My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-05-25_EDA_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Economic Development Authority
>
Agenda_Packet
>
2016
>
2016-05-25_EDA_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/23/2016 10:36:04 AM
Creation date
5/23/2016 10:35:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Economic Development Authority
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
6b. Attachment A <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, April 18, 2016 <br />Page 25 <br />velopers as part of her assessment for subsequent presentation to the City Council <br />initially as part of her assessment to understand where Roseville is at in that cycle <br />or how far down that road Roseville may go. Based on their perspective, Ms. <br />King expressed interest in hearing from them if the cycle would correct itself or if <br />the city needed to intervene. As an example, Ms. King noted that the low ceilings <br />in some of those older industrial buildings created challenges for some uses. <br />Mayor Roe opined that Roseville seemed to have a good trend in rehabilitating <br />existing older industrial buildings or tearing them down for new construction; <br />with not many from his perspective other than perhaps in mixed use buildings. <br />Councilmember Willmus cited several examples of office showroom/retail around <br />the County Road B-2 area (e.g. REI and old roller rink now serving as a Petco). <br />Councilmember Willmus noted that the city had slowly seen that transition over <br />the last fifteen years, and opined it seemed to be continuing, but agreed that it was <br />certainly a consideration when looking at retail. <br />Regarding the category “competitive financing tools and policies” Councilmem- <br />ber Etten emphasized the need to look at the building forward design to avoid <br />blocking the city into a corner. <br />Ms. King advised that she included that discussion under the “business-friendly <br />processes and reputation” category. <br />Meeting Schedule <br />City Manager Trudgeon sought feedback as to whether the City Council wanted to schedule a <br />separate Special Council meeting or EDA meeting in May to allow more time for discussion. <br />Discussion ensued regarding timing, topics for discussion (e.g. larger overview of housing and <br />funds available); and economic development components; upcoming action items on the City <br />Council agenda versus Worksession format; and potential opportunities. <br />Mayor Roe suggested, subject to City Attorney review and approval, it shouldn’t matter if the <br />meeting was a Special City Council or EDA meeting. <br />Councilmember Etten spoke of the importance for the City Council to commit to this economic <br />development effort and necessary discussion. <br />By consensus, the City Council agreed that an separate additional meeting was the best option, <br />with consideration for potential dates other than a Monday. <br />City Manager Trudgeon was requested to look at dates for the meeting. <br />Proposed Ramsey County Legislation <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.