My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0320
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0320
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:35:28 AM
Creation date
4/3/2006 10:28:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/20/2006
Meeting Type
Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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
<br />City Council Study Session - 03/20/06 <br />Minutes - Page 8 <br /> <br />Development (DEED) and the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Colton <br />reviewed the anticipated schedule, with implementation of the <br />third study April 1, 2006; preliminary data returned by mid-June <br />of 2006, and installation of groundwater monitoring wells in <br />July. <br /> <br />Mr. Colton advised that the School District was seeking the City <br />as a co-applicant for grant applications to DEED and the <br />Metropolitan Council; staff assistance in grant application <br />preparation; with no anticipated out-of-pocket funding from the <br />City of Roseville, only the City's backing of the applications. <br />Mr. Colton noted that the grant applications need to be submitted <br />by November 1, 2006, following approval of the clean up plan <br />by MPCA. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust asked a question similar to that of <br />Councilmember Ihlan regarding competing grant application <br />proposals with that of the Twin Lakes redevelopment. <br /> <br />Ms. Bennett responded that clean up funding is from an entirely <br />different grant pool than that of redevelopment or affordable <br />housing monies. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust questioned the health concerns of property <br />owners if deep groundwater contamination were found in the <br />area. <br /> <br />Mr. Colton responded that, if residents downstream from the <br />property were on public water, there was not a problem, but if <br />they had wells (i.e., private and/or shallow sand point wells) for <br />irrigations purposes, they could be pumping that contaminated <br />water to the surface. Mr. Colton advised that residents would <br />continue to be noticed by the School District on the status of the <br />process, as well as findings. <br /> <br />City Manager Neal Beets assured citizens that if they were on the <br />City's public water supply there was no concern regarding their <br />water supply. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough questioned what could be done to seek <br />restitution from the previous owner( s) who were the source of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.