Laserfiche WebLink
<br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL <br />OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA, HELD ON March 15, 1965 <br /> <br />* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * <br /> <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the <br /> <br />Village Council of the Village of Roseville, Minnesota, was duly held in <br /> <br />the Village Hall, 2701 North Lexington Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota, on <br /> <br />Honday, the 15th <br /> <br />day of March <br /> <br />, 1965, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. <br /> <br />The following merrbers were present: Mayor Cedarllolm, Trustees Curley, <br />Goodrich, Grauel and Shields <br /> <br />and the following absent: None <br /> <br />Member Goodrich <br /> <br />introduced the following resolution and <br /> <br />moved its adoption. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 1174 <br /> <br />V~lliREAS, a reapportionment scheme for legislative districts has <br />been proposed by Senator Claude Allen and Representative Robert Ashbach <br />representing this area which is acceptable to the Roseville Village <br />Counei 1 ; <br /> <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Roseville Village Council that <br />the ~tinnesota Legislature, and specifically those Representors and Senators <br />from this Legislative and Senatorial district support a reapportionment plan <br />as outlined on the attached map which would place Roseville in one senatorial <br />district and two representative districts with the dividing line as Hamline <br />Avenue; <br /> <br />AND n~T the Village Clerk be instructed to send copies of this <br />resolution to the representative and senator from this district and to <br />the Chairman of the Legislative Committees in the House of Representatives <br />and the Senate dealing with legislative reapportionment. <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly <br />seconded by Member Curley and upon vote being taken thereon, the <br />following voted in favor thereof: All present <br /> <br />and the following voted against same: None <br />