Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 04/25/05 <br />Minutes - Page 22 <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka questioned if there was anything in <br />Code language that addressed crediting the developer for <br />creation of public art components in the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Welsch advised that the City Attorney would need to do <br />further research and provide an opinion to the City Council and <br />staff, as City Code was not definitive on public art credits from <br />park dedication fees. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing called for public comment from those who have <br />not already spoken to the Twin Lakes issue, with specific focus <br />on the term sheet. <br /> <br />Al Sands, 2612 Aldine <br />1) Mr. Sands addressed his interpretation of the developer's <br />Proforma calculations and forecasts as presented on March <br />14, 2005; and the apparent increase outlined in the term <br />sheet over that requested by the developer. Mr. Sands <br />opined that it was inappropriate for the City to become a <br />profit-sharing partner, and that any additional monies <br />should go toward reducing the public subsidy, rather than <br />putting the City Council in an improper position. <br />2) Mr. Sands reviewed the schedule of property intended for <br />acquisition by the developer, opining that one parcel <br />adjacent to Langton Lake Park, was already owned by the <br />City of Roseville, and sought clarification of intent, noting <br />the property description on Page 11 or Exhibit A. <br />3) Mr. Sands questioned why there appeared to be no exit <br />strategy for the city in term sheet. <br />4) Mr. Sands questioned why, on page 6 of the term sheet, in <br />the accounting and administration portion, there was no <br />provision for an independent audit or review of <br />documentation provided by the developer; opining that an <br />independent audit review needed to be provided, at a <br />minimum at the final reconciliation. <br />5) Mr. Sands opined that the linkage of housing to <br />commercial construction was invalid, but that the <br />developer should complete housing prior to commercial <br />construction. <br />Mr. Sands concluded by opining that the City Council needed to <br />