Minutes - 1999/04/26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I of $189 rent payment plus $20 for electricity. The vendor would be responsible for all associated expenses related to the installation (engineering review, electrical installation, painting, etc.). He • noted the other cities have indicated their rental is about $200 for this type of single antenna and requested Council authorization to further negotiate a contract with Johnson Radio Communication Company, Inc. MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Quick. To authorize staff to further negotiate with Johnson Radio Communication Company, Inc. in regard to the rent rate and sign such agreement when a final amount is reached. Council Member Stigney asked if this equipment is compatible with equipment that currently exits. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated they are proposing to add only one more antenna. He advised the County Sheriff's Department did add an antenna along with strengthening the railing system so additional antennas can be accommodated. He stated they want a two year lease that can be extended to five, with it being renegotiable at the end of the first period. Council Member Marty asked if there would be no cost to the City. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated the attorney did an initial review and provided a boiler plate document which staff updated for this request, resulting in only minimal administrative expense. Ayes - 5. Nays-0. Motion carried. • F. Presentation of Spring Lake Road / County I Street Project Survey Director of Public Works Ulrich reported staff received and tabulated the surveys sent to residents of Spring Lake Road and County Road I. Residents were requested to rate the three project designs from 1 to 3, with 1 being their first choice. He advised that some respondents chose not to complete the survey and many questions were left blank. Director of Public Works Ulrich noted the survey results as contained in the meeting packet and advised there are a number of options available as to the direction in which to proceed. Director of Public Works Ulrich read the three questions asked and reviewed the responses received. Mayor Coughlin stated he talked with a few residents and when he initially looked at the survey it appeared about a 50/50 split but when it was further analyzed by the road it became clear that those individuals south of Highway 10 had a resounding number wanting to keep the road at 24 feet as it presently is. North of Highway 10, there was more of a mixed result but the majority support widening to add a pedestrian pathway. Mayor Coughlin stated he contacted them and asked if there was a way to strike a balance between those who wanted it 24 feet wide and those wanting it wider. He explained that everyone's concerns were toward pedestrian traffic and they desired to keep the road narrow while still accommodating pedestrians. He stated that with those he discussed it with, they felt the compromise was to expand the roadway to 26 feet wide, a three foot wide shoulder that could accommodate pedestrian traffic, a one foot shoulder on the other side, and eleven foot driving lanes. On County Road I, there is no easement on the south side so • 16N:\DATA\USERS\JOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\1999\04-26-99.WPD