My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005_0620_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2005
>
2005_0620_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 11:57:55 AM
Creation date
9/14/2009 10:02:48 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.
/
228
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— 06/13/OS <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 19 <br />review, opining that the City of Roseville should be preparing a <br />similar document. <br />Councilmember Kough spoke in support of Councilmember <br />Ihlan's motion and subsequent comments, referencing a recent <br />trip he's made to the City of Pittsburgh and their infrastructure <br />issues. <br />Mayor Klausing spoke in opposition to the motion; questioning <br />what further information could be determined through delaying <br />consideration of the project; the ability for the City to reassess <br />impacts when litigation is resolved; and the further refinement <br />through the federal courts related to the Supreme Court's <br />determination on the use of Eminent Domain as applicable. <br />Mayor Klausing opined that the environmental clean up and <br />infrastructure costs would be addressed through the project <br />agreements. <br />City Attorney Anderson noted that the development attorneys <br />working with the City staff would incorporate language within <br />the agreement provisions to address court decisions and <br />subsequent impacts; and opined that he saw no risks in moving <br />forward; and noted that in past litigation cases stemming out of <br />environmental review and appeals, he had yet to encounter a <br />project where the approval process was stopped due to litigation, <br />unless it was a court-ordered injunction. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Kough and Ihlan. <br />Nays: Maschka and Klausing. <br />Motion failed. <br />10. Consider Council Goals and Priorities, and Schedule Budget <br />Work Sessions <br />City Manager Neal Beets sought additional guidance or direction <br />to staff regarding City Council's priorities and goals for specific <br />departments andlor city-wide objectives prior to staffs <br />development of a draft 2006 Budget. <br />City Manager Beets first addressed the proposed 2006 Budget <br />Worksession Calendar for the remainder of 2005, as developed <br />Consider Council <br />Goals and <br />Priorities, and <br />Schedule Budget <br />Work Sessions <br />� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.