Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• 2]2 September 8,1976 <br /> He said it would be cult to make <br /> a blankeet not a statement <br /> othat <br /> they <br /> were going to make loans when <br /> type <br /> of loans would be wancertain <br /> ed or needed. <br /> k on Resolution 553 regarding CouncilmanHalperiudy an sections of in connection witiidannexation. <br /> said hefeltt and commitmentshewaswas <br /> the arias study and <br /> as followthesewas educes. <br />• establishedp by t resolution <br /> al e,city s <br /> (correction,a Sept.poSPth 4o� relive proponent <br /> of they fere actually lInformdi ggthem they would <br /> the <br /> accept annexation. <br /> DilThompson said <br /> day t <br /> inform <br /> t <br /> present <br /> lvAr receipt the petition <br /> udcall for apubich hearing dfollowing the <br /> ring <br /> they <br /> Ladopt a resolution of intent which wo i ted to the <br /> Boundary R aingthe nil's intentions regerngh <br /> annexation. theby telling t petitioner pre- <br /> sent <br /> petition for annexation there s no east by the Council <br /> 1 <br />. at all that they would be approving annexation. <br /> IEd N v rneyfor the petitioners,a would state for the <br />� nfo <br /> to accept the annexation. Helosaprocedure <br /> violates no <br /> law and <br /> that <br /> most <br /> all of teabakifirms are using this procedure <br /> for additionalbanking servicesa in various cities. <br />{ <br /> foreniedeebycsuncm <br /> Councilman Lang., <br /> he <br /> petition annexationae seconded <br /> at hitim. <br /> Councilman long as individual citizens had rhe <br /> annexation <br /> City and the c had this,that the Council cil <br /> would belosing credibility if they cep dhisPetition. <br /> II. v this annexationwould b an assetwhereas <br /> Nofathe s for a n from pervatec werefor <br /> a <br /> ethe omethibgatooCity.ing service from to City in o giving <br /> the <br /> oting yes o en o voted n nith dlCouncilmen <br />�c Aldcroft and Ebert who were excusxcept Councilman ed sett who o a <br /> Motion Carried <br />• <br /> BID AWARD CANCELLED(01769-279) <br /> Haglund,. Mary utilities D reported t Councilthat the <br /> the s which w It in1971t <br /> n eaeratasthesecCity's a capacity <br /> yhbas hisfaitorically <br /> Y n plagWed with high <br /> maintenance s YepSebleme w' re a <br /> te <br /> ofatee 1 - e aer o s. Because with sae <br /> bits on new high-speed a 1915 <br /> CC warded t Agentech for st purchaseoftwo high-speed <br />'e� er second 11975aaand <br /> two <br /> inp1916. The bid a was pretested by <br /> During the time reived tot be n arywhen <br /> andswhbin are t bid protesarts and/or trators <br /> were was <br /> received,seven tors had been brought d.on line bringing the <br />