pf_03552 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

a ies frustrati small sub-set of the Panel has its content. choose, based on whatever facts, or process is to share those opinions with everybody and y listen to their responses. I found it extremely disrespectful to the other members of the Panel to caucus as a group and develop that and not share it with the whole Panel. Then for Al Sands to to the Mayor by saying that the of all of the other members the Panel ority)had already been included in my statements, was both pre and very rude. Every time I learned that written co&ments or had been circulated among some members of the group, or sent to the council, I made an effort to make s available to the entire group. When it was clear at the June 21 council meet ,that Sands and Kotecki had comments and concerns about the process, I made time on the very next for them to share their co~ments with the entire group. Al for a time and Tim asked a single clarifying question and did not share any of his criticisms with the rest of the Panel. I also provided an opportunity for Council Member Ihlan to share her concerns and criticisms with the entire group. She also declined the to share with the entire Advisory Panel. did the "Minority Group" choose to not share their comments, concerns and recommendations with the entire Advisory Panel and Development Team? did Counci Member Ihlan attempt to modify the agenda so that this group would have the final say for the evening? Since the designated agenda item was a report from the Panel process and they chose to bypass the Advisory Panel, discuss their s among themselves and proceed directly to the council and the public, a strong case could be made for not their test at all. Al SAND'S COMMENTS: After reading the letter that he provided to the city council on June 21, and his co&ments at the final Advisory Panel meeting, I was not sed that Al expressed negative comments. Al is entitled to his opinions and unlike Mr. Kotecki, he did take the opportunity to share them with the other Panel members. disagreement with Ai's comments is that he represents that he already knows exact how much the project will cost and concludes that it is too much. You know and I know that no one knows what the final numbers will be for this project yet. I fully expect that no matter what are Al will still say that the project is too expensive. He is extremely conservative and fi risk averse and always has been and that is his right. What I object to is the impression that he projects that he already knows what the final project costs and revenues are and he doesn't. Nobody does at this point and this project is far too important to the future of the City of Roseville to make reckless and sensationalized statements. His comments mixed facts, assumptions, opinions and inuendos together in ways that were misleading to the public. Tim Kotecki's Comments: Let me begin by saying that I have no idea what I did or said that so offended Mr. Kotecki. I made a concerted effort to respect all viewpoints throughout the process. I did have the responsibility of serving as the presenter of a great deal of information as part of this process. That was not an effort to monopolize the process, but rather to inform the Panel. Tim seems to feel that there was some some sort of unspoken commitment to equal time between the presenters and the Panel members. It would have been imposible to present the volume of information we did and maintain an equal balance, but I also strongly reject the notion that Panel members were denied sufficient time to speak. Here are just a couple of factual corrections to Mr. Kotecki's comments: 1. Mr. neither a retail expert, nor is he a market researcher. He believes that he has a definitive retail study of the relevant market area for Twin Lakes and he has "study" was provided to both Mary Bujold and Jim McComb and both of them quic 2 Kotecki is completed not. His concluded