Laserfiche WebLink
Comm. Minutes--September 5, 1995 1383 <br /> <br />cost of the proposed culvert crossing is $72,500, with the county's share being about $54,375, <br />and he cannot support this expenditure of public funds to provide a more convenient private <br />property access to some 80 acres of land. In his correspondence, Mr. Berndt requested <br />permission to remove the two closely spaced township bridges in the area when time permits <br />because they are considered beyond economical repair. Estimated replacement costs are <br />$350,000 per bridge. <br /> <br />Mr. Eckert said he has been aware of this situation for a number of years and said the county <br />may have a legal responsibility to provide access since the bridges are closed. Mr. Wieland said <br />he doesn't know what the county's legal obligation is in this matter, but there may be a moral <br />obligation to provide access. MOTION, failed <br /> Mr. Eckert moved and Mr. Wieland seconded that the County spend <br /> $50,000 to install a pipe arch over Legal Drain #39 between Sections 13 <br /> and 24, Maple River Township. Discussion: Mr. Eckert explained that <br /> he arrived at $50,000 because the Maple River Water Resource District <br /> has approved cost sharing of 25% of the project, the township board <br /> indicated they could spend about $2,000, and possibly reducing the <br /> total project estimate, although Mr. Berndt reviewed, and closely <br /> concurs, with Moore Engineering's estimate. Commissioners then <br /> discussed what kind of precedent they may be setting. At the call for <br /> the question and Upon roll call vote, the motion failed with Mr. Eckert <br /> and Mr. Wieland voting "Aye"; Mrs. Schneider, Mrs. Toussaint and Mr. <br /> Ness opposing. <br /> <br />MOTION, passed <br />Mrs. Toussaint moved and Mrs. Schneider seconded that County <br />Engineer Keith Berndt pursue the purchase of easements to the <br />affected land, at an estimated cost of $2-3,000. At the call for the <br />question and upon roll call vote, the motion carried with Mrs. <br />Toussaint, Mr. Ness and Mrs. Schneider voting "Aye"; Mr. Wieland and <br />Mr. Eckert opposing. <br /> <br />16. <br /> <br />COMPUTER SOFTWARE, Budget adjustments; contract si_oned: =ayment to H.T.E.. Inc. <br />County Auditor Michael Montplaisir proposed budget adjustments to pay for software, training <br />and equipment in 1995, as opposed to budgeting for it in 1996, for H. T. E. financial, extended <br />reporting, payroll, personnel management, work order, facility management, fleet management <br />and accounts receivable software packages, for a cost savings of approximately $50,000. Data <br />Processing Coordinator Mike Steiner said cost of training may be reduced because county users <br />may not need the maximum number of hours which were estimated for training. Recommended <br />budget adjustments are as follows: <br /> <br />1995 1996 <br />Budget Budget <br /> <br />DATA PROCESSING <br /> Software $28,500 <br /> Equipment 17,500 <br />COUNTY AUDITOR <br /> Salaries (25,000) <br /> Equipment 1,498 <br /> <br />(30,000) <br />(12,500) <br /> <br />(11,500) <br /> <br /> <br />