My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1995/03/06
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
Agenda Packets - 1995/03/06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:46 PM
Creation date
7/2/2018 10:58:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
3/6/1995
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
3/6/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
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
City of White Bear Lake <br /> 4701 Highway 61 • White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110 <br /> TDD (612) 429-8511 • Fax (612) 429-8500 <br /> • _, Phone (612) 429-8526 <br /> February 27, 1995 <br /> Ms. Judy Karon <br /> 250 County Court House <br /> 15 West Kellogg Boulevard <br /> St. Paul, MN 55102. <br /> Dear Judy: • <br /> I wish to respond to the recent letter from Terry Schutten concerning the County's <br /> plan to disband the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee <br /> and apparently to have all the application ranking performed by County staff. <br /> While I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of establishing priorities and a <br /> ranking system for review of grant applications, I disagree with the plan to disband <br /> the advisory committee. I also have concerns regarding the weight applied to <br /> certain priorities included in the rating system which has been drafted. <br /> First, when the suburban communities and Ramsey County joined together on the <br /> urban county CDBG program, there was clear recognition by the County of the <br /> role of municipalities in allocating the grant funds. The County had made a <br /> commitment at that time to utilize municipalities to the extent allowed under <br /> Federal regulations. I sense that the plan to disband the advisory committee and <br /> transfer the ranking responsibility to County staff is totally inconsistent with that <br /> commitment and is a clear departure from the direction of government to become <br /> more participative. I also disagree with Terry's implication that the advisory <br /> committee was "small". I believe each suburban community was offered the <br /> opportunity to participate on the committee and that the regular participants were <br /> either elected officials or assigned by elected officials to represent over 85% of the <br /> suburban counties population. This, I believe, is far greater public participation <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.