My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_720906
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
197x
>
1972
>
pm_720906
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:31:50 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:13:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/6/1972
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />Roseville Planning Commission <br />Wednesday, September 6, 1972 <br /> <br />The September 6, 1972, regular meeting of the Roseville Planning Commission <br />was called to order by Chairman Pope at 7:30 P.M, <br /> <br />Members present: Kellett, G. Johnson, Membrez, Demos, Eagles and Pope. <br />V. Johnson arrived at 9:00 P.M. <br /> <br />Others present: Councilman Albert Grauel, Public Works Director Sherman Goldberg, <br />Assistant Village Engineer Dick Skalicky, Midwest Planning <br />Representative Dick Dwinell and Administrative Assistant Steve North. <br /> <br />Approval of Minutes <br /> <br />Mr. Membrez moved and Mrs. Demos seconded, that the minutes of the regular Commission <br />meeting of August 2, 1972, be approved. Roll Call, Ayes: G. Johnson, Membrez, Demos <br />and Pope. Nays: None. Abstention: Kellett and Eagles, <br /> <br />Planning File 709 - Capital Improvement Program Planning <br /> <br />Mr. Burke Raymond, Village Manager, appeared before the Commiss ion and responded <br />to the questions which had been raised at the August Commission meeting. He <br />presented a report to the Commission outlining the existing debt of the Village <br />and the schedule of payments on that debt through its retirement. Another report <br />presented to the Camnission discussed the effect of the construction of the new <br />Village Hall on the existing mill rate of the Village 0 <br /> <br />Mr. Raymond indicated that the Council is presently considering a bond issue election <br />to be held some time in late winter or early spring 1973 in the amotmt of approxi- <br />mately 1.3 million dollars. This would include $950,000 for a new village hall, <br />$100,000 for remodelling the existing Village Hall, $185,000 for site work and land- <br />scaping, $70,000 for architects fees, and $50,000 for contingencies. <br /> <br />Mr. Raymond pointed out that the existing Village Hall would be remodelled to <br />accommodate an expanded central fire station and to serve as headquarters for the <br />Village Park and Recreation Department. The remodelled building would contain <br />space for use by citizens for meetings, etco <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Mr. G. Johnson inquired if a third fire station would be included in the proposed <br />bond election. <br /> <br />Mr. Raymond stated that the third fire station would probably not be included in the <br />same bond election as the Village Hall. However, the fire department was being <br />requested to submit to the Village Council within six months their recommendation for <br />the location of a third station and there could be a bond election in the near future. <br /> <br />Georgann Hall, representing the Roseville League of Women Voters, stated that the <br />League favors the construction of a new Village Hall and the remodelling of the <br />existing Village Hall. <br /> <br />Mr. Membrez indicated that in his opinion the timing of the previous election on <br />the Village Hall bond issue had been poor. He stated that it is now his firm <br />conviction that the Village needs a Village Hall and needs it now, and that it was <br />his opinion that if the election could be held in early 1973 he would strongly <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.