CCMin_65Jul14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2265 7~S~~S Lemberg: I don't know when - but some time I envision a street and also possibly north of the school - and a sanitary sewer and water facilities would be required, Thomas Brady You talked about Roseville project on Roselawn. Possibly 191? Albert: a line down Albert. Our street will be torn up three times in six years. Have we given full consideration to the fact that part of our problem on Ruggles is water that runs dawn from north of Roselawn? Lemberg: Line that five have proposed here is sized only for Falcon Heights water. If a line would come down - we don't know where, but Roseville would pay for oversizing. L. Larsen Regarding the sr~er going to run down Albert Street to 1897 North Albert: take the run off from Roseville. Water line is going to run in the boulevard. I am in favor of a drainage system. I am sick of having Roseville's water run down my back yard. I called your attention to the sump that freezes up every winter so we can't use the street down there. If you go to that sump hole, you'll notice that it only drains half of the block. If Roseville wants to do it right, they have to go across Roselawn and. down Iiamline to take care of the situation. T have no objection to paying for this storm sewer providing it will do the job, but I want you to know that I do not want Roseville coming on Albert Street. I have every faith in you, but I want to know that Roseville is not going to do that job. I don't want them to come butting in. I am against Roseville coming down Albert Street. Mrs. J, Scott Ledy I want to question the petition. I did not react either 1872 Pascal: way, It was presented to me very differently, I wonder if the people who signed feel the way T do. I thought he wanted a different type of sewer system. I was told his concern was the safety factor - that by signing his plan, it was more economical and feasible, I:da.d not sign it, but I am wondering if other women signed it because it was more economical, not because they didn't want the sewer, but because it was more economical. Nilsen: The petition reads as follows: "tiYe, the undersigned, hereby affirm that we are opposed to the proposed Northeast Storm Sewer Project Improvement 65-1 as described in the brochure relating to such project." MacMillen: Fifty per cent of this land is under cultivation. There is a generally recognized need.. for storm sewer and the ponding area should be eliminated in a manner I have thought out. This would be a cheaper project. Drain farming area and eliminate this hazard. I am still opposed to the proposed plan. Mrs. Ledy: The way T reacted to his statements this evening, is that people who signed it are against the storm sewer, Arthur Erler: I second Tufts. Ledyts suggestion. Many ~rrere under this false impression. It was my understanding that his idea was that the plan as set up in the brochure would stall continue to