My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1987/11/09
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
Agenda Packets - 1987/11/09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/28/2025 10:24:45 AM
Creation date
4/28/2025 10:18:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
11/9/1987
Description
Regular Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
86
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
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIILL� <br />FROM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR <br />DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1987 <br />SUBJECT: TREATMENT PLANT #1 ROOF REPAIR <br />The roof at treatment plant #1 is in need of major repair due to <br />errors made at the time this roof was originally reconstructed. <br />At that time, Public Works Director Thatcher called for <br />additional insulation to be orovided over the existing roof <br />without extending the existing roof edges to secure the flashing <br />and avoid leaking at the point where the flashing is joined to <br />the roof. Due to this fact, the roof was improperly <br />reconstructed and we are now faced with the need to have the work <br />performed that should have been done at tnat time, namely <br />extension of the roof edging by two inches, removal of the <br />existing flashing and replacement with new flashing. Staff has <br />obtained three quotes from the following firms: <br />1) C and J Roofing $1,881.00 <br />2) American Roofing and <br />Sheet Metal $1,762.60 <br />3) Dalco Roofing and Sheet $6,786.00 <br />Metal, Inc. <br />Staff requests that Council approve the bid from American Roofing <br />L and Sheet Metal in the amount of $1,762.60 in order that this <br />work might be undertaken yet this construction season. <br />You might ask why the contractor that performed the initial <br />reconstruction work is not undertaking these repairs. The reason <br />is that this firm's work has been found to be unsatisfactory and <br />the specifications listed for the initial a'oik did not require <br />that this work be accomplished and, :herefora, the error resulted <br />from inadequate specifications not from work not being done by <br />the contractor. Therefore, it is Staff's opinion that the City <br />must "eat" these additional costs. Your direction in this matter <br />would be greatly appreciated. <br />')FP/m j s <br />Attachment: <br />M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.