Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />City Council Minutes <br />July 1, 1985 <br />Page Three <br /> <br />Terry Maurer indicated that the Utilities Commission had decided to recommend <br />the one million gallon hydropillar tank for $537,245 to the City Council. Mr. <br />Maurer further indicated that the feasibility report for the one million gallon <br />hydropillar tank was estimated at 1.1 million dollars for the project cost. <br />Mr. Maurer indicated that a twenty four inch water main extension still has to <br />be made up to the site which will be an approximate $120,000 improvement. Mr. <br />Maurer further indicated that land costs and legal costs will also have to be <br />included in the total costs. Mr. Maurer stated that the water tower itself is <br />only one part of the project but further indicated that it is a major portion <br />of it. Mr. Maurer indicated that the feasibility study for 1.1 million dollars <br />is more than likely an over estimate. Terry Maurer further indicated that the <br />Utilities Commission and the Engineering firm for the City of Elk River felt <br />there was a need for a one million gallon tank and requested that the City <br />Council award the bid for the one million gallon hydropillar tank by Hydrostorage, <br />Inc. <br /> <br />Members of the Utilities Commission indicated that the one million gallon <br />hydvopillar tank was $250,000 lower than the estimate for that' size tank. <br />It was further indicated that the Utilities Commission felt the hydropillar <br />would be better than the pedestal because there would be more storage in the <br />base of the hydropillar model. It was indicated that the hydropillar could <br />house 2,100 square feet in the base which would be needed in the future for a <br />water treatment facility. The Utilities further indicated that the disadvantage <br />of the hydropillar tank to the pedestal tank would be future maintenance costs in <br />the painting of the tank. <br /> <br />Mr. Rupp of NaCon Services was present and presented the Council with a pedestal <br />style water tower for their examination. Mr. Rupp also had pictures of the <br />pedestal style water tower for the Council's examination. The Council questioned <br />what the difference in the diameter of the bases of the water tower would be. <br />Mr. Rupp indicated that there would be twenty eight feet in diameter of the <br />bottom of the pedestal as to compared to fifty-two feet in the hydropillar tower. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO ACCEPT THE BID FROM HYDROSTORAGE, INC. FOR THE <br />ONE MILLION GALLON HYDROPILLAR TANK FOR $537,245. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED <br />THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br /> <br />Councilmernber Schuldt indicated he felt there was an extra advantage with the <br />storage space in the hydropillar style and also that it was less expensive than <br />the pedestal style. Councilmernber Schuldt stated that he liked the appearance <br />of the hydropillar better than the pedestal style. <br /> <br />Councilmernber Engstrom indicated he felt the pedestal style was more attractive <br />but further indicated he would have to go along with the Utilities Commission <br />recommendation with the hydropillar style. <br /> <br />Councilmernber Gunkel brought up the question regarding the storage in the bottom <br />of the tank and who would be able to use that storage. She questioned whether it <br />would be the City's or the Utility's to use. Members from the Utilities Commission <br />indicated that in the long term the water department would have use for it to <br />house a water treatment facility, but further indicated that in the near future <br />there would be no use for it, and they could see no reason why the City could <br />