My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-17-04 Redevelopment Commission Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
09-17-04 Redevelopment Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2012 12:10:51 PM
Creation date
7/21/2011 2:32:11 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
Redevelopment Commission Meeting <br />Regular Meeting — September 17, 2004 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) <br />A. Public Hearing <br />(1) continued... <br />Resolution No. 2084 as proposed, and there <br />was a challenge to the Commission's action, <br />if a court overturned the Commission's <br />actions at this proceeding, it might result in <br />the removal of both of properties from the <br />Acquisition List. <br />Mr. Nemeth asked when the next <br />Commission meeting would be. Ms. Greene <br />responded that it would be on October 8. Mr. <br />Nemeth suggested that consideration of <br />Resolution No. 2084 be continued until <br />October 8th to see if something could be <br />worked out in the meantime. <br />Ms. Jones asked if a delay until October 8 <br />would impede anything for either side? Both <br />sides agreed that it would not be problematic <br />to continue consideration until October 8 to <br />try to resolve differences. <br />Ms. Greene noted that the Commission's <br />primary concern should be that the parties <br />which are affected by these proceedings have <br />the opportunity to be heard by the <br />Commission and to present evidence. <br />Therefore, she advised that the Commission <br />could table Resolution No. 2084 until the <br />October 8 meeting as long as there is no <br />objection. <br />Mr. Laurent asked if it would be necessary to <br />re- advertise. Ms. Greene responded that it <br />would not as long as the original resolution is <br />to be acted upon either as presented or as <br />modified. A substitute resolution, however, <br />C, 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.