My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
01/09/91
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Economic Development Commission
>
Agendas
>
1991
>
01/09/91
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2025 12:49:33 PM
Creation date
12/11/2003 3:55:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Document Title
Economic Development Commission
Document Date
01/09/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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
Councilmember Pearson inquired what the By-Laws were patta'ned after. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoxter answered that they were basically panemed according to State Statutes. <br /> <br />Couneilmember C"ich asked why the By-Laws were being presented so late in the year if they have <br />to be decided on by De~emb~ 31, 1990. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoxter explained that the Fire Department has been working on the By-Laws for about a year <br />and a half but the money was not available to them before because their share when to Anoka and <br />Elk River and now that it will be available to them, they would like it taken care of as soon as <br />possible. <br /> <br />Councilmember DeLuca stated there still seems to be a lot of questions and concerns regarding the <br />By-Laws and he feels those should all be answered and worked out before a vote or <br />recommendation is made. <br /> <br />Mayor Reimann asked Bill Goodrich to find out if the date for completion (December 31, 1990) is <br />locked in or if an extension can be applied for. He also stated he is very willing to work on the <br />By-Laws to get them done by the end of the year. <br /> <br />Motion by Couneilmember Cich and seconded by Councilmember DeLuca to table this case until <br />the December llth. Council meeting pending a recommendation from the Fire Board. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmembers Cich, DeLuca, Pearson and <br />Peterson. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #6: City Contribution for the Ramsey Fire Department Relief Association <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cich and seconded by Councilmember Pearson to table this case until <br />the December 11 th meeting. <br /> <br />Case gT: Purchase of Equipment for the Ramsey Fire Department <br /> <br />Dave Griffin, Fire Chief, stated that that following equipment is needed by the Fire Deparmaent: 1) <br />Compressor, 2) Personal Gear, 3) Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (S.C.B.A.s), 4) 24" <br />Portable Gas Fan; and 5) Heat Detection Unit. He explained that these items were not included in <br />the 1990 budget. He reviewed each item and commented that these should all be included in with <br />the start up cost. If the equipment requested is approved, the total start-up costs for the Fire <br />Department would be: $493,594.00 (total expenditures and pending, $487.608.00, equipment <br />requested in this case $15,486.00, less compressor in 1991 budget -$9,500.00). The money <br />allocated from the Landfill Trust Fund for the Fire Department start-up costs is $500,000.00. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding the difference in the compressor requested in this case and the more <br />expensive one requested in the 1991 budget. Fire Chief Griffin felt that the compressor for <br />approximately $7,600.00 would be a better value for the money. If the equipment is purchased <br />before December 1, 1990, there will be a 4% savings as after the first, there will be a 4% increase. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Pearson and seconded by Councilmember Cich to adopt Resolution <br />/490-11-366 approving the pumhase of the equipment requested by the Ramsey Fire Department. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Councilmember DeLuca asked for clarification as to which compressor the3' <br />would be purchasing and was told it would be the compressor for $7,600.00 instead of the one for <br />$6,943.00 because of it being more value for the money. Councilmember Peterson repeated for <br /> <br />City Council/November 27, 1990 <br /> Page 7 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.