CC_Minutes_2004_1011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Regular Meeting - 10/11/04 Minutes - Page 24 Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification that the City Council was requesting a written response from City Attorney Anderson to her questions. Councilmember Ihlan also questioned why she had received a public notice, on City of Roseville stationery, regarding an open house sponsored by the developers and implying City support for the developer. Ci ty Manager Beets responded that staff had been advised by the developer of their intent to hold a public session, and as is common practice for staff to do anytime there is the potential for a quorum of Councilmembers to be present at an event or meeting, a public notice had been prepared for public information. Mr. Beets advised that this was to protect the City and Councilmembers from any perceived violation of Open Meeting Law stipulations. Councilmember Ihlan brought forward a question she had received from the public regarding the Twin Lakes Redevelopment process: "When will the public get a chance to talk without the developers being present and responding to their public comment and concerns?" Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her concern that the City Council had not allowed adequate public input creating a flaw in the process. Councilmember Ihlan expressed further concern regarding consultant fees to-date on the project, and in general, and requested future agenda discussion specifically related to the Community Development Department Consultant expenditures of: 1) Specific amount spent in the public record; and 2) Context of budget questions and City Council authorization of consultant expenditures. Councilmember Ihlan questioned why the costs for the consultant were not being borne by the developers; and why the City was spending public monies on these consulting fees. Council Chamber Audio/Visual Concerns Councilmember Maschka requested comment from City