2. Jail/drain line repairs
Laserfiche
>
Public
>
County Commission
>
2006
>
05-01-2006
>
Regular Agenda
>
2. Jail/drain line repairs
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2006 9:20:05 AM
Creation date
6/6/2006 9:19:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
<br />~t <br /> <br />CASSCOUNIY <br />GOVERNMENT <br />... <br /> <br />County <br />Coordinator <br /> <br />Bonnie Johnson <br /> <br />Box 2806 <br />211 Ninth Street South <br />Fargo, North Dakota 58108 <br /> <br />701-241-5720 <br />Fax: 701-297-6020 <br /> <br />MEMO <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Cass County Commissioners <br />Bonnie JOhnSO~ <br />April 24, 2006 <br /> <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br /> <br />SUBJECT: JAIL DRAIN LINE REPAIRS <br /> <br />Attached, on an Ulteig Engineering drawing, are the "Option 1" and "Option 2" <br />proposals we discussed at the last Sheriff's Department rotational meeting regarding <br />problems with storm drain line at the Cass County Jail. Also present at the meeting <br />were Rick Hoganson from Foss Architecture and Mike Magelky from Ulteig <br />Engineers. Ultimately, the recommendation from the rotational meeting was ratified <br />by the County Commission at its afternoon board meeting that same day. Therefore, <br />in order to make a change to the existing directive, further action must be taken by <br />the commission. <br /> <br />At the conclusion of the lengthy discussion about the two options, the county elected <br />to payup $1 ,500 if "Option 2"was delivered. The county concluded "Option 2"would <br />resolve all of the concerns in question. The engineers agreed it was a good option, <br />as well. <br /> <br />On Friday, April 21 st, construction began on "Option 2", and that same day, byemail, <br />I sent you the cost breakdown. However, the second option cannot be delivered as <br />outlined in the plan from Ulteig Engineering. <br /> <br />I am attaching a copy of an email from Rick Hoganson regarding the continuing <br />issues at the site. At this point, I make the tJllowing recommended motion: <br /> <br />SUGGESTED MOTION: <br />Move to approve "Option 1" as recommended by the engineers with the following <br />qualifications (to be selected by commissioners): <br />a) No costs would be required of the taxpayer/county; <br />b) The existing section of pipe be capped to prevent cold air infiltration; <br />c) The contractors and engineers warranty the job for an additional four <br />years, since the first four years of current installation have not worked <br />properly; <br />d) The excavation site should be retumed to its original condition <br />including clean up, lawn and sprinkler repairs, and seeding/sodding <br />of the damaged areas. <br /> <br />Enc. 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.