CC_Minutes_2011_1024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 24,2011 Page 10 measures to deny the public its voice in this matter. Mr. McDonald further opined that it was sad that the City Council felt it was necessary to use such administra- tive levers and legislative loopholes, when the projects would most likely be sup- ported by a majority of the community and were in the best interests of the com- munity. Raymond Schreurs,3058 N Wilder Mr. Schreurs noted, as a long-time resident of Roseville, that he had witnessed many changes in the village and now city; and asked the following questions of the Mayor and City Council. 1) Is democracy dead in Roseville; 2) Isn't there a City Council policy to ask voters of Roseville to decide on expenditures over $3 million; 3) Are you afraid of resident voters; and 4) Would we not vote in the best interest of Ro- seville? Dick Houck, 1131 Roselawn Avenue Mr. Houck referenced media sources and ongoing headlines about homelessness, diminishing senior retirement incomes,joblessness, food shelf shortages, and oth- er results of the recent economic downturn, and questioned if the City Council was reading these same headlines, questioning how they could up with this pro- posed bond issue if they were doing so. Mr. Houck stated that there were severe hardships out there, and opined that it was immoral in this economy to raise taxes. Mr. Houck further opined that previous City Council's would not have set a poli- cy to limit expenditures to $3 million without a referendum; however, this City Council had authorized the City's bond counsel to find a way to seek $27 million without public approval by a referendum. Mr. Houck opined that this was a devi- ous plan to pick the pockets of Roseville citizens; when if it was a valid project, the City Council should be able to sell it to the Roseville voters through a referen- dum,but that they should ensure that it was actually the will of the people. Bruce Dishinger,2141 N Avon Street Mr. Dishinger opined that by declaring parts of Roseville blighted, the City Coun- cil could circumvent a referendum going to people; however, he further opined that the very people responsible for taking care of parks and fire stations, were the people who let the situation reach a blighted condition. Mr. Dishinger used maintenance of his home as an analogy and his responsibility for its maintenance without seeking money from a lender to take care of something he should have been taking care of. Mr. Dishinger asked that the City Council reconsider their decision, and bring the issue before the voters, letting them decide what was or was not right for Roseville. Mr. Dishinger assured Councilmembers that citizens could decide what is right, and being good people who elected individual Coun- cilmembers, opined that Councilmembers needed to trustworthily and faithfully honor the trust those voters had placed in each of them. While recognizing that there were things that needed to be repaired in Roseville, he opined that the deci- sion should be up to the people of Roseville.