Laserfiche WebLink
_i� r <br /> pue�ic woAirrs <br /> � ���ob� <br /> ......, l�N 3 p 199� <br /> ... <br /> .... <br /> MEMORANDUM P�u Y �F .EVERf1'r'"' <br /> blic K'orks Dept. <br /> TO: Gordon Witc r <br /> FROM: Dan Mathi i ' � � G ` <br /> �`` . <br /> DATE: June 25, 1997 ' a� � v '�� ��' �� <br /> ��'r"�' <br /> SUBJECT: [ntraCorp Water Pressure Concerns <br /> I have had several telephone conversations with Jeff Fogarty of IntraCorp (he may actually work <br /> for the contractor hired by IntraCorp)regazding what Jeff felt was low water pressure. Two flow <br /> tests have been conducted at the construction site. The first test showed higher flow and supply <br /> pressure than the second test. The results of the second test had the potential for affecting <br /> insurance rates unless a larger pump was installed. A third flow test was conducted on June 23, <br /> 1997,which was witnessed by the Technical Services Group. The third test showed a flow rate <br /> and water pressure similaz to the first test. <br /> Jeff also expressed concem that Cintas, which is in th,e vicinity of IntraCorp and within the same <br /> water service zone had a water pressure 35 PSI higher than [ntraCorp(as tested by IntraCorp <br /> during the week of June 16, 1997). The Technical Services Group tested water pressure at a <br /> hydrants in front of Cintas and IntraCorp on June 20, 1997. The water pressure at Cintas was 2 <br /> PSI higher than at IntraCorp. This is what would be expected, given the difference in elevation <br /> between the two locations. We later found out that IntraCorp tested Cintas' water pressure on a <br /> pressurized fire service. <br /> Based on the results of the third flow test and the pressure tests the Technical Services Group <br /> conducted on June 20, 1997, Jeff FogaRy stated on the phone today that he was fully satisfied <br /> with the water pressure and flow available from the City's system. <br /> C.C. Jimmy Teegarden <br /> ������. <br />