My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0425
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0425
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:24:26 AM
Creation date
5/12/2005 9:09:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Ordinances
Meeting Date
5/9/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 04/25/05 <br />Minutes - Page 24 <br /> <br />comment regarding OpposItIOn to the proposed project; <br />questioning the City Council's grasp of the project itself. Mr. <br />Moses reviewed the City's history with contracts and <br />agreements, seeking assurances from the City Council that this <br />project would prove different. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing defended the considerable amount of time, <br />effort, energy and research spent on this development to-date to <br />assure the public that the project impacts were fully considered; <br />noting that the Council had not taken the steps to move forward <br />at this time. <br /> <br />Tim Kotecki, 3078 Mount Ridge Road <br />Mr. Kotecki referenced an unidentified document from the last <br />City Council Study Session, outlining the terms for various TIF <br />Districts and their classifications; and questioned why the City <br />Council was considering a 25 year District, that wasn't even a <br />classification. Mr. Kotecki expressed concern regarding the <br />property valuations within a 25-year timeframe; and questioned <br />if the project would benefit the City of Roseville, and if <br />negotiations to-date represented the best interests of the City. <br /> <br />Staff and various consultant responses to public comment and <br />questions included, a discussion of excess revenues generated <br />and used to reduce the term of the district; misconceptions that <br />the City was advancing funds, when the developer is advancing <br />funds and, as agreed upon by both parties, seeking <br />reimbursement of a portion of some of the eligible funds through <br />tax increments; establishment and continued negotiations of a <br />reasonable rate of return for the developer and City; realistic <br />performance of the development; and incentives of the developer <br />to accomplish the project as quickly as possible. <br /> <br />Mr. Casserly was directed, by Council consensus, to clearly <br />define in the proposed redevelopment agreement, an exit <br />strategy. Mr. Casserly assured Councilmembers that the <br />document contained an entire section related to termination and <br />events of default, and would be further refined as the documents <br />proceeded. <br /> <br />Mr. Casserly was also directed to include language provisions for <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.