Chris
–
We never closed the
“missed boring” issue. I agree with your recommendation, we proceed
without requiring this boring. The soil borings taken to date coupled with
the previous soil boring data should be sufficient. Also, there is no
immediate need for a boring near the headworks with the possibility of a
satellite screening station.
The savings on the
backhoe and one less boring will help with the overall project budget. Closed
issue.
Jim
From: Chris
Kelsey [mailto:ChrisKelsey@KennedyJenks.com]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 12:51
PM
To: James Kelly
Cc: Reta Shepard; David Randolph; Randy
Norman; Kevin Bleeck; Tom Giese; Eric deMontigny
Subject: RE: WWTP Expansion 2007 Title
Insurance Bid
Just left you a
voicemail Jim. Thanks from our end to Randy and Kevin as well on the BCF work. I
have discussed with the geotech, the backhoe was plainly in their
scope, and will not appear on invoicing. On the missed boring, I did express a
little frustration that the geotech didn't call me while in the field, as
I'm sure we could have worked out over the phone a relocation so that they
could have performed that hole while the equipment was in the field. I am due a
call back from them on proceeding with that boring, but we might throw out the
alternative of not doing it. This is based on some of our discussions at the
membrane workshop last week, including the likelihood of moving the fine
screening to a different location from the headworks and manufacturers initial
feedback that redundant grit removal might not be necessary. All these things
point to much less structural expansion at the headworks, which is where the
missed boring was. Between information from the previous geotech work done with
the SBR construction and the proximity of boring B-3 which did get
done, the geotech might be comfortable as is, but I will
discuss.
On the surveying, I
need to know your knowledge of existing easements at the 2 sites, which are
things we need to document (and stay out of) in our construction
drawings and get permits if we need to work within. If you can verify that
the only easement at the 2 sites is the outfall, and we get property line
setbacks from you, then I might talk to the surveyor about proceeding without
review of title reports. On the DNR outfall easement, we do have a copy of
the easement with a legal description from a package we received from David
Randolph, though the legal description is very hard to read. We do want the
surveyor to be able to incorporate that into the
base mapping.
Thanks
-
Chris
(
253-874-0555 | Direct: 253-942-3467
Cell: 253-670-5402 | Fax: 253-952-3435
From: James
Kelly [mailto:jkelly@ci.arlington.wa.us]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 9:51
AM
To: Chris Kelsey
Cc: Reta Shepard; David Randolph; Randy
Norman; Kevin Bleeck; Tom Giese
Subject: FW: WWTP Expansion 2007 Title
Insurance Bid
Chris
–
Happy Friday. Now
some questions about the Geotech and Surveying
work:
Thank you
–
Jim
From: Graham,
Donald [mailto:Donald.Graham@CTT.COM]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:03
PM
To: James Kelly
Cc: Reta Shepard; Thompson, Bob
Subject: WWTP Expansion 2007 Title
Insurance Bid
James X. Kelly,
P.E.
City Of
154 West
Cox
James,
As you may know Reta Shepard of your
office and I have spoken about putting a bid together for title insurance to
further Cascade Surveying’s work their doing for the City Of
There is one exception to bring
up. The Cities lot 111 (
I appreciate the timing issues and
cost concerns that you must address with all of your city projects and I’m
hopeful we can make this one go quickly and easily.
Sincerely,
Don
Graham
Chicago Title Insurance
Company
Cell #
425-327-9752