My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CCP 10132025
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2025
>
CCP 10132025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/21/2025 4:14:47 PM
Creation date
10/21/2025 4:10:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
10/13/2025
Meeting Type
Regular
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.
/
904
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
Roseville <br />City: <br />MN <br />State: <br />55113 <br />Zip: <br />This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to <br />the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. <br />Email <br />How would you prefer <br />to be contacted? <br />Remember to fill in the <br />corresponding contact <br />information. <br />Email Address: <br />Field not completed. <br />Phone Number: <br />Dear Elected City Representatives, <br />Please Share Your <br />Comment, Question or <br />I serve on the Public Works, Environment & Transportation <br />Concern <br />Commission and was shocked to see The Roseville Reader <br />article about the proposal to close the leaf recycling center. This <br />was NEVER brought to our Commission which leaves me <br />wondering WHY we have these Commissions in the first place. It <br />appears that if Staff is concerned they won't receive favorable <br />feedback from the Commissions, they bring topics straight to the <br />Council for a quick vote. Additionally, it's my understanding that <br />Council never questioned if the PWET Commission had any <br />engagement on this topic, which I find disheartening. <br />I don't disagree that some of Staff's reasoning has merit, but it <br />should be open to discussion and community input FIRST. I do <br />appreciate that Council tabled it for a couple weeks to allow for <br />comment, but the respectable thing to do would have been to <br />bring it the Commission first. This closure would impact a TON of <br />residents who value this offering. <br />Illegal dumping, people outside of Roseville using it, and <br />contractors using it are all legitimate concerns. I recognize that <br />staffing the site would be costly; however, could we consider <br />using technology to assist here?? <br />As far as complaints from the nearby senior housing complex, <br />what did this developer think building near a swamp and next to <br />a compost site would be like?? Did none of these residents look <br />at their surroundings before they decided to move in?? This site <br />has been in operation for decades, and it's silly to weigh these <br />complaints over the value it provides for many, many residents. I <br />Qbhf!215!pg!:15 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.