My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1984 06 30 SP
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1984 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1984 06 30 SP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:23 PM
Creation date
10/16/2008 11:47:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
6/30/1984
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1984 06 30 SP
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Special Meeting, City Council <br />June 30, 1984, Minutes <br />Page 3 <br />Schuler responded by saying the old plant was 5MGD when it really was <br />3.5 MGD and needs pre-treatment. The beds are muddy and that makes <br />filtration use more backwash water. Leary asked if the plant can <br />produce 3.5MGD, why the difference in the memo's and amount, why <br />was the problem not identified? <br />Mark. Klee, Rocky Mountaiin Consultant, we were given bad information, <br />there was no metering of the system, past accounting procedure was <br />inaccurate. The new City staff found the errors. (See Exhibit A, <br />Letter from RMC.) <br />Cussen asked if backwash had to be done with treated water? Yes, we <br />must: use treated water. In the future, that will consume only 5%, <br />we now use 20% to 25% for backwash. <br />Johnson: Why did the problem surface at this time? <br />Wurl: In late May, we believed this was due to the Contractor changing <br />the system, thinking it 'was pre-treatment problem, in the 1st part of <br />JunE~ more problems arose, and we are now at this point. I take <br />personal responsiblity for this, and I was stunned to find 1.75 MGD <br />capacity, not the 3.5 MGD. Last Thursday, there was 1 Dillon gallon <br />loss in the tank, hot weather, therefore, we had to start restrictions. <br />This project is costing $1 millon and is paid from the tap fees, it is <br />not a bond issue. The c:ontractor said it could not be completed by <br />June 17 deadline and felt a more reasonable date would be June 29. <br />He then notified us he needed a 79 day extension to October 1. <br />The actual tie-in date is August 15th. Some of the contractor's de- <br />lay was also due to a ci-range over in management. There is a penalty <br />clause in the agreement„ $250/day. That is too low, however, it seems <br />to be standard. <br />B. FILTER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS - AUTHORIZE FAST TRACK 1 and 2. <br />Kasch distributed a memo to Council(See Exhibit B) regarding the <br />Fast Track 1 and 2. Susan Morris asked if next year will be have <br />the same problem? Schuler: We will know when work is completed. <br />Luce: Problem now; is more growth, and water is problem today. <br />Leary: Consider the mor•tarium on permits and water taps. <br />Mayor: Mortarium stands until the problem is resolved. This is to <br />be put on Tuesday night's council agenda. <br />Motion by Luce to approve Fast Track 1 and Fast Track 2, and by-pass <br />the normal bidding procE~ss, do whatever it takes to complete the job. <br />Seconded by Cussen. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.