auger opined that having Wal-Mart so close to their 333 neighborhood would decrease their quality of life and property values.Ms. Auger advised that this may 334 cause her to re-evaluate her choice to remain in Roseville. Ms. Auger questioned the designation of 335 Wal-Mart at “limited retail” and opined that there must be other prime vendors looking to locate in 336 Roseville; and expressed her opposition to the proposed Wal-Mart development. 337 Mary Alexander, 14 Mid Oaks Road 338 Ms. Alexander questioned what was in it for Roseville from the City Council’s perspective; and whether 339 money received by the City would serve to further improve community parks and roads. Ms. Alexander 340 noted the significant tax money being allocated to ensure the best park system possible for the 341 community; and questioned what was wrong with Roseville aspiring to be the best rather than dragging 342 it down with such a development as proposed. Ms. Alexander questioned if the City would feature a 343 Wal-Mart store on the front cover of the Roseville Visitor’s Association (RVA) promotional materials; 344 opining that this was not something communities chose to advertise as a positive in their community. 345 Ms. Alexander noted her confusion in the Comprehensive and Master Plans, but opined that her 346 perception was that both consistently supported local businesses supporting area families, not big box 347 stores in any of their recommendations. Ms. Alexander displayed and referenced her copy of the March 348 2012 Consumers’ Report magazine that had rated ten (10) big box stores, with Wal-Mart scoring the 349 lowest of those ten (10) for customer satisfaction. Ms. Alexander questioned why a retail store should 350 be put in the midst of Roseville when customers were not satisfied with this retailer; and opined that it 351 only provide a recipe for failure. 352 Mayor Roe closed public comment at this time, as no more speakers were apparent. 353 At the invitation of Mayor Roe to Ms. Sue Steinwall for comments or responses, Ms. Steinwall advised 354 that they would stand for questions as asked. 355 TIF 356 Mayor Roe responded that while the subject property will be contributing increments, the developer 357 Page8of14