New Search
HAMMITT Bob <br /> From: Shutt, Gene <br /> To: Kofford, Carolyn; Dixon, Valerie; Lyle, Les; McVey, Fred; Hammitt, Bob <br /> Cc: Weber, Doug; Ritter, Dave; Gibson, John C.; DeLess, Russ; Zucker, Richard <br /> Subject: Amazon Channel Slide Area <br /> Date: Thursday, April 07, 1994 4:54PM <br /> Doug Weber called me and indicates the latest estimate to repair the Amazon Channel slide areas to be <br /> $263,000. Before anyone has heart failure, keep in mind the figure is only an estimate but more often than not <br /> these estimates are not to far off. Anyhow, we have a funding shortfall but there are some things we can do. <br /> Dave Ritter has $140,000 which Valerie will encumber for the project, now we are ONLY 1/8 of a million dollars <br /> short. Here are a couple of options. <br /> 1. John Gibson has $172,000 in his operating budget for sewer sealing. We hope to do about $40,000/$50,000 <br /> of root kill and had hoped to do some other sanitary sewer related projects. Assuming the 534 and 535 funds <br /> and the activity codes for these two line items allows us, we could go ahead with the root kill project and devote <br /> the remainder of the $172,000 to the channel rehab project. Carolyn and/or Valerie would have to answer the <br /> cross fund question. If we are allowed to proceed in this manner we could do a payback of sorts next budget <br /> year. We could devote all FY-95 channel cleaning funding ($62,400) to sanitary sewer projects along with the <br /> $72,400 budgeted for that purpose. I don't believe we have identified any major contractural amazon channel <br /> projects for next year, anyhow. Also, Engineering has plenty of work to keep them busy this current year and <br /> they could devote quality time to a sanitary sewer project next year and get us a really good bid799772 This <br /> option assures us that all monies budgeted for FY-94 is encumbered and unless bids came in significantly less <br /> than expected we wouldn't be hounding Carolyn and Valerie to carry the funds forward again, as it seems we do <br /> every year. <br /> 2. This option retains storm sewer funding for storm sewer projects and takes the Ritter$140,000 for FY-94, the <br /> $62,400 for FY-95 and $60,000 of the approximate $70,000 CIP Storm Rehab Funding for FY-94, which is still <br /> available. This option continues to separate sanitary and storm sewer funding but places the burden on <br /> engineering to assure us they will be able to expend or encumber the $172,000 in John Gibson's budget for <br /> sanitary sewer related projects before July, 1994. <br /> Both options assumes no contractural amazon channel projects in FY-95 but if an emergency occur's we have to <br /> make the decision of sanitary or storm. I prefer option #1 and believe Doug Weber prefers option #1, but would <br /> like to hear from some of the rest of you. I did tell Doug I would get back to him on Friday but believe Bob <br /> Hammitt is gone on Friday so it will probably be Monday, Doug. <br /> • <br /> Page 1 <br />