Roseville's Civic Campus Expansion plan in limbo after city council vote
Progress halts on new Maintenance Operations Center and License/Passport Center building projects
The motion to vacate a portion of Veterans Park to build Roseville's new License & Passport Center and Dance Studio on September 21, 2026 failed on a 3-2 vote. As a city-initiated vacation, the motion required at least four out of five votes in favor to pass. This decision halts the Civic Campus Expansion project until further decisions can be made about what to do with these city programs.
Mayor Dan Roe, Councilmember Wayne Groff, and Councilmember Julie Strahan voted in favor of vacating the land. Councilmember Matt Bauer and Councilmember Robin Schroeder voted against.
The portion of the park in question is shown in the red box in the image below. This is where the new building for the License & Passport Center, and the city's dance studio is planned to go.
On September 14, the city council voted unanimously to approve the Civic Campus Design Development Plans, which includes plans for the new LPCDS on the western edge of Veteran's Park. (View that presentation here.)
In that meeting, the council discussed the history of decisions around leasing or building something new for the License/Passport Center too as well as the 2024 vote around sales tax funding. (Watch that meeting here.)
The current retail strip mall, which is owned by the city, along Lexington Avenue, will be demolished to make way for the northern section of the Maintenance Operations Center. The rest of the facility will be south of Woodhill where the current Public Works buildings are. The VFW would remain as-is along with an expanded parking lot. The rest of Veteran's Park would also remain, with an improved playground, basketball court, and fastpitch softball field. Green space in the outfield will also be used for soccer programs.
Discussion
Though it was a public hearing on September 21, no members of the public spoke and there were no written comments from members of the public included in the city council packet.
Groff, who made the motion to adopt the resolution to vacate, spoke first. He supported it as part of the larger project and because the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously supported the vacation.
"I appreciated the improvements that are being made to the park. I think, in a way, it was an opportunity to rework Veteran's Park to make it more usable for the residents and neighbors there. I liked the idea of a fastpitch softball. It's an inclusive thing because—I'm making a generalization—it's usually more women and girls who play that sport and we don't have any of those fields in the city. . . . I like the playground equipment that was included and the basketball court is a nice addition," said Groff.
Strahan said, "In speaking with the residents who are adjacent to this area, I know they are supportive of this project and so I can support it as well."
Strahan previously opposed the project being built on city park land, but came around to supporting it after the design changed to keep most of Veteran's Park in place.
Roe said, "The original plan for the maintenance facility was to essentially use the entire property that the city owns north of Woodhill. This is a revised design with, as was noted, input from the public, especially neighbors to the west. I am supportive because this is reflective of that feedback."
Bauer and Schroeder did not provide comment during the council discussion before voting against the motion to vacate.
After the vote to vacate failed for lack of a two thirds majority, the city council took up another agenda item regarding various resolutions on the land use for the whole civic campus project. But after the presentation, both the city manager and the city attorney recommended tabling the discussion until more questions could be answered about the ramifications of not vacating the portion of Veteran's Park.
City Manager Pat Trudgeon requested clarity from the city council.
"It's really important for staff to understand what just happened here tonight. We have had several meetings about this project, as recently as last meeting, and we moved ahead with the project, including our costs. By not vacating the park, is that suggesting that there's an alternative? Or is it just an attempt to not do the project? Because if there is a flaw in our thinking about vacating the park and council has an idea to still do the project without vacating the park, then I think it's important for us to hear. This is something that wasn't indicated as an issue before and I'm really disheartened to hear that at the last possible second we have this change, that wasn't brought up before when there was ample opportunity to do that," Trudgeon said.
Roe replied saying he too was "disheartened" and remarked that there had been no discussion on the motion indicating why anyone planned to vote against the motion to vacate.
"This is an opportunity for those in the parties on the council to express their reasoning behind the nonvacation or the vote against the vacation so we can understand as Mr. Trudgeon said, what’s going on here?" Roe said. "And I will say, further, that by not speaking to it, that it is doing a disservice to members of the public that need to understand why city council members are making the decisions they are making.”
Schroeder then spoke to defend her vote.
"I don’t think it’s a surprise that there was some concern about this dance studio, license project going forward. There’s a lot of residents who have been contacting us and saying please reconsider doing this. They say they voted it down, even though we say it was a technicality that it was only on the funding. But even now, there is so much outcry from the residents to not want us to do this project," Schroeder said.
Bauer then said, "I would take offense to the surprise at the last minute. I’ve consistently been making votes since the beginning of discussions … I was against it for the fiscal reasons. I was against it for the residents for wanting better solutions to this. I’ve been consistently saying this publicly and amongst other people here. It shouldn’t have been a surprise that I voted no on it just as I have voted no numerous times previously.”
Naomi Krueger
Roe pushed back on the assertion that there was broad opposition to building a new license and passport center, saying he'd only heard from 10 to 20 people in emails to the city council who opposed it.
"I don't know that we can say there's a great groundswell from the community against the project, especially when people are informed exactly how it's going to operate," Roe said. He also said that when people learn more about the facts of the project, some have told him they changed their minds.
The 2024 Election Ballot Questions
In the 2024 Election, Roseville residents voted on two ballot measures regarding funding for the civic campus expansion project. The questions were about implementing a half cent sales tax in Roseville to fund each part of the project. The measure to fund the Maintenance Operations Center with the sales tax passed, but the measure to fund the License & Passport Center with the same sales tax failed. Here were the results:
Roseville Ballot Question Results
Question 1: Sales Tax for Public Works and Parks Operations Facility
Yes: 11,263 (55.12%)
No: 9,171 (44.88%)
Question 2: Sales Tax for License and Passport Center
Yes: 9,465 (46.63%)
No: 10,831 (53.37%)
Naomi Krueger
The dance studio was not specifically mentioned on the ballot, but it was included as part of the information sent to the state Legislature in 2023 and in city communications about the project.
"We do mention that the new License and Passport Center would also provide space for the City's recreational programs, specifically the dance studio. As such, it was considered as part of the project that the Legislature granted us approval to use sales tax for it subject to voters approving the use of sales tax for that facility," Trudgeon told the Roseville Reader, as reported in 2025.
Funding
The construction of the new Maintenance and Operations Center will be paid for with revenue from the half cent local sales tax, which was approved by voters in 2024. The most recent cost estimate for the MOC project is $64,147,646 which is $75,581 under budget.
The building of the new facility to house the License/Passport Center and Dance Studio (which will be displaced by the new MOC), would be paid for with bonding. The most recent cost estimate for the LPCDS building project is $12,955,575, which is $1.5 million under budget.
"The current plan for funding the LPCDS costs is to redirect existing debt-service levy capacity after bonds issued in 2012 for park improvements and the Roseville Fire Station are repaid. This will not require any new levy funds for this portion of the project," according to the Sept. 14 Request for Council Action, prepared by Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer.
Review the budget summary and background information about the project in the Request for Council Action to approve the Civic Campus Design Development Plans from September 14, 2026 here.
Reactions and next steps
Now, the city council and city staff will need to decide how to move forward with the project. Finding an alternative solution for the city's License and Passport Center as well as the Parks and Recreation Dance program needs to happen before the Maintenance Operations Center can be built on that site.
The Roseville Reader reached out to each city councilmember and the mayor, city staff, and the Parks and Recreation Commission for their reactions to the meeting and how this impacts the project overall. Below are quotes from responses sent via email:
Mayor Dan Roe:
"The immediate impact of the council's park vacation disapproval vote is that staff, the city attorney, and the city council will have to take some time to review exactly how that decision affects the planned decision-making, and what options are available to proceed. I have concerns that a delay could adversely affect project costs and borrowing costs for both the license & passport facility and the maintenance facility, but I am hopeful that a way forward can be found without excessive delay."
Councilmember Wayne Groff:
"This was a hard meeting. The project had been moving forward with 5-0 votes. We even had a vote last week where all five council members voted to support sending the whole project out for bids. Tonight was a surprise. We did need 4 of the 5 council members to vote to support the vacation of part of Veteran's Park. This vacation was supported unanimously by the Roseville Parks and Rec Commission. So I was not expecting Council Members Schroeder and Bauer to vote against the project. The votes they have taken so far have spent at least $300,000.00 of taxpayer money that will have to come out of the General Fund if this project does not move forward."
Councilmember Matt Bauer:
"My vote last night reflects residents’ desire to not build a license passport center and dance studio for $14.5m and spending decades paying for it through their property taxes. I have voted against the license passport center and dance studio ever since residents did the same with the referendum question. To be accurate residents never voted on the dance studio as that was added on by City Manager Trudgen and approved by a majority of Councilmembers increasing the project's cost. Whenever it was possible I requested separate votes for the license passport center and dance studio and the maintenance operations center allowing me to vote no to the former and yes to the latter. Where that wasn’t possible, I voted yes to ensure the maintenance operations center moved forward. It’s frustrating to know the city has spent over $300k so far on the license passport center and dance studio but I’m hopeful we don’t spend $14m more on it. I advocated early on to lease space rather than build as this is a terrible time to build and office space is plentiful right now.
. . . I cannot say what’s next for the overall project. Last night’s vote stopped the building of a separate license passport center and dance studio. I spoke with City Manager Trudgen this morning about what I’d like to see which is the same thing I’ve been saying since the beginning. I would like to see the license passport center find some leased space right away. That will allow the maintenance operations center to begin work almost a year ahead of schedule resulting in savings of ~$800k from reduced escalation costs"
Parks and Recreation Commissioner Lindsay Matts-Benson:
"As a taxpayer, dance parent, and Parks Commissioner, I am deeply saddened and disappointed by the City Council's vote last night to not vacate a portion of Veterans Park to build the LPCDS. Having served as the Parks and Recreation Commission representative on the stakeholder design group for the Maintenance and Operations Center and the License and Passport Center and Dance Studio, I saw firsthand how staff and community members spent the last few years evaluating design options, engaging with the community and other stakeholders to ensure this project was fiscally responsible and met our city's growing needs. It is extraordinarily frustrating to watch that time, effort, and taxpayer investment discarded because two council members chose to ignore the expertise of and feedback from residents, city staff and citizen commissions, especially the Parks and Recreation and Planning Commissions' recommendation to vacate based on their personal opposition to the project. It feels fiscally irresponsible of Council members Bauer and Schroeder to now use more staff time and resources to figure out a viable way forward for this project. "
City Manger Pat Trudgeon:
"Staff will evaluate the impacts of the Council’s decision and look at potential next steps for the Maintenance Operations Center, License and Passport Center, and Dance Studio."
Editorial note: Councilmember Julie Strahan declined to comment. Councilmember Robin Schroeder did not respond to our request for comment. The directors of the Parks and Recreation and Public Works departments did not return our request for comment. We have also reached out to a resident who lives on the street directly to the west of Veterans Park and will include that response when available.
Watch the Meeting
Watch the portion of the September 21 City Council meeting where this agenda item was discussed:
Watch the September 14, 2026 City Council meeting in which the design for the new Civic Campus plans were discussed and approved:
Learn More
For more detail on the history of this project, take a look at previous Roseville Reader coverage of the Civic Campus Expansion decisions:
Naomi Krueger
Naomi Krueger
Naomi Krueger
Greg Simbeck
Naomi Krueger
Naomi Krueger
