pf_03552 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

shared were asked to re didn't leave a lot for been an from the to of time manner, the to the market, there have to address them. Furthermore, the entire Panel would have benefitted and take and could draw their own conclusions. I would also be careful about just because didn't share data their short that do not have any. Ms. old and Mr. McCombs are the Twin Cities real estate market. have access to and or you can . 3. Mr. Kotecki states that I cut off dissent I interrupted the discussion (that I can remember)was after Al Sands had (from the for over 10 minutes and was to speak for over five minutes from his seat. If you read the evaluations from other Panel members you will see that some of them I allowed some individuals to talk too much. , some of that comes with the turf. as The reason that I was that Al was into issues that were real related to complicated aspects of the redevelopment agreement and tif and even if this information was within the scope of the Stakeholder's processs (which it wasn't)the information needed to have the discussion wasn't even available. Ironical I that we move on so that Tim Kotecki could have time to make his co~ments. he asked one clarifying question and said that was all he wanted to say. If he was so frustrated and had so much to say, didn't he utilize the time on the agenda that was express provided for him, Al Sands and Council Member Ihlan? 4. Mr. Kotecki also read a from me in a Star & Tribune article with great drama. I encourage you to read the article. It was provided to all of the Panel members. I believe you will find that it makes exact the opposite point than Tim Kotecki's intepretation. 5. The final I will make about Mr. Kotecki has to do with traffic. He made it clear early on in the process that he was opposed to Twin Lakes Parkway and he believed that it would cause an increase in traffic in his neighborhood. Traffic and its effects on his neighborhood were among his issues. The Stakeholder's process provided the Panel members with direct access to the MnDOT Regional Manager for Transportation, the Ramsey County , the consultant who did all of the analysis for the I35W Corridor Coalition and the Twin Lakes AUAR, as well as former Public Works Director and URS consultant, Karl Keel. Tim didn't attend this workshop. Many other Panel members who had to miss meetings due to conflicts contacted us and we made an effort to meet with them and provide the information that was missed. Tim may have viewed the video tape that was taken by a neighborhood representative. I don't know whether he did or not, but he did subsequent state conclusions about traffic that were inconsistent with the information that had been presented by the traffic experts. In closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity to serve as the facilitator for the Twin Lakes Stakeholders Advisory Panel process. This project and the reinvestment that it could represent for the City of Roseville is vitaly important to the community's future. It is a challenging project and there is much at stake for many. One of the ectives of the Stakeholder process was to organize and assemble a great deal of relevant information and present it to a diverse group of individuals. It is also my hope that this model for community participation can serve as a model to be refined and modified to assist the city with other complicated and controversial decisions. Finally, I hope that a better informed citizenry and better informed advisory commissions will position the city council to make decisions that are fair and sensitive to the needs and concerns of every party, but ultimately are the best for the common good of the entire community. I wish you the wisdom and courage to make these important decisions well. 3