My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
gr00090_000006_pg076
MoundsView
>
City Council
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
MNHistoricalSocietyFiles (CC Minutes page-by-page 1958-1981)
>
gr00090_000006
>
gr00090_000006_pg076
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2011 12:46:32 PM
Creation date
4/12/2011 8:51:34 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
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).
View images
View plain text
PROCEEDINGS OF THE VILLAGE, COUNCIL <br />VILLAGE OF MOUNDS VIEW <br />RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA <br />000076 <br />The regiilar:in siting of the Mounds View - Village Council ^waa, <br />called to order by Mayor Crane at 8:00 P.L. June 26th, 1961 at <br />the Red Oak School, Sherwood Rd. and Red Oak Dr., Minneapolis, <br />Minnesota." <br />Present were: <br />Mayor! Allan B. Crane <br />Clerk: Lloyd J. Blanchard <br />Administrative <br />Clerk: Paul Boog <br />Trustees: Melford Christensen <br />Perry Malvin <br />Donald Hodges <br />Attorney: Richard Meyers <br />Engineer: Les Knutson <br />Public Works Supt: Halter Skiba <br />Motion by Hodges to approve minutes of June 12th meeting <br />as presented. Seconded by Malvin. 5 Ayes for approval. <br />Motion by Blanchard to accept the low bid for the water <br />filtration plant from D.'T. Hickey Company in the amount of <br />4+4,660.00 Seconded by Hodges. The Council, Engineer, and <br />Attorney discussed -.at great lengths the pros and cons of the <br />motion. The-opinion of the t -. Q low c 1' citizen's were <br />presented. The Engineers explained their views as follows: <br />Mechanical. Equipment - hounds View Water Filtration Plant <br />Regarding the bids for the above mentioned project, we deem it <br />advisable to inform . the council of certain facts concerning the <br />equipment as bid by the low bidder, Turbomatic Co, , D.U. Hicke Co. <br />equipment, and that of the second bidder the Layne - Minnesota Co., <br />General Filter Corp. equipment. The bid of the Turbomatic Co. <br />was in the amount of 344,660 for' equipment which was an alternate <br />to that proposed in the base bid.`.:: This equipment cannot be con - <br />strued to be comparable to that of the base bid due to the follow- <br />ing features: <br />1. The piping arrangement of the raw water line is such that the <br />flow to tie individual cells cannot be separately controlled. <br />The raw water line itself within the tank is calibrated for a <br />1,000 gallon per minute flow. Should the rate of flow be in- <br />creased to 1,200 gal. or reduced to 800 gal. per minute, this <br />calibration would not equally distribute the water to the res- <br />pective individual cells. <br />2. The under drain system is connected in the manner which makes it <br />mandatory to back wash the entire unit rather than by an individual <br />cell basis as proposed in the base bid. Should it be necessary to <br />back wah the unit with filtered water, the additional cost over <br />a 25 year period will approach >9,000. in power alone. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.