My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01-11-2007 Charter Packet
LinoLakes
>
Charter
>
Packets
>
1981 - 2021 Packets
>
2007 Packets
>
01-11-2007 Charter Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/27/2021 5:43:01 PM
Creation date
9/8/2017 11:33:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Charter Commission
Charter Meeting Type
Regular
Charter Document Type
Packets
Supplemental fields
Date
1/11/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ROAD RECONSTRUCTION and NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECTS <br />A Background Report on Commission Activities <br />Submitted to City Staff for Consideration, July 3, 2007 <br />Submitted by Chair Warren <br />As indicated in our invitations, the Charter Commission is interested in better <br />understanding the City planning processes in order to jointly develop a streamlined <br />method of involving residents in consensus building for future projects affected under <br />Chapter 8 of the Charter. <br />Without benefit of your input, the Commission asks your consideration and feedback to <br />the following concepts developed by a subcommittee and facilitated by Commissioner <br />Trehus. Please review these concepts and give us your assessment of whether this would <br />assist or impede the current process. We are open to your suggestions. <br />A. Neighborhood surveys that both inform and solicit resident input could be utilized <br />instead of or in conjunction with the petitioning process. <br />B. If petitions are deemed the best way to proceed, development of and requirement to <br />use a standard petition form will aid citizens and avoid confusion over terminology. <br />C. Feasibility studies are part of the current assessment process; because these studies <br />are costly, residents should be notified of the cost in advance and given the opportunity to <br />decide if such studies should go forward. <br />D. The question of whether affected residents want the projects to proceed should be <br />addressed and answered before referenda occurs <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.