My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_0621
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_0621
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:30:19 AM
Creation date
2/9/2006 2:19:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Legal Publications
Meeting Date
6/21/2004
Meeting Type
Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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 Study Session - 06/21/04 <br />Minutes - Page 12 <br /> <br />approval; then to prepare Preliminary Plats for <br />specific areas. <br /> <br />Mr. Noonan noted that this schedule had been at the <br />suggestion of Councilmember Ihlan to phase the process <br />into a more manageable scenario. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan concurred with Mr. Noonan's <br />timeline, based on previous discussions and her <br />recollections. Councilmember Ihlan noted that, on July 19, <br />2004, the Council's consideration of the financial <br />feasibility of the project was a priority, and expressed her <br />preference for as much information to be brought forward <br />as possible as to the specific kind of support from the <br />developer plan; the developer's proposed acquisition plan <br />and whether the Council would be asked to consider <br />eminent domain; anticipated financial implications and <br />suggested financial gap strategies. Councilmember Ihlan <br />opined that the more information the City Council had <br />available to them at their July 19 meeting, the more <br />productive the meeting would be both from the City's <br />and/or developer's standpoint. <br /> <br />Mr. Noonan concurred with Councilmember Ihlan's <br />observations, but noted that the challenge was not to <br />overwhelm participants; how to manage the process; and in <br />general, the developer's preference for a process similar to <br />that used for the Stakeholder's Panel, then more details and <br />specifics provided at a later date. Mr. Noonan noted that, it <br />was his intent on July 19, to provide a completed refined <br />tax increment financing (TIF) analysis, along with an <br />assessment as to sources and uses; then to introduce <br />methods or strategies for closing the projected financial gap <br />within the policy environment or context for evaluation <br />purposes. Mr. Noonan further noted that, at that time, the <br />various efficiencies of proposed gap strategies could be <br />specifically defined (Le., environmental mitigation grants). <br />Mr. Noonan noted that additional work needed to be done <br />on the developer's part with the revisions adding more <br />residential area than the former plan, even recognizing that <br />more residential generates more increments, but also a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.