2017-04-18_EDA_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville REDA Workshop Tuesday, January 17, 2017 Page2 1 Panel Discussion 2 3 A synopsis of the panel discussion included the reality that few Class A office developers 4 are being built in today’s marketplace; Roseville has not attracted new multi-family con- 5 struction that other communities have done; economics of housing that often make new 6 rental housing projected difficult in many settings; major developments occurring in oth- 7 er cities that required strong public/private partnerships; why low density attached hous- 8 ing (e.g. townhomes) are not being built in Roseville; new workforce housing and mod- 9 ern amenities associated with it that may provide a needed component to Roseville’s 10 housing stock; increasing trends in rentals as evidenced nationally and locally; and im- 11 pacts realized with the Great Recession that affected the overall development community. 12 Additional discussionincluded the high value placed on walkabilty by Boomers and Next 13 Generation, especially safe sidewalks, trails and other connections to safe and interesting 14 places; modest place-making improvements (temporary or permanent) that may help cre- 15 ate vibrant public spaces and opportunities for human interaction especially in SE Rose- 16 ville; and Roseville’s reputation in the development community; and Roseville’s vision 17 for the future and reaction to opportunities to create innovative financial tools and their 18 ability to leverage the community’s key assets. 19 20 Individual comments and discussion among the panel included: 21 Rental trends in the market and turnover data for younger age groups and immigrants 22 Children taking over parental homes after having been raised in Roseville and fre- 23 quently moving back as part of Roseville’s aging community demographics as well as 24 a seen as a positive affect in regenerating the community 25 A breakdown of housing types (e.g. owner-occupied versus tenant-occupied) in three 26 categories: single-family detached whether owner-or renter-occupied; multi-family 27 attached (townhomes); and multi-family rentals (apartments); and comparisons be- 28 tween the type and value of them that would attract future generations, some age- 29 restricted and some not 30 Why the future economic competitiveness of Roseville is important based on recent 31 survey information on jobs and local labor force 32 Industries by employee numbers in Roseville and considered an importer of jobs, 33 with more jobs in the city than resident workers, somewhat lower than in other com- 34 munities 35 Breakdown of where Roseville’s labor force comes from and where Roseville resi- 36 dents work; and a comparison of average annual wages compared to median house- 37 hold income, with Roseville also lower than other comparisonsin the county, state 38 and peer communities, possibly due to Roseville’s heavy employment base in the 39 healthcare and retail fields. 40 Former perceptions that the City of Edina was an executive suburb, and the City of 41 Roseville was a junior executive suburb, no longer considered as such by those in the 42 industry VERSUS a perception that Roseville in reality was a mostly blue collar 43 community, and more of an extension of Minneapolis/St. Paul with a demographic 44 shift in recent with new residential development creating more white collar and exec- 45 utive jobs and homes in Roseville 46 Peer communities to Roseville considered to be the Cities of Richfield and/or St. Lou-