Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ----- - --- -------- <br /> - . <br /> Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting, May 26, 1987 <br /> Page 6 . <br /> PURCHASE OF Council was referred to Raddatz's memorandum (5-2l-87 <br /> PARKS TRUCK re: purchase of Parks Truck. Raddatz noted that seven <br /> bids were sent out and only one bid was returned. He <br /> explained that the bid amount had increased approximately $l,500.00 ftom last <br /> year and he expressed concern relative to the lack of bidding response. <br /> After discussion. Council concurred to have the Public Works Supervisor contact <br /> the other bidders by telephone to determine why a bid was not received and also <br /> to obtain information to justify the cost increase in the bid amount from last <br /> year. <br /> . <br /> Raddatz advised he would do so and report back to Council. <br /> HEDGE I KARTH Public Works Supervisor advised Council he had checked <br /> LAKE CIRCLE hedge and discussed the matter with John Lee of SEH; <br /> they recommend the homeowner could be contacted <br /> relative to moving the hedge back. trimming the hedge down or removing the <br /> hedge and putting in replacement plantings. <br /> After discussion. Council concurred that the hedge did not significantly block <br /> visibility to require any of the above measures being taken; they asked the <br /> Public Works Supervisor to examine the situation from time to time to insure <br /> visibility is not being hindered. <br /> RAMLINE AVE. Public Works Supe,visor advised the placement of the . <br /> STRIPING final wear course on Hamline will begin on May 27th. <br /> He stated that there is a 7 day waiting period before <br /> striping will begin; due to the oil in the wear course. Raddatz explained the <br /> proposed lane striping and also advised that he is checking the price <br /> differential between painting and taping the stripes on the street. <br /> PAVEMENT MGMT. Raddatz reported the Pavement Management Study has <br /> STUDY been started; he questioned if Council would prefer <br /> the Public Works personnel complete the project at this <br /> time or stop the project when the budget limit of $10.000.00 has been reached. <br /> Raddatz noted that the project costs are estimated at $12,000.00; and <br /> $10,000.00 was budgeted for 1987. <br /> After discussion. Council consensus was to have the Public Works personnel and <br /> SEH personnel complete the project this year. <br /> 1988 RAMSEY COUNTY Council was referred to a letter from Commander <br /> SHERIFF'S CONTRACT Bergeron, dated 5-21-87. requesting Council comments <br /> on the proposed language changes in the 1988 Contract. <br /> Council discussed the following items: <br /> Palle 2, Item 6: Council determined that the appointment process for a liaison <br /> to the Sheriff's Department should be an informal process and therefore, the . <br /> last sentence under Item #6 should be deleted. <br /> Palle 2, Item 114: Council objected to the rellular use of radar in the Village. <br /> as this has not been past policy. <br /> Palle 2, Item #3: Council determined they would prefer to have input regarding <br /> standards of performance, as well as. extent of duties and functions rendered <br /> by personnel. <br /> Section IV, Page 5, Items #l and #2: Council discussed the pro-rata share of <br /> the County's total costs being the actual costs for the Village; also <br /> questioned the billing procedure. Past policy has been that the Village <br /> received an attachment to the contract which specified costs for manpower (as <br /> assigned) , call charges, and a~ea charges. Council noted that previously the <br /> attachment received specified the level of coverage; consensus was that the . <br /> level of coverage should meet or exceed the prior contract. After discussion. <br /> Council consensus was that they would request the County provide an attachment <br /> which specifies costs, level of coverage, equipment, manpower, and delineates <br /> level of service provided. <br /> Palle 5, Items #2 and #3: Council determined that the 90 day notice for <br /> termination of the Contract was not a sufficient amount of time and, <br /> furthermore. that the 30 day notice for cancellation of insurance is not a <br /> sufficient time period. <br />