6/1/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I DESCRIPTION OF PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN BY THE UTILITY: (a) Initiate temporary emergency repairs to the pipe support system until a permanent fix could be implemented. (b) Retain the services of a specialist to perform metallurgical analysis of the failed components to determine potential causes and effect. (c) Contact and negotiate with responsible parties for reimbursement of expenses incurred by the County for said pipe support failure. (d) Retain the services of a contractor to furnish and install cast -in-place concrete thrust restraints in accordance with the consultant / metallurgist recommendation. (e) Monitor completed work repairs. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Staff acknowledges the responsiveness of the Engineers for their actions and willingness to resolve this issue. The Engineers have volunteered their engineering services throughout this ordeal and have incurred expenses over and above the expenses defined above. We thank them for their professionalism and acknowledge their dedication and commitment to the Community and the County. FUTURE DESIGN CONSIDERATION: Today's application of trenchless technology allows the installation of sub -aqueous utility crossings in lieu of suspending pipes from a bridge overpass. The cost for a sub -aqueous crossing is generally more expensive than conventional pipes support methods but it offers several significant advantages. The utility pipe (water, sewer, reuse, etc.) is less susceptible to damage from boat traffic, weather and vandalism. In the future, the consideration of sub -aqueous utility crossings will be considered wherever feasible. RECOMMENDED ACTION Authorize Staff to pursue reimbursement from the Engineers in the amount of $ 2,386.29. Credit To: Account No: 475-000169-243-00 Name: CR -510 Bridge (US -94 -22 -CS) Credit Amount. $ 2,036.29 Account No: 471-218-536-04469 Name: Operations And Maintenance Credit Amount: $ 350.00 Utilities Director Don Hubbs noted that $2,386 would be funded by the engineers and that Earl Masteller of Masteller & Moler was here to answer any questions. Commissioner Ginn questioned the cause of the metal fatigue and whether any future problems could be anticipated. Director Hubbs did not expect more flexing and noted that, in all fairness, the County would have paid for the structure at any rate and the engineer has absorbed the cost of their own time plus other expenses. He believed that the contribution passed the fairness test. JUNE 19 1999 ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Tippin being absent), unanimously authorized staff to pursue reimbursement from the Engineers in the amount of $2,386.29, as recommended by staff. -30-