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 30 <br /> <br />benefit a developer and TIF applicant, and opined that such <br />consideration was not applicable with current City policy. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan further expressed strong opposition <br />to a majority of the City Council proceeding with entering <br />into this agreement without giving consideration to full <br />protection of the City's interests, which she opined were <br />not being protected. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan, City consultants and Developer <br />consultants reviewed several areas of concern related to <br />property acquisition; negotiated changes to the original <br />Concept Plan for mixed uses; and projected rate of return <br />for the developer and requested subsidy. <br /> <br />Mr. Strakota clarified original projections for anticipated <br />rate of return, as prepared by his office, noting that for <br />tonight's discussion, 9.15% was an appropriate estimate. <br />Mr. Strakota discussed the conservative nature of the <br />estimates provided, while striving to achieve an improved <br />budget to ensure the project works. <br /> <br />Further discussion included identification of the "big box" <br />retailer; environmental remediation to-date and work plan <br />status; importance of the housing component of the project; <br />termination provisions for the City; potential for additional <br />future litigation and risk assessment; <br /> <br />City Attorney Scott Anderson, at Mayor Klausing's <br />request, provided opinion as to provisions of a termination <br />agreement clause. Mr. Anderson noted that he had first <br />thought that provision should be included, but after further <br />consideration and reflection, determined that the City <br />would be better protected without such a clause. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan again sought to delay further <br />consideration of the project until another time, given the <br />late hour. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing acknowledged Councilmember Ihlan's <br />position, and opined that the City Council's role was to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.