My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0925_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0925_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 2:22:04 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:39:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
303
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City Council Study Session— 09/18/06 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 7 <br />Councilmember Maschka opined that the firm identified by <br />Councilmember Ihlan would be his last choice, since their <br />proposal was the most expensive and expressed an interest in <br />taking over the case in its entirety. <br />Mayor Klausing noted that lack of apparent Council maj ority to <br />support hiring a firm at this time. <br />Mr. Miller, at the request of Councilmember Pust, advised that <br />the initial report from staff and acting attorneys was scheduled <br />for the October 9, 2006 meeting, with input from the City's land <br />use attorney, the City Attorney, and possibly the LMCIT <br />attorney; reporting on the specific questions asked of Council to- <br />date, including those questions asked in Councilmember Ihlan's <br />proposed motion. <br />City Attorney Anderson encouraged the City Council to direct <br />any additional questions to Mr. Miller or his firm, in order to <br />make as detailed an analysis as possible. <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned Mayor Klausing's <br />interpretation as to the Council's majority consensus and <br />presented her previous motion from August 28,2006. <br />Ihlan moved, Kough seconded, authorizing that the City Council <br />hire independent, outside Counsel to analyze the implications of <br />the Court of Appeal's decision for the future of the Twin Lakes <br />development, including impacts on the Development Contract; <br />Tax Increment Financing Subsidies; ongoing Eminent Domain <br />proceedings; the Twin Lakes Parkway; and updates to the <br />AUAR. <br />Councilmember Pust opined h�r interest in pursuing a second <br />opinion at a later date; but spoke in opposition to this motion at <br />this time, until results of the first opinion were gleaned. <br />Roll call <br />Ayes: Ihlan and Kough. <br />Nays: Maschka; Pust and Klausing. <br />Motion failed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.