Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, February 12, 2007 <br />Page 3 of 30 <br /> <br />future development of the area without a repeat of events. Mr. Lam- <br />bert advised that two meetings had been held to-date, with productive <br />discussion on how to develop a process for Twin Lakes development, <br />as well as other areas, that would be amenable to citizens of Roseville, <br />and allow for more community consensus of a project. <br /> <br />On a personal note, Mr. Lambert opined that outcomes of the discus- <br />sions to-date may provide a process to get questions on the table; to <br />address community concerns; and respond to questions or concerns by <br />respected staff people, consultants and/or developers to provide ulti- <br />mate resolution and consideration by a majority, ifnot full consensus. <br />Mr. Lambert further opined that there would probably remain certain <br />issues (i.e., tax increment financing) that may remain divided and <br />produce angry feelings, a system to provide perceived responses to <br />citizen questions and concerns was necessary to allow an open process <br />and more long-term satisfaction that opinions could be expressed, re- <br />ceived and responded to. <br /> <br />In conclusion, Mr. Lambert requested that the City Council allow <br />more public input in the AUAR Update. <br /> <br />2. Council Communications, Reports and Announcements <br />2.a Cable Franchise Update <br />Councilmember Kough introduced North Suburban Cable Commis- <br />sion (NSCC) Executive Director Coralie Wilson to provide an update <br />regarding pending federal legislation regarding franchise rights for the <br />City. <br /> <br />Ms. Wilson spoke to several items related to recent federal legislation, <br />not adopted, and a subsequent FCC Order regarding competitive cable <br />franchising, voted on a 3/2 vote on December 20, 2006, concluding <br />that local governments had established unreasonable franchise process <br />and terms, and a prohibition against "unreasonable refusal to award an <br />additional competitive franchise." <br /> <br />Ms. Wilson provided additional detail; however, noted that the actual <br />language of the order had yet to be reviewed, and while the order ap- <br />peared to be adopted for the benefit of telephone companies, the text <br />had not been released at this time. Supposition was that cities would <br />