My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005_0718_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2005
>
2005_0718_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 10:29:57 AM
Creation date
9/14/2009 10:03:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
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.
/
249
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
■ Strengthen City Codes that address housing; allocate resources to enforce Codes; inform <br />residents about Codes and enforcement actions <br />. Develop accountability measures and actions for secondary impacts af new development, <br />such as drainage and flooding <br />. Improve communications with citizens <br />What can citizen do to respond to these issues? (Source:S�nall group discussion reports) <br />. Become more actively informed about and involved in Code enforcement, planning new <br />development <br />. Communicate views and opinions to City Council members <br />. Participate in Crime Watch efforts <br />Organize citizens concerned about County Road B and contact County <br />What action ideas were participants willing to support? (Source: Feedbacksheets) <br />Ten (10) persons indicated that they could personally support one ar more of the issues solution <br />ideas/�rojects discussed. The ideas/projec�s included: <br />• Code Enforcement (6 persons) <br />. Keeping Cty Rd B�Hvvy 280 intersection open (4 persons) <br />. Citywide housing plan that included affordable housing (3 persons) <br />. Increasing citizen participation (2 persons) <br />. Improving road maintenance (2persons) <br />Reducing crime (1 person) <br />. Improving accau�7tal�ility for draivage impacts from new development (lperson) <br />yVhere participants satisfied with the meeting? (Source: Feedbacksheets) <br />•'�'w�nty-six (26) persons agreed that they had an opportunity to voice their thoughts <br />during small group discussions. <br />. Twenty-three (23)persons thought that the dialogue was informative. <br />. Sixteen (16)participants indicated interest in similar dialogues on other citywide topics. <br />No one topic was mentioned more than once. Topics mentioned included: <br />o Lower tax base <br />o Road improvements <br />a City Community Center <br />o Twin Lakes <br />o Code Enforcement <br />South West Area Dialogue Summary p 7 <br />Mai�d115,2005 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.