Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />