Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />� <br />� <br />x <br />� <br />� <br />8 <br />� <br />1� <br />1�1 <br />1� <br />1 :� <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, February 12,2007 <br />Page 3 <br />future development of the area without a repeat of events. l����. j1�m- <br />be�t 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 />On a personal note, �r. 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 andlor developers to provide ulti- <br />mate resolution and consideration by a majority, if not full consensus. <br />Mr. Lambert further opined that there would probably remain certain <br />issues (�.e., tax increment financing) that may remain divided and <br />14 produce angry feelings, a system to provide perceived responses to <br />I� citizen questions and concerns was necessary to allow an open process <br />1 E� and more long-term satisfaction that opinions could be expressed, re- <br />1� ceived and responded to. <br />1� <br />1� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� 2. <br />�3 <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />2� <br />�� <br />In conclusion, Mr. Lambert requested that the City Council allow <br />more public input in the AUAR Update. <br />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 />��� Ms. Wilson spoke to several items related to recent federal legislation, <br />:�� not adopted, and a subsequent FCC Order regarding competitive cable <br />:� 1 franchising, voted on a 312 vote on December 20, 2006, concluding <br />�� that local governments had established unreasonable franchise process <br />�3 and terms, and a prohibition against "unreasonable refusal to award an <br />�4 additional competitive franchise." <br />�5 <br />�[� Ms. Wilson provided additional detail; however, noted that the actual <br />�� languagc of the order had yet to be reviewed, and while the order ap- <br />3� 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 />