My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 05-26-1987
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
CC 05-26-1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:08:09 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 2:51:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
<br />Minutes of the Regular~ncil Meeting, May 26, 1987 . <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />PURCHASE OF Council was referred to Raddatz's memorandum (5-21-87 <br />PARKS TRUCK rel 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 $1,500.00 from last <br />year and he expressed concern relative to the lack of bidding response. . <br /> <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 /> <br />HEDGE/KARTH <br />LAKE CIRCLE <br /> <br />Public Works Supervisor advised Council he had checked <br />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 p1antings. <br /> <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 /> <br />HAMLINE AVE. <br />STRIPING <br /> <br />Public Works Supe~visor advised the placement of the <br />final wear course on Ham1ine 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 /> <br />. <br /> <br />PAVEMENT MGMT. <br />STUDY <br /> <br />Raddatz reported <br />been started; he <br />the Public Works <br />project when the budget <br /> <br />the Pavement Management Study has <br />questioned if Council would prefer <br />personnel complete the project at this <br />limit of $10,000.00 has been reached. <br /> <br />time or stop the <br /> <br />Raddatz noted that the project costs are estimated at $12,000.00; and <br />$10,000.00 was budgeted for 1987. <br /> <br />After discussion, Council consensus was to have the Public Works personnel and <br />SEH personnel complete the project this year. <br /> <br />1988 RAMSEY COUNTY <br />SHERIFF'S CONTRACT <br /> <br />Council was referred to a letter from Commander <br />Bergeron, dated 5-21-87, requesting Council comments <br />on the proposed language changes in the 1988 Contract. <br /> <br />Council discussed the following items: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />PaKe 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 /> <br />Pa~e 2. Item #4: Council objected to the re~ular use of radar in the Village, <br />as this has not been past policy. <br /> <br />Pa~e 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 /> <br />Section IV, PaRe 5, Items #1 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. 4It <br /> <br />PaKe 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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.