Laserfiche WebLink
n1NU~rrs <br />c~_cy c~~,n~;.i <br />Augusc 1~e, 1935 <br />Ci.t_y I'~inance south sidE as a matCer of: publi.c safety. <br />of. <br />Zmpr.ovements 'L'he Clerlc commented that this was requssted betore, buC cleni.ed as 1.t <br />(Conte) coulcl noC get inCO the bidding scheduled for Lall. liocoever, now tkte <br />~ bl.cldi.ng ~is reschedulecl f:or febr.uary. <br />Fahey dir.ecte~ the Cl.eric to advise the County and State oi the City's <br />interest i.n a sidewallc on t}ie south side oL t.he street Che cosC o£ <br />wlt:ich ,houl.d be included under ['1SA funding. <br />Mrs. Sc11ze felt: that the prope~~ty owners on Che south s~i.de of the <br />street should be inLormed of. this. <br />No Paelcing i1r. Pahey i.ntroduced the fo7.lowing resolut:ion end movecl i.ts adopti.on: <br />On Li.Ct:le <br />Canada .tL;SOI.UTIO~; N0. £~5-£3-339 - AtJ7'tIORIlfNG NO <br />itoad PAItKING ON 1;0'PI~I SIDES OP LI7"LLli CANADA 120AD AND <br />ON ONii SIDE Oi' CENTEI2VII,LG ROtlll <br />Agend2 <br />ICem No. 11 The Eoregoing resoluti.on was duly seconded by ~1r. Blesener. <br />Ayes (5) 17ahey, I31.esenee, Coll.ova, Scalze, Nardini_. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Resol_ut:ion decl.ared adoptecl. <br />'Chis resolution appear.s :i.n ResoluCion Bootc No. 7.2, 1?age 394. <br />:dSA P'unds Mr;. Scalze i.ntroduced the. folLowi.nf; resoluCion and moved i.t.s adoption: <br />A~enda RP3SOI.UTION N0. 85-8-390 - ~PP{.t01'RIATING <br />TCem No. 11 MUNSCSPt~L S'LA'CL:-AID TU[7DS 'CO C.S.A.I~I. OR T.H. PROJLICT <br />'Phe Loregoi.ng resoluCi.on cvas dul.y secondecl by fcti-. Col.lova. <br />Ayes (5) Scal.ze, Col.l.ova, i~lesener, Pahey, Nardi_n:i. <br />Nayes (0). <br />R~soluCi.on declared adopCecl. <br />i'h.is resoli.iti.on appears i.n Resoltition IIootc No. l.?_, P~ige 395. <br />Deletion 7`he City Cl.erlc re~octed t_hziC ~4r. Sophie is i.n favor of I~npr.ovement I~o. <br />Of Trnp. £35-4, but "4r. Yeter.son is opposed to the road going through to LaI3or.e <br />£35-4 Road. <br />A~enda Thc Gr~pinecr was of the ~impressior~ that the elevel.operr was ;oinQ to <br />Ttem ~Io. 12 drop the projcct because of. ,4r. Peter.son's opposi.tion. <br />'Che C1erk stated that i.t would be har.d to assess tPte benefi.C of: jusC <br />a smal.l. porti.on of the project> The Cl.erlc sub~;ested thaC thi.s would <br />have to be inc].udecteaiCl~ a 1ar~ei project in Che Puture. <br />Pa~;e -'13- <br />