My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1985/10/21
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
Agenda Packets - 1985/10/21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2025 3:08:20 PM
Creation date
3/26/2025 3:08:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
10/21/1985
Description
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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
tom`l thMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council � <br />FROM: Director of Public Works/Community DevelopmeryC,U. <br />DATE: October 11, 1985 /� <br />S1111JECT: WF.1,1. No. 4 <br />As yo may iccal' the Lj <br />'.t awarded the Well No 4 Maintenance <br />Projectto Layne Minnesota in the amount of $14,282.00. Layne <br />Minnesota removed the pump and motor and televised the well. The <br />television inspection indicated that there was probably a leak in <br />the grouting between the 24" diameter casing and the 16" diameter <br />casing at a depth of 2701. We speculated that this potential <br />leak may be the cause of the bad odor in the water from this <br />well. The estimated cost of repairing this potential odor <br />causing leak to meet Minnesota Department of Health standards was <br />$60,000.00. At that time, I proposed that we conduct a test to <br />see if the joint that migh be leaking, in fact, did leak. The <br />cost of conducting this test was approximately $5,000.00 and <br />Layne Minnesota provided me a letter dated June 12, 1985 stating <br />that they would complete the repairs of the pump and motor and <br />conduct the test for a price not to exceed $14,964.00 without <br />further approval. The City Council approved my recommendation to <br />conduct the test for approximately S5,000.U0 and try to save <br />$60,000.00. At that time- we also discussed the possibility of <br />issuing a change order. We decided that a change order was not <br />necessary at that time because there may be some additional work <br />that may need to be done and that one change cyder at the end of <br />the project was the easiest way to go. <br />I am pleased to let you know that we conducted the test and the <br />test showed that the joint aid noL leak and that the City does <br />not have to spend S60,000.00 to repair the joint. <br />However, there were some addit.onal costs that I authorized with <br />the understanding that we wound 'saue a change order Teter. Thn <br />additional costs are outlined under Item No. 3 of Layne Minnesota <br />Company's Invoice N,. 13615 dated October 7, 1985. I approved an <br />increase above the original contract price for tertinq the <br />Potential leap in the amount of $58d.00. 1 approved additional <br />repair on a column pipe for $159.00 and the constriction and <br />installation of a 16" guide for $1,005.00. I approved an <br />additional television inspection to verify that the work was done <br />correctly for an additional $750.00. I also utilized the <br />services of a technical service man to do some work over and <br />above the requirements of Layne Minnesota Company's June 12, 1985 <br />letter for an amo,int of S1,008.00. The last additional item is <br />some additional test pumping in the amount of $175.00. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.