My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/27/95 Agenda & Packet
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
07/27/95 Agenda & Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/3/2024 2:07:25 PM
Creation date
5/2/2023 12:55:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
' JUL-i0-1995 17:12 FROM ST. MARY'S MNPLS. CENTER TO 7843462 P.01 <br /> • <br /> FAX to City of Mounds View - 7164-3462 <br /> FROM - Linka Holey, Director of Institutional Research, Saint Mary's University - <br /> 874-9877 Ext. 112 <br /> July 9, 1995 <br /> TO: Members of the MoundsyyV4ew City Council <br /> FR: Linka s , Resident an st member of the Trailways Advisory Group <br /> and the Focus 2000 - Housing and Neighborhood Task Force <br /> RE: Funding for Pedestrian Brizige across Highway 10 <br /> The concern over the division of our community by Highway 10 has been <br /> expressed since I moved into Mounds View in 1976. Both the social and safety <br /> implications have been widely discussed in many public forums. The <br /> construction of a pedestrian bridge is a vital response to this long-standing <br /> • problem. <br /> I was delighted to hear that the{city had received a federal transportation grant <br /> with an unbelieveable match of 20!80 percent. As a former grant writer, I am <br /> well aware of theup front and background work required to obtain such a deal. <br /> My respect for the city staff corlinues to rise as I hear of this type of action on <br /> community-generated concerns. <br /> I was totally shocked to hear tht the Council may not fund the 20% to secure <br /> the grant. I cannot comprehend why any Council member would vote against a <br /> highly public supported project with such a positive return on investment. This <br /> project has support of all ages within the population. Is this support not <br /> understood by the Council? Are there particular costs that make this project not <br /> as cost beneficial as one would expect? Even a 50/50 match would be good. <br /> I feel strongly that the Council should support this project. You can use this <br /> project to publicize your commitment to addressing big probems like the <br /> division of a city by a major highway. Your attention to cost by successfully <br /> competing for the 20/80 grant is also an example of your fiscally conservative <br /> management approach. You saw the positive energy of a city brought together <br /> for the Festival in the Park today. The parade, the activities, and the fireworks <br /> were grand! The investment ink the symbolic and functional pedestrian bridge <br /> • will bring you the same, if not more, public support as the annual festival has <br /> brought you today. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.