My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1984 07 17
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1984 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1984 07 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:46:53 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 1:28:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
7/17/1984
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1984 07 17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
155
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, Citimpuncil <br /> June 30, 1984, Minut1PIP <br /> Page 3 <br /> Schuler responded by saying the old plant was 5M60 when it really was <br /> 3.5 NGD 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 Mountain 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 $.Lmillon and is paid from the tap fees . it is <br /> not a bond issue. The contractor 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 change 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 l 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 mortarium 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 process , 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.