My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 09-28-1976
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1976
>
CC 09-28-1976
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:11:59 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 3:46:22 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.
/
2
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 /> " <br /> ~ ''''''It <br /> ~lINUTES OF SPECIAL COUNCil t~EET1NG <br /> VIII age of Arden Hi lis <br /> Tuesday, September 28, 1976 ,- 7 : 30 p. m . <br /> Shoreview VIllage Hall <br /> . CALL TO ORDER the meeting was cat led <br /> Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, <br /> to order by Mayor Crepeau at 7:35 p.m. <br /> ROLL CAll <br /> Present - Mayor Crepeau, Councilman Wingert <br /> Absent - Counci I men Crichton and Woodburn. <br /> Also Present - North Oaks Mayor Johnson, Counct I men Bondus, Fritze <br /> and Lauder. Shoreview Mayor Olson, Councilmen <br /> .v' McGraw, Newbold, Weyandt and Wedell. <br /> Fire Protection Contract <br /> Councilman Wedell discussed recent meeting of fire Protection Board <br /> lth LJFO representatives and reviewed cost estimates furnished <br /> . by Fire Chief Koch for Option Two and Three. for a six month <br /> period Option Two would cost $20,708 and Option Three $35,067. He <br /> noted these figures are probably 25% too low. Under Option One <br /> present cost Is $94,123 for 1977, cost would I nc rease from 6% - <br /> 20% each year under 5 year contraCT. An independent ap~ralser <br /> would be used to determine value of equipment under Option Two; <br /> Chief Koch gave rough estimate of $300,000 - $500,000. <br /> Mayor Johnson suggested that Cities plan onl Y' for 1977 and noted <br /> that 7 of the 15 people on the three Counci Is miflht not be Involved <br /> after the November 2nd elections. <br /> Wingert said that it made good sense to "do our homework" I n the <br /> next 10 months and then deci de on alternative solutions. <br /> McGraw suggested a letter of intent be prepared lneluding a date <br /> of completion. This would allow ti,me for equipment appraisal and <br /> developing mutually agreeable fee schedule. <br /> ChIef Koch stated that I year contract was not avai lable at this <br /> time, Board of Di rectors had agreed not to recommend I year <br /> contract, matter would h~ve to be agreed on by Membership. The <br /> $27,942 for veh i c ie depreciation/replacement .Quld not be "knocked <br /> o'ff" the 1977 Budget of $94,123. If CIties dec I ded to go for <br /> Option Two, Membership ml gh't go for a I year contract 'of $94,123. <br /> . Ch I ef KOch s a I d he could agree to a 5-year contrect with option <br /> to convert to either 2 or 3 within a specified time, oth e rw i sa <br /> OptIon I prevails. <br /> After further discussion Cities agreed that each Counc! I would <br /> "hammer out" its plan for a fire protection contract during <br /> Octoba r , representatives of Cities would get tO!1ether to prepare a <br /> combined offer to be presented at the nex~ joint meeting on <br /> We dnes day, October 27th at 7:30 p.m., Shorevlew Vi I lage Hall. <br /> Joint Powers Agreement <br /> Rozyck i , North Oaks Clerk noted that they have not signed agree- <br /> .vi ment becaus,e their attorney expressed concern that the agreement <br /> does not "spel lout" that unanlm()lJs city agreement was requi red <br /> . for capital outlay for fIre e qui p me n t . <br /> Ladder Truck <br /> It was noted that the bids were opened September 7th, bid expires <br /> on October 7th. <br /> Les Nesler, Chairman of the Fire Department EquIpment Committee and <br /> . Treasurer of FI re Departmont ,"eviewed the five b i cis as fa II OlliS: <br /> I. Seagrave llow bidder) was not respons i va ';'0 Item I and <br /> their bid was not acceptable to FI nil Oepal"tment. Wede II <br /> questioned the unacceptabl Ilty of Seagrave. <br /> -1- <br /> - ---------- - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.