Roseville council discusses next steps after split sales-tax referendum; staff to study options for maintenance facility and license center

Roseville’s City Council and staff began a multi-step public process Jan. 13 to act on a November ballot that approved a 0.5% local sales tax to fund a new public works and parks maintenance operations center but rejected use of the tax for a proposed license and passport center.

City Manager Pat Trudgen told the council the meeting was intended to solicit initial direction and identify information staff should develop next. Trudgen and staff outlined eight topic areas: implications of the referendum results, steps to build the maintenance facility, how and when to implement the local sales tax, options for the license and passport center and dance studio, funding choices, final design and project management, community engagement and related real-estate and zoning actions.

Key points from staff and council discussion and staff responses included:

- Referendum outcome: Voters approved the sales-tax question permitting a half-percent tax for the maintenance operations center but rejected the ballot item authorizing the same sales tax for the license and passport center. Staff emphasized the vote does not prevent the city from building a license and passport center by other funding methods; it does mean sales-tax proceeds cannot be used for that building.

- Sales tax mechanics and timing: City staff said the Minnesota Department of Revenue must be notified at least 90 days before the city wants to start collections and that collections begin on the first day of a quarter. If the council decided now, the earliest implementation date would be July 1, 2025; passing the implementing ordinance would need to occur about April 1 to meet that schedule. Staff noted collections continue for up to 20 years or until project costs are recovered, per state law.

- License and passport center options: Staff presented four paths: 1) close the center (not recommended by staff); 2) lease an off-campus facility; 3) build a new city-owned two-story building on the civic campus as envisioned in the predesign; or 4) reuse and retrofit existing on-campus buildings. Staff asked the council which options to pursue further. The council favored pursuing options that reuse existing city campus buildings where feasible and asked staff to refine the cost estimates for new construction and retrofits.

- Financing options: Bond counsel outlined three financing approaches for any potential non‑sales tax financed license and passport center: Port Authority general obligation bonds (historically used by the city and backed by property taxes without voter referendum), Economic Development Authority (EDA) revenue bonds with a lease-back arrangement, or a straight city revenue bond backed solely by the license center’s revenue (staff said that last option likely would not produce sufficient revenue to cover debt service). Councilors asked staff to return with further analysis of the bond alternatives and timing.

- VFW and property transactions: The proposed civic campus plan includes relocating the VFW and acquiring property from the organization if the maintenance facility proceeds. Staff said any purchase negotiations or relocation planning would be part of subsequent steps; staff also noted relocation and tenant relocation assistance obligations for existing tenants of the Lexington Shops and that those processes can take place over multiple years.

- Design, procurement and project management: Staff recommended a two-step procurement approach: first hire an architect to develop and test site and building alternatives (particularly for the license and passport center and dance studio), and then, if the council directs, move to final design and select a construction project manager (either construction manager–adviser or construction manager at‑risk). The council asked staff to prepare a draft RFP for an architect to evaluate campus alternatives and to bring that draft back for council discussion.

- Community engagement: Staff proposed forming a design stakeholder group with roughly 10 members: three area residents/property owners (including representation from Griggs Street residents), a VFW representative, one representative from five city commissions (Equity and Inclusion, Finance, Parks and Recreation, Planning, and Public Works/Environment/Transportation), and one council member. The group would work through listening sessions, design alternatives and final recommendations to the council.

Public commenters living near the proposed civic campus raised concerns about siting the maintenance facility adjacent to residential backyards, effects on property values, grading and stormwater impacts, noise and screening. Staff and the consultant noted those are issues that would be addressed in final design (grading, berms, landscaping, stormwater controls and operational mitigation). The council emphasized mitigation, mature landscaping and design details to limit impacts on neighbors as priorities for the design phase.

No statutory ordinance or bond issuance decisions were made at the meeting. The council gave preliminary direction to proceed with planning for the maintenance operations center, to refine options for the license and passport center (with emphasis on examining reuse of city campus buildings), to draft an RFP for architectural services to analyze site and building alternatives, and to return with additional cost and financing analysis. Council members and staff also discussed scheduling a follow-up agenda item to consider whether to implement the sales tax (staff noted a window around March 2025 to act if the council wanted a July 1 start).