Laserfiche WebLink
May 12, 1980 <br />Mr. Schumacher reviewed the difference in the cost of the electricty <br />for City owned light poles. There is also the cost of insurance for <br />the City owned property. Mr. Schumacher felt the main point of con- <br />sideration was whether the City should maintain these lights or should <br />the maintenance be left to the electric companies. In order for the <br />City to assume the responsibility for the maintenance of the lights, <br />the City would have to enter into a contract with an electrical con- <br />tractor. This City does not have the manpower nor the equipment to <br />maintain street lights. <br />There was discussion on the pros and cons of the City maintenance of <br />these poles and the responsibilites this would entail. Can the exist- <br />ing lights be incorporated into a City maintenance program? Does the <br />$100.00 deductible per occurance refer to each pole or to the incident? <br />Can the cost of these poles be assessed? <br />It was generally felt the City could save approximately $30.00 per year <br />per pole, on electric costs if the City assumed the responsibility of the <br />maintenance. This takes into consideration the cost for insurance. <br />The Council felt there were some questions that need to be answered, to <br />include the cost of insurance, the matter of an electrical contractor <br />for maintenance, and how the deductable coverage is applied. <br />There was the discussion on the liabilities that the City would assume <br />in the ownership of the poles. Mr. Locher felt the major liability would <br />be the climbing of the poles by children. <br />Mr. McLean moved to approve the Ordinance on Street Lighting and Street <br />Signs. Mr. McLean moved to set the public hearing on this Ordinance for <br />May 27, 1980, at 9:30 P.M. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried <br />unanimously. <br />Mr. Schumacher is to check on the insurance matter and Mrs. Elsenpeter <br />asked that the cost of an electrical contractor would cost. <br />The continued Public Hearing on the matter of the ordinance amendment for <br />the construction of accessory buildings were called to order at 8:05 P.M. <br />Mr. Schumacher presented the revised amendment. This would limit the size <br />of a metal accessory building in residential areas to 150 square feet. The <br />"rural Residential" classification was added to those already listed. Under <br />'N' eliminate the word 'metall' and insert the 'accessory'; after the work <br />'except' insert 'those buildings' and after the word 'agricultural' add <br />'commercial,and industrial purposes'. <br />Mr. McLean moved to approve this ordinance amendment. Seconded by Mr. <br />Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. <br />The Clerk was directed to publish this Ordinance amendment. Mr. McLean <br />moved,to close the hearing at 8:25 P.M. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. <br />Motion carried unanimously. <br />Mr. Locher and Mayor Gourley presented some changes in Ordinance #73 <br />dealing with the keeping of animals. This is a matter of wording to <br />make the Ordinance consistent. <br />Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to set a public Hearing on Ordinance #73 at 7:45P.M. <br />on June 9, 1980. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried unanimously. <br />1 <br />1 <br />