Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTFS <br />City Council <br />November 9, 1988 <br />Planning The foregoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr~. Blesener. <br />Commission Ayes (5) LaValle, Blesener, Collova, Scalze, Fahe,y. <br />(Cont.1 Nays (0). <br />Resolution declar•ed adopted. <br />This r•esolution appears in Resolution Book Pdo. 20, Page 509. <br />Water~ Tower• Blesener~ pointed out the Council's r•eceipt of the water~ tower• inspection <br />Inspection report and the estimated $170,850 in repair•s needed on the tower. Blesener• <br />Repor~t pointed out that the firm doing the inspection would write the specifications <br /> for the repairs and make inspections of those repair•s. The work would be <br />Agenda let out for bid. The $170,850 is only an estimate of the necessar•y r•epair <br />Addition costs. <br /> Fahey asked when the tower was constructed. <br /> The City Engineer replied that the tower~ was built in 1978. <br /> Fahey asked. who designed the tower and who was r~esponsible for• the inspection <br /> of it as it was being constr~ucted. <br /> The City Engineer r•epor~ted that the tower was designed by Pittsbur~g/Des <br /> P9oines and the final inspection of the tower• was done b,y the City Engineer. <br /> Fahey asked if it was the opinion of the City Engineer that the defects <br /> found in the tower were design defects, initial construction defects or <br /> normal wear and tear. <br /> The City Engineer replied that it was his feeling that the defects were <br /> the result of nor•mal wear and tear•. The Engineer pointed out that it is <br /> necessar~y to repaint ever•y 10 years. <br /> Blesener felt that in addition to normal wear and tear, there were some <br /> minor• design defects. Blesener• suggested that the Council r~eview the <br /> repor•t in detail as well as the color• photogr•aphs of what was found <br /> inside the tower•. <br />Blesener• r•eported that he and the Public Wor•ks Super~intendent have discussed <br />how the repair•s would be finance~ and the City has a couple of different <br />options. <br />alesener reported that ther•e have been indications that the City of St. <br />Paul and the Water Boar•d will appr•ove the new water contract with Little <br />Canada shortly. This will r•esult in red.uced water rates as well as a <br />r•ebate to the City fr~om Januar•y of 1986. ~lesener suggested that this <br />rebate as well as the sur~plus in the water• charge being passed on to <br />customer•s could be used to finance the water• tower repairs. Blesener <br />also pointed out that there is $2.0>OOQ paid annually out of the Sewer <br />and Water Budgets for the City Garage. The Garage will be paid for next <br />year•, and this $20,000 could be put towards water toa~er~ repairs. Therefore, <br />Blesener felt the City could issue a bond to pa.y for the r•epairs and be <br />assured that it had the capability of paying back those bonds. <br />Page -7- <br />