My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0620
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0620
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:27:29 AM
Creation date
8/19/2005 3:26:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/20/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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 - 06/20/05 <br />Minutes - Page 27 <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion, opining <br />that it was the role of the City Council to listen to the <br />people, understand their values and have a sense of the <br />risks involved in a project of this size. Mayor Klausing <br />noted that the majority of the people he had spoken with <br />thought it made sense, but he had incorporated both sides <br />into his decision-making. Mayor Klausing opined that the <br />project moved the City forward, and was supporting the <br />motion. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion from her <br />personal legal perspective and from a policy standpoint. <br />Councilmember Ihlan addressed her continuing concerns <br />related to pending litigation and Comprehensive Plan <br />Amendments and a super-majority vote; the <br />Comprehensive Plan language related to big box retailers <br />and strip centers in the redevelopment area; inconsistencies <br />with B-6 Zoning Districts; demonstration by the developer <br />for "but for" testing for TIF; developer profit margin <br />concerns; meeting public purpose funding and objective <br />interpretations; and various components of the <br />development (i.e., green space); and the support of private <br />"big box" retail development with public funding. <br />Councilmember Ihlan also addressed concerns related to <br />environmental clean up and remaining unknown costs; and <br />standards of clean up. Councilmember Ihlan concluded by <br />opining that the City Council was exercising its most basic <br />responsibility concerning tax monies and public assets by <br />proposing to spend $40 Million of public dollars on a <br />purely private development with no public benefit. <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned fellow Councilmembers <br />as to whose interest they were representing; who would <br />benefit from the project; and questioned their honesty. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that the basic fiscal analysis <br />had not been sufficiently completed; questioned economic <br />impacts on the rest of the retail and business community; <br />increased traffic generation, mitigation and public safety <br />issues; impact on quality of life and property values; <br />impacts to Langton Lake and park; lack of park dedication <br />fee requirements; location ofthe Twin Lakes Parkway. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.