Laserfiche WebLink
15. FACILITIES —A) DISCUSSION & POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING PROPOSAL FOR <br /> INSPECTION FOR ASBESTOS AT OLD HEALTH DEPARTMENT BUILDING - Mr. Humphrey <br /> stated the Sarah Carstensen and he searched for the asbestos inspection for the building but <br /> did not find one. It may have been done but it may be best to do another one. He has called <br /> three people and requested informal bids and copies are included. He has two respond and <br /> O'Neill declined to bid. <br /> QuadC toured the building and stated they would provide 20 samples for $470.00 and B2E <br /> looked at the building and stated they would provide 25 samples. That number of samples is a <br /> good standard in the industry and they will also inspect the roof. <br /> Lancaster quested if they needed something in writing regard the number of samples. <br /> Discussion was held on the wide difference in the informal bids. <br /> Richardson noted that B2 will do the 25 samples but Quad C did not list how many samples <br /> they would do. <br /> Lancaster stated there needs to be something in writing on the number of samples. Mr. <br /> Humphrey stated he did not expect them to send a contract but there is a wide difference. <br /> Quandt made a motion and Bredthauer seconded to postpone this and come back in two weeks <br /> with the details for the proposals on the asbestos inspection. Bredthauer, Hartman, Hurst, <br /> Lancaster, Quandt and Richardson all voted yes and none voted no. Motion carried. <br /> B) DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING TRANSFER OF PICKUP & <br /> EQUIPMENT FROM WEED DEPARTMENT the Weed Department has a pickup with a sprayer <br /> that has been declared surplus and Mr. Humphrey stated he would like the pickup to be used at <br /> the park but he would not need the spraying equipment, discussion was held and the truck <br /> would be more valuable if the spraying equipment was left on the truck. Lancaster stated she <br /> talked to Sarah and if the truck is surplus the revenue from the sale would go back to the weed <br /> department and it wouldn't make any difference if it was at public action or from another county <br /> department. Mr. Humphrey stated they are also interested in the 4 wheeler. <br /> Hartman stated if the spraying equipment was removed the truck would be worth zero. The <br /> weed board agreed to leave the equipment on the truck to sell it. <br /> Hartman made a motion and Quandt seconded to leave the spraying equipment on the truck <br /> and sell as surplus property. <br /> Richardson noted it may be a good idea to keep it together but questioned if there is not a <br /> decent price it they had to sell it. Discussion was held and there will be a minimum price set on <br /> the truck. <br /> The vote on the motion was taken. Bredthauer, Hartman, Hurst, Lancaster, Quandt and <br /> Richardson all voted yes and none voted no. Motion carried. <br /> C) DISCUSSION REGARDING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS Mr. Humphrey stated that the <br /> Courthouse doors need to be repaired and they are not able to get replacement parts for the <br /> doors and it was recommended to replace the doors there was also discussion to use bullet <br /> proof glass in the door that would make it more costly. <br /> 11 <br />