pf_03552 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

To: Roseville Minnesota From: Richard "Jake" 1664 MN Subject: Further Thoughts as a Twin Lakes Panel Member - Speaking as a Rosevi!le citizen and not in the of representing the Roseville Parks and Rec Commission. Below are my thoughts, with attempted brevity: Not necessarily put off by TIF . Don't know how else to redevelop inner ring suburbs when competing with green field exurbs. . Don't view T!F as a subsidy for a given developer, but city option to encourage development aligned with city vision, goals and long term success of Roseville. Not necessarily put off by Retail . Not personally happy with more retail, but don't see fundamental reason to block it -- provided reasonable provisions made (cap on sq. foot amount, handling traffic, 4-sided architecture, appropriate surrounding amenities, etc) . Don't see a huge problem with having a big box. It's the way people shop today. The logic was clear and understandable in the panel meetings. . Don't see it as threatening existing retail. The dynamic variables of retail make impossible a direct connection of potential revenue loss to Rosedale, Har Mar etc. . Suspect that all retail developments, including Roseville's Rosedale and Har Mar, were found to be objectionable by some, maybe even most citizens. But everyone now is used to the existing retail and the holiday clogging. But Put off by Financing 25 years of TIF still doesn't recoup costs. If true, then project is unreasonable. I can pick out other unsightly areas of Roseville I desire to be re-developed too, but at what price, 25 years of TIF, 50 Years of TIF? Perpetuity? Not persuaded by "Gap Strategies" . View Parkway or proposed right-of-ways as cost internal to project and don't see reason why it should be taken out and financed outside of TIF, Can't see a compelling case of how these streets/roads by themselves provide a common good for Roseville citizens -- it's directly linked to Twin Lakes redevelopment. It wouldn't be built without the redevelopment. It would be a stretch to figure out the benefit of it outside Twin Lakes (another way to get over to Byerly's?) . View many of the gap strategies as attempt to perk the numbers up from the conservative estimate revealing the "Gap". If the underlying assumptions of the conservative estimate should be re-examined - then fair enough, focus on that. Then develop a model of expected scenarios/outcomes given changes in interest rate, cost of purchased land, remediation costs. Have numbers guys run statistical models to show likely good/bad/expected outcomes. . Concerned that some gap strategies have interdependency, thus summing them up is deceptive. Example, asking city to reduce admin fees as one strategy, and then asking city staff to acquire EPA grants as another strategy. Where will the city time and cost of resources come from in getting these grants when admin fees are getting cut back? . Concerned that costs are not truly captured in gap strategies. Example, asking city to apply internal finance by tapping other accounts for managing cash flow. Those techniques come at cost, at least an opportunity cost. I may be incorrectly stating things in my comments above. But feel it would take me at least a full work week to truly understand how TIF and GAP strategies could work. I'm not prepared to make that time investment, right now. But wonder from the onset, why should it take that much time? It should be more straightforward. I'm unimpressed when somebody dumps 50+ pages of numbers at me; it shows lack of clarity. If doing a 50 page numbers dump, better have a great marketing plan, which brings me to the next point: