My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_7482
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
07xxx
>
7400
>
res_7482
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:17:18 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:15:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
7482
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. P-82-29 and Preparation of Plans and Specifications Therefor Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
3/14/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />very good shape. There's no problem with water on Chatsworth. <br />Last summer we had nothing but dirt and noise when they fixed <br />Brooks. The whole summer was ruined on account of it. In <br />talking about the improvement with curbing - take a look <br />around and look at the leaves on it and see how often the <br />County is going around and taking the leaves off the curbing. <br />What is better - curbing or beautiful green grass down to <br />the road like it is now on Chatsworth. Look down Chatsworth <br />once and you'll notice how nice it looks. I can't see that <br />the curbing is an improvement on this street. Like I said, <br />there's absolutely no problem with water. So really, what <br />is the benefit? Not beauty certainly. <br /> <br />ACTING MAYOR JOHNSON: Mr. Jacobsen, did you sign the <br />petition initially? <br /> <br />MR. JACOBSEN: I signed the petition against it. There <br />are others now that are changing their minds on this. <br /> <br />ACTING MAYOR JOHNSON: Are there others here that want <br />to speak to this project? <br /> <br />MR. FRANCIS CRIST, 2673 Farrington Street: The other <br />gentleman talked about the fact that this is a public meeting <br />to decide yes or no. Some of us weren't given adequate <br />notification. The memo that I got was dated January 24. I <br />received it in the mail March 5. I'd like an explanation as <br />to what the delay was. I'm sure there are other people in <br />my neighborhood that would too. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: The delay was not - after we got it - <br />not wanting you to know. The legal requirements have to do <br />with we can send it out too soon. The legal requirements <br />are that you can send it out too soon to have a hearing, as <br />well as too late. We send out - within the time we had to <br />prepare the necessary envelopes, etc., and mailing - and <br />stay within the guidelines of when we're supposed to mail it <br />out. <br /> <br />MR. CRIST: Do you think that two weeks notification <br />is adequate for public comment on a project of this nature? <br /> <br />~rn. HONCHELL: I not only feel it's adequate, it's <br />what the law dictates. We can't send it out too soon. It's <br />illegal if we do. <br /> <br />ACTING MAYOR JOHNSON: There's an envelope of time, sir. <br />It has' to be sent out within that time period. Had it been <br />sent out the date that it was dated, it would have been an <br />illegal notice. <br /> <br />~rn. CRIST: Yes, but if you want public response, you <br />should give adequate time for the people concerned to get <br />together. <br /> <br />-4- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.