My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 06/13/1995
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1995
>
Agenda - Council - 06/13/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2025 3:38:16 PM
Creation date
9/26/2003 11:23:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
06/13/1995
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
302
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).
View images
View plain text
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br /> <br />Date: <br /> <br />May i 9, 1995 <br /> <br />To: <br /> <br />Fro m: <br /> <br />Bill G%drich, Ramsey City Attorney <br /> <br />David, Bawden, Planning and Zoning Chairperson <br /> <br />Subject: ComPrehensive Plan Update <br /> <br /> This is in response to the memo that i received from Ryan Schroeder regarding <br />the controversy ove~r the comprehensive plan update. Attached you will find a copy of the <br />memo that I sent tq the various concerned individuals within the city government. <br /> The bottom line of my concern is the apparent agenda of Jim Gromberg to have <br />the Economic DeVelopment Commission come up with their own plan instead of <br />addressing the sim~le task of land use in the Highway 10 area. This authority may have <br />been given to him ~y others (possibly senior staff or other elected officials) that may not <br />have been happy ~ith the plan that the Planning Commission was coming up with <br />because he seeme~l.to be pursuing this agenda without fear of repercussions. If there <br />were objections to !the plan then the procedure is to have a public hearing and City <br />Council approval be, fore the plan was adopted. During this process anyone could have <br />raised objections sC that City Council could hear "the other side of the story". This <br />process also could I~ave taken place in late 1994 instead of involving consultant time and <br />unnecessary extra ~ost to the city. <br /> I don't know ~f any conduct by anyone that may have legal concerns but certainly <br />questionable ethics iplays a major role in what has occurred. <br /> I have also ienclosed a copy of the city code that pretty clearly states the <br />responsibilities of th~ Planning Commission and the Economic Development Commission. <br />I am sure you are a~are of this but I am including it to further support my position with <br />regard to what the I~lanning Commission was trying to accomplish. <br /> If you have a~y questions please feel free to give me a call (H) 753-4055, (W) 753- <br />5923. <br /> <br />Attachments: <br /> Memo 4/20/95 <br /> Memo L5/11/95 <br /> Board~ and Commissions <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.