Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />RESOLUTION #82- <br /> <br />RESOLUTION DELETING FIRE CALL CHARGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $225.00 <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, Mrs. Walter Bayer of 9500 Ermine Blvd. NW states that the <br />fire ca].l answered by the Elk River Fire Department was not a legitimate fire <br />call for the following reasons: <br /> <br /> 1) The fire was started by a spark from the neighbor's chimney which <br />ignited an old playhouse on Mrs. Bayer's property. <br /> <br /> 2) The neighbor called the fire department and during the period <br />of a few minutes Mrs. Bayer put the fire out. <br /> <br /> 3) They did cai1 and cancel the Elk River fire call. However, the <br />Elk River Fire Department was enroute so they continued on to the scene. The <br />Elk River Fire Department performed no fire service as the fire was already out. <br /> <br />and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, in checking with the Elk River Fire Department, they stated <br />that they did receive a call cancelling the fire call but the unit had left the <br />station and the policy is that it will proceed on to the scene. Further, they <br />stated that they did perform fire service at the Bayer residence; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, Mrs. Bayer feels that these kind of charges for a fire call <br />will only increase fire insurance costs to homeowners here in Ramsey where there <br />was no legitimate reason for the fire call. <br /> <br />NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF RAMSEY, ANOKA COUNTY, <br />STATE OF MINNESOTA, as follows: <br /> <br /> 1) It is hereby directed that after reviewing the above stated facts <br />that the fire call charge in the amount of $225.00 be deleted. <br /> <br />2) It is directed that Mrs. Walter Bayer be so notified of this <br /> <br />action. <br /> <br /> 3) It is further directed that the City Accountant be furnished <br />a copy of this resolution so that appropriate entries can be accomplished in <br />the accounting department. <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by <br />Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted <br />in favor thereof: <br /> <br />and the following voted against the same: <br /> <br /> <br />