My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005_0509_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2005
>
2005_0509_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 11:10:10 AM
Creation date
9/14/2009 10:01:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
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.
/
235
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 Regular Meeting — 04/25/OS <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 19 <br />Redevelopment Proj ect. <br />Ms. Reiter reviewed the changes and assumptions — page by <br />page — from the last Council review of the proposed term sheet <br />dated 4121105 draft. <br />Page 1, Eminent Domain <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned the process of property <br />acquired through Eminent Domain and environmental testing <br />with Ms. Reiter responding that the redeveloper would be <br />required to test all properties. <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned why the Phase I testing had not <br />been completed on all parcels, and whether those properties <br />should be specifically identified and verified by an independent <br />consultant. <br />Mr. Casserly responded that the redeveloper was responsible for <br />any associated costs and would need to provide documentation at <br />the City's request. <br />Pa�e 2, Eminent Domain, continued <br />Ms. Reiter reviewed the clarification provided to narrow the <br />intent negotiated on behalf of the City with the developer in the <br />event a specific parcel needed to be eliminated from the project's <br />Concept Plan without substantially impairing the integrity of the <br />entire project, with specific attention to "Area S." <br />Financial Unfeasibilitv <br />Councilmember Ihlan continued to debate the merits of the <br />redevelopment project, and specifically the financial <br />unfeasibility clauses of the proposed term sheet related to <br />exclusive negotiation rights; and the need for the Council to not <br />include the provision in the document. <br />Discussion continued related to the individual Councilmember <br />viewpoints and perspectives related to the merits of the <br />redevelopment proj ect. <br />Further discussion included identification of the majority control <br />of parcels in the proposed redevelopment area, with Mr. Stutz, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.