My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 04-09-1984
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
CC 04-09-1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:12:36 PM
Creation date
11/10/2006 3:09:02 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.
/
9
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 /> <br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br />Monday, April 9, 1984 <br />Page Ei9ht <br /> <br />Woodburn reported that he drove the routes, at relatively slow <br />speeds; there is a minute to 2 minute difference with the present <br />station being closer to us than the proposed new station; feels <br />there is no response time decrease for Arden Hills that he can see <br />from the new station. The biggest advantage Woodburn sees is <br />possibly of increased recruitment; suggested that by increasing the <br />existing stations, if they have room, they would probably do as well, <br />or better, for Arden Hills. Woodburn said his biggest concern is <br />justifying the on-going costs to our tax payers, which appear to be <br />about $40,000 extra/year beyond the capital costs when the new fire <br />station is functioning; feels this $40,000 would give Arden Hills <br />little extra protection,except the possibility of additional fire . <br />fighter availability; another concern is whether the site advantage <br />to Arden Hills is worth 33.7% of the cost. <br /> <br />Hicks noted that option #1 (scenario #2) appears to be the cheapest <br />long term alternative for Arden Hills, assuming the accuracy of the <br />projections; noted that the first 10 years costs are high, and <br />suggested that possibly this out of proportion front-end money doesn't <br />justify the ultimate lower costs after 1993. Hicks said option 3, <br />in his opinion, is not a good alternative for Arden Hills; Option <br />2 looks to be the better one for a period of years, and then it is <br />more costly. <br /> <br />Christiansen asked why Highway 96 is considered a viable line for <br />option #2 when Station #2 is also north of Highway 96; seems an <br />unrealistic line. Christiansen noted that options #2 and #3 are <br />advantageous to Shoreview; therefore option II looks better to us. <br /> <br />In discussion, it was noted that the situation is unique because <br />the existing stations have not been paid for by the contracting <br />cities. It was noted that one alternative suggested by Shoreview <br />Mayor Wedell is not included in the scenario - Shoreview to pay the <br />cost of the 3rd station land. Hicks'said, in his estimation, the <br />land cost is too high. <br /> <br />Rauenhorst said she can see some benefit to Arden Hills, but much more <br />benefit for Shoreview; noted that Shoreview wants the station one <br />way or another; feels there is room to negotiate, favors keeping the <br />system intact. <br /> <br />Some concerns expressed were: <br /> <br />- lack of detailed projections of operational costs of the new <br />station. <br /> <br />- land and building costs seem expensive. <br />will the level of service increase by 50%. <br /> <br />- accuracy of option #3 projections. <br />Council action was deferred to the next Council meeting. <br /> <br />Other Business <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Rauenhorst suggested that Council <br />meetings be scheduled relative to <br />expedite Council meetings. <br /> <br />Hicks reported that the Youth Service Bureau proposed budget for <br />next year proposes a 15% increase for participating cities; noted <br />that Roseville and Arden Hills suggested 10% is more realistic. <br /> <br />retreat or discussion non-action <br />meeting procedures in order to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.