Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, "; <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 27, 1988, 7:30 p.m. - Village Hall <br /> <br />CALL TO ORDER <br /> <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Woodburn <br />called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL The roll being called the following members were present: <br />Mayor Robert Woodburn, Councilmembers Nancy Hansen and <br />Gary Peck. Absent: Councilmembers Jeanne Winiecki and Thomas Sather. Also <br />present: Attorney James Lynden, Treasurer Frank Green, Public Works Supervisor <br />Robert Raddatz, Acting Clerk Administrator Charlotte McNiesh and Deputy Clerk <br />Catherine laga. <br /> <br />APPROVE MINUTES <br /> <br />Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve the <br />Minutes of the June 13, 1988 Regular Council Meeting as <br />submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (3-0) <br /> <br />BUSINESS FROM FLOOR <br />REQ. SEMAPHORE; HWY <br />96 & HAMLINE AVENUE <br /> <br />Barney Palmer, 1300 Nursery Hill Lane, requested <br />Council consideration of placement of a semaphore at the <br />intersection of Highway 96 and Hamline Avenue. <br /> <br />McNiesh advised Palmer the matter had been placed on the agenda for Council <br />consideration. <br /> <br />RES. #88-22; REQUEST <br />SEMAPHORE, HWY 96 & <br />HAMLINE AVENUE <br /> <br />Acting Clerk Administrator McNiesh reported to Council <br />she had received a request from Barney Palmer, 1300 <br />Nursery Hill Lane, for consideration of placement of a <br />semaphore at the intersection of Hwy 96 and Hamline Ave. <br /> <br />McNiesh explained she had contacted KnDot and they advised there are 115 <br />intersections that have warrants for a semaphore and Arden Hills was 41st on the <br />priority list. Kermit McRae, District Engineer at KnDot, suggested Arden Hills <br />could move up the priority list if Council submitted a resolution requesting the <br />semaphore installation. McNiesh drafted the proposed resolution requesting the <br />semaphore be installed in 1988, however, she was _advised that the actual <br />installation may not be started until 1989. <br /> <br />Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve <br />Resolution No. 88-22, Requesting MN DOT To Install Semaphore at STH 96 and <br />Hamline Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) <br /> <br />Council questioned the costs for installation. <br /> <br />McNiesh stated that Arden Hills might pay half the cost of installation because <br />there are two legs on a State highway; when she questioned the roadway that goes <br />into the Arsenal property, which is not a City road. they did not know how that <br />would be charged. She advised the approximate cost for installation would be <br />$100,000.00 and there would be a yearly charge for electricity and maintenance. <br />She further stated that this item could be budgeted for 1989 and if installation <br />began in 1988 it may be possible to defer payment until 1989. <br /> <br />Barney Palmer thanked the Council for the opportunity to be on the agenda and <br />stated if the citizens can help speed the process he would be willing to head a <br />citizen effort; there was discussion of a letter campaign or submitting a <br />petition to MnDot. <br /> <br />REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY <br /> <br />RES. #88-17; APPRV. <br />FIRE PROTECTION AGMT. <br /> <br />Council was referred to a letter from Attorney Lynden <br />dated 6-17-88, outlining the revisions in the Fire <br />Protection Agreement. <br /> <br />Attorney Lynden-explained the changes as follows: <br /> <br />-Section 8 (b). page 6: Comprehensive Liability insurance should"be <br />$1,000,000.00 single limits. which was on the last draft of the agreement <br />negotiated. Public Liability. $300,000.00 each person and each occurence. <br />and Property Damage $50.000.00 should be eliminated. <br />-Section 12 (f). page 9: References in this section to Section 10 (e)(i), <br />and 10 (e)(ii), and Section 11 should be changed to read: Sections 12 <br />(e) (i), 12 (e) (it), or 13 hereof. <br />-Section 13, page 10: Second line should be changed to read: Section 12 (e) <br />(ii)(b), 12 (e)(ii)(c). <br />