My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2009_0518
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
CC_Minutes_2009_0518
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2009 8:53:40 AM
Creation date
6/24/2009 8:53:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/18/2009
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, May 18, 2009 <br />Page 22 <br />be realistic and allow some burden of awareness for the public. Mayor Klausing <br />noted the regulatory provisions in place, through the City's partnership with state <br />and federal governmental agencies; noting that the City did not have that exper- <br />tise. <br />Councilmember Pust noted that the 60-day review period deadline was not until <br />July 2, 2009. Councilmember Pust spoke in opposition to additional mailing of <br />notice; however, she expressed her personal interest in observing one or more of <br />the applicant's other sites; and noted that this would serve to facilitate additional <br />public comment during that time and before the City Council took action. Coun- <br />cilmember Pust apologized to the applicant for not having taken time to review <br />other operations prior to tonight's meeting; however, expressed an interest in tour- <br />ing the Shakopee or Minneapolis sites before she made a decision, noting that this <br />would be a visible part of the community and she would like to get a sense of how <br />the operations would be screened and how the plant actually operated. <br />Public Comment <br />Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane (located 3 miles downwind from the <br />proposed facility) <br />Mr. Grefenberg advised that he first became aware of this proposal when he re- <br />ceived acall from a neighbor located in a condominium 1200 feet from the plant; <br />and expressing concern to neighborhoods related to odors from operations. Mr. <br />Grefenberg advised that he didn't have enough information to determine if he was <br />opposed to the project, but asked that the City Council hold another Public Hear- <br />ing to identify and address potential concerns. Mr. Grefenberg asked for clarifica- <br />tion on whether this plant would provide additional jobs in the community, and <br />whether those jobs would be living wage jobs. <br />Mr. Peterson advised that this new plant would employ approximately five em- <br />ployees on site that would serve various construction projects within a 15 mile ra- <br />dius, with approximately 30 employees on those paving sites; another 15 truck <br />drivers who would be plant employees; and that the wages would average $30.00 <br />per hour. <br />Mr. Grefenberg advised that he would need to weigh the inconvenience of the <br />plant with creation of living wage jobs. <br />Mr. Peterson noted that the company proposed to shutter the Minneapolis site, its <br />least productive and least efficiently operating plant, with this site proposed to <br />produce 300,000 tons per year of aggregate materials. <br />Mr. Grefenberg requested that the City Council delay action on this issue to allow <br />more citizens to become aware; and that the City Council provide additional and <br />extended notice of this proposal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.