HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.a. Downtown Plan Scoping Committee Membership AppointmentsCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SAY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 2, 1992
At the May 19, 1992 city council meeting the city council agreed to move
ahead with the establishment of the scoping committee for purposes of
developing the downtown redevelopment plan.
City Council members were to each provide Mayor'McMenomy with two names for
consideration for appointment to this committee. The Mayor is provide three
names so that the committee will have a eleven member makeup. These
recommendations are to keep in mind the general guidelines proposed by the
ad hoc committee which met on November 23rd.
0
AGENDA ITEM: Downtown Plan Scoping Committee AGENDA SECTION:
Membership Appointments Old Business
PREPARED BY: Stephan Jilk AGENDA
ATTACHMENTS: Copy of November
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the list of recommended
appointees to the downtown redevlopment plan
scoping committee and to request that that
committee meet tobeginthe plan scoping
process.
COUNCIL ACTION•
IVI # 5A
23 1991 mtg
AP
Ys
minutes
At the May 19, 1992 city council meeting the city council agreed to move
ahead with the establishment of the scoping committee for purposes of
developing the downtown redevelopment plan.
City Council members were to each provide Mayor'McMenomy with two names for
consideration for appointment to this committee. The Mayor is provide three
names so that the committee will have a eleven member makeup. These
recommendations are to keep in mind the general guidelines proposed by the
ad hoc committee which met on November 23rd.
0
AGENDA ITEM: Downtown Plan Scoping Committee AGENDA SECTION:
Membership Appointments Old Business
PREPARED BY: Stephan Jilk AGENDA
ATTACHMENTS: Copy of November
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the list of recommended
appointees to the downtown redevlopment plan
scoping committee and to request that that
committee meet tobeginthe plan scoping
process.
COUNCIL ACTION•
TO: Mayor E.B. McMenomy I
Councilmembers: Klassen, Staats, Willcox, Wippermann
Downtown Planning Workshop Participants
FROM: Stephan Jilk, City Administrato
DATE: January 21, 1992
RE: Downtown Development Plan Work Session
The following represents a staff summary of the work session held
November 23, 1991. This work session was held to discuss the
idea of developing a formal plan for the
development/redevelopment of the Rosemount downtown.
The City's Economic Development Authority had discussed the idea
of bringing City Council, Planning Commission, Parks & Recreation
Committee, Utilities commission and residents together with City
Staff to discuss the value of developing such a plan. The EDA
agreed to fund the hiring of an outside consultant to facilitate
this work session.
Mr. Don Bargen, an organizational consultant was hired for this
purpose. Invitations were sent to residents, business owners,
commission members and staff to attend the work session.
Participants included: Vernon Napper, Ed McMenomy, Dennis
Wippermann, John Oxborough, Sheila Klassen, Harry Willcox, Red
Staats, Al Meyer, John Edwards, Kurt Gundacker, Cathy Busho,
Sheila Hathaway, Joseph Walsh, Tom Werner, John Howard, Scott
Rynerson, John Loch, Chuck Terry, Rich Carlson, Marie Jensen,
Lucy Holzer, Reid Hanson, Stephan Jilk, Sue Vanderhevden, Dave
Bechtold, Jeff May, Lisa Freese, Elliel Knutsen, Ron Wasmund, and
Tracie Peconick.
These participants were led through a process to determine:
1) The scope of a development plan
2) Strategies, to create a plan
3) Establishment of a steering committee to coordinate the
development and implementation of a plan.
The group also developed a list of potential steering committee
members for the City Council to consider for appointment to the
steering committee.
Downtown Development
Organizational Meeting
Page 2
Following is an abbreviated outline of the concept for
development of the plan that the group drafted.
I. SCOPE OF PLAN
This is what the plan would include and what the plan
development would provide to those making policy decisions
regarding downtown development.
A. Vision/Niche - what is the vision of Rosemount for its
downtown. What area should be considered "downtown".
What kinds of services should we attempt to provide to
our residents/non-residents. What do we want our
downtown to represent. is it just a
retail/commercial/service district for residents and
non-residents or is it that and more. is it a focal
point for social interaction, a identity factor for
what we want the City of Rosemount to be. is it a
statement of who we are and what we want others to be.
How will we effect the development of this "downtown"
to reach these goals. Can we determine a "niche" in
the commercial/retail/service market which in turn we
can fill and through which we gain economic support to
develop and maintain a strong downtown.
The participants felt strongly that we cannot now, and
possibly for a long time, compete generally with Apple
Valley, Eagan and Burnsville for retail and commercial
trade. But we may be able to determine, through market
analysis and controlled development, a market niche
which can be developed or enlarged so we can create our
own "market". This may be a key factor in development
in Rosemount.
B. Data. What data will be needed to develop a plan and
where will we get it? Existing data on sales, market,
penetration, existing businesses/services in Rosemount.
Demographics. Demographic data including, but not
limited to, market population, population growth
projections, transportation information on
transportation networks, start destination data,
employment data, household income data will be needed.
Development. Possibilities for types of development,
size of downtown, financing alternatives, development
management (who plays what role).
Downtown Development
Organizational Meeting
Page 3
C. Goals to establish which effect the final development
picture including: `
1) Costs of development. Don't develop a pie in the
sky plan which will never be obtained because of costs.
if the plan is unrealistic it will never happen;
2) Impacts of implementing the plan. Don't draw up a
plan that will effect business owners, property owners,
residents and customers so drastically that there will
A
be such resistance to the plan that it won't happen.
plan must be accepted and gain support from those with
the most at stake or it will not develop.
3) Standards for development/redevelopment must be
both reasonable and at the same time reflect a quality
that represents what we want people to see as
"Rosemount". Development standards should provide
guidelines to property owners, business operators and
potential developers which present a reflection of what
the community sees themselves as and yet must be
realistically achievable in a competitive
retail/commercial market by not causing unrealistic
demands on the cost of business operation.
II. STRATEGIES
Strategies to use in creating the plan. The group discussed
ideas on what they felt would be areas that the plan would
have to address for the plan to be successful. Some of
these are negative issues or "problems" that the plan would
have to address and are seen as obstacles in implementing
a downtown development plan. Some of these are positive
issues or conditions which are perceived as supportive of
developing a plan now.
Positive Considerations:
A. Port Authority. Establishment of a Port Authority in
the City will allow the City to:
1) Evaluate available financing options
2) Evaluate all alternatives for City Assistance
using the expanded limits of city power for
economic development.
B. Desire for Improvement. There currently exists
tremendous community support for improving the City's
downtown and working towards this goal. This will lead
Downtown Development
organizational Meeting
Page 4
to a greater chance of success in implementing any
plan.
C. New Developer/Expansion. Expansion of existing
involvement and development of a plan should bring
interest by new developers and/or expanded involvement
of existing business owners who want to expand their
businesses in the community.
1) Incentive packages which provide meaningful but
realistic support to developers will have to be
developed.
2) Reorganization of staff and greater emphasis on
economic development may be necessary to utilize
existing city financial and development authority
to support developers/development.
D. Sense of Community. The group focused quite clearly on
the idea of how the proper development of the downtown
could reflect "who we are" as a community.
1) Sense of community must be developed and reflected
in the downtown. There seems to be a strong
feeling in the community that the "downtown",
especially in Rosemount is vitally important in
creating and maintaining this strong "sense of
community."
2) The diversity of Rosemount (i.e. residential,
rural, heavy industry, metro location, rural ties)
must somehow be maintained and the downtown which
is developed should help in reflecting that
diversity.
E. Needs. Focus on the real needs of both businesses and
residents. it is important that the downtown represent
a viable opportunity for business development but that
it also satisfies the needs of our residents. In order
to insure that it does the following should be
utilized.
1) Surveys of residents and businesses
2) Town meetings to gain input from the general
public
3) Joint task force of residents and business people
Downtown Development
Organizational Meeting
Page 5
Negative Considerations:
Obstacles to development which must be addressed to insure
success.
A. Cost of Change. To gain developer, property owner and
business support.
1) Financial resources must be available.
2) Leadership must be in place to provide direction
to implementation and management.
B. Communication. Lack of communication now was seen as a
obstacle. Better communication in the community was
seen as a major element in developing the downtown and
more extensive use of:
1) Cable TV, and
2) Local newspaper, was emphasized.
C. Cost of Buildings and Land. Any new development and
redevelopment of existing property will of course
require acquisition of land/buildings. The cost of
land in Rosemount is rising and it is seen as a
deterrent to development. Consideration of these costs
must be realized and dealt with.
D. Funding. Funding for capital improvement and on going
operational expenses are key factors in business
development. Sources and opportunities for funding
must be sought out and defined. We must look to:
1) What funding is already available.
2) What other alternatives can be created.
E Stakeholders in the development/redevelopment may
actually stymie the development of a plan and its
implementation. In order to gain their support we
must:
1) Identify where the stakeholders would be in
conflict with the plan; and
2) Insure that an effort is made to analyze a true
cross section of all the stakeholders so we
understand their needs and address those needs.
Downtown Development
Organizational Meeting
Page 6
III. STEERING COMMITTEE
in order to give direction to the development of the plan
itself and in the future the success of its implementation,
the group agreed that a steering committee be established.
The group further felt that this committee itself should:
1. Be made up of 9 to 11 people
2. That they be appointed by and report to the City
Council
3. That the appointments be made by the City Council no
later than February 15, 1992.
4. That the committee utilize the plan development to
outline the scope of their duties and responsibilities.
To further assist the City Council in these appointments to
a steering committee, a list of suggested candidates to
serve on the committee as follows was compliled:
John Lock"
Anne Aune
Rav Knutson
Ed Dunn--
Ken
unn--
Ken Talbert
Richard Barnes
Jerry Fluegel
Beth Willcox
Ed Howard
Steve Toombs
Joe Walsh
Ron Pederson
Bill Mawe
Greg Klaussen
Paul Eggan
Dick Hanson -
IV. SUMMARY
Sheila Klassen
Ed Barloon
Ruth Fagerwaldt
Steve Jilk
Marcia Rousch
Harry_ Willcox
John Edwards
Bob Goldstrand
Scott Rynerson
Mrs. Kurt Gundacker
High School Students d
Don Sinnwell
Bill Norris
Tracie Pechonick
Lee Knutsen
Karl Biewald
1. The group recommended moving ahead to work on a
downtown development plan.
2. A steering committee should be formed with 9 to 11
members to scope out the plan and develop it.
3. The committee should be formed by February of 1992 and
it should report to the City Council.
Downtown Development
organizational Meeting
Page 7
4. Issues which will support and others which will be
obstacles to the development and implementation of a
plan were identified.
5. The City Council is seen as the lead organization in
this process and the group looks to the City Council to
move ahead with it.
Staff Recommendations: Following is a suggested process I am
providing for City Council's consideration to move ahead with the
downtown planning process.
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS
1. Appointments should be made to the Steering Committee
by the March 2, 1992 City Council meeting.
2. Schedule meeting(s) of Steering Committee to discuss the two
following options the downtown development process could
follow. A decision as to which process to follow would be
desired by the end of April. The two directions being
referred to are as follows:
Track W1. In House Plan Development
Coordination Responsibility: Staff
Cost: Up to $10,000
Time Frame: 12 - 15 months
In this scenario a majority of the work would be done
by in-house staff. This would include administrative,
planning, public works, engineering, building and parks
and recreation staff. In addition, police and fire
personnel would have to be involved at certain stages.
In this track, the City would expend fewer funds than
if a consultant were used to facilitate and develop the
plan. In addition, staff can rely on existing
relationships and provide a historical perspective.
However, the time involved for staff to coordinate and
develop the downtown plan would be extensive. Staff
risks "re -inventing the wheel" by engaging in a new
process that has already been created and streamlined
by consultants. In addition, staff may appear as
another level of control in a project which is very
important to residents and business owners, and finally
this track would not completely forego the use of
consultants for certain aspects of the plan.
It is staff's opinion that up to $10,000 would still be
needed for consultant fees to complete studies such as
financing programs and architectural guidelines. In
addition, staff is already extremely busy with the day
to day items and other special projects which could
cause the downtown development plan to take a minimum
of 12 to 15 months to complete.
Track #2. Consultant Plan Development
Coordination Responsibility: Consultant
Cost: $25,000
Time Frame: 6 - 9 months
In this scenario a consultant would be responsible for
coordination of the downtown development plan.
The individual/firm would facilitate and assist the
Steering Committee in preparing the downtown plan.
This would include utilizing staff wherever needed. In
this case the City would be requested to expend
additional funds to hire a consultant, however, an
individual/firm experienced in the development of
downtown plans through the committee process could be
utilized. A consultant would offer flexibility and
objectivity that would compliment staff and committee
experience and resources. The foremost advantage
beyond expertise is the time that would be needed to
complete the downtown development plan. A consultant
would be able to coordinate the committee and the work
that needs to be completed and keep the group focused.
Thereby, the plan could be completed in a much shorter
time frame. In addition, use of a consultant can
remove any bias from the role of facilitator and would
remove the perception that staff is directing the plan
in the direction staff wishes.
The start-up time for the use of a consultant would
include preparation of requests for proposals (RFP's),
interviews of consultants and selection. Staff would
be able to coordinate the selection process with the
Steering Committee.
Once a consultant was selected, the actual planning
process could begin.
Please note: The costs and time frames associated with each of
the tracks does not take into consideration implementation of a
completed plan.
Funding: In addition, sources of funding will also need to
be determined. The Port Authority (EDA) has budgeted some funds
for the development of the downtown plan ($12,000) and may be
able to commit more. It is my hope that the Rosemount Chamber of
Commerce, in their steadfast desire to obtain a functional
downtown plan, will play an active role in the plan process by
committing their time and financial resources to assist in its
successful completion. We believe that it is imperative that as
many people as possible feel a sense of real ownership in the
plan.
June 2, 1992
To: Mayor McMenomy
From: Sheila Klassen, Councilmeniber
Re: Downtown Planning Committee
The following are my candidates for the above mentioned conunittee:
Rita Gundacker
12801 Shannon PkN,\,y
Rosemount, MN 55068
H: 423-6172
W: 423-7501
(Rosemount High School)
vife
Ena Cisewski
14675 Biscayne Way
Rosemount, IIT 55068
H: 423-5678
W: 322-1300
(Woman's Touch
Furniture Restoration)
co-owner-
C7
p c oj (E I L4
CA
A-1
-G Or
rri
®�
cs CT1