My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-27-1999 Additions
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
10-27-1999 Additions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2012 11:06:07 AM
Creation date
8/24/2012 11:05:52 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
October 27, 1999 <br />File: 805720J -0060 <br />Mr. Joel Hanson <br />City Administrator <br />City of Little Canada <br />515 Little Canada Road <br />Little Canada, MN 55117 <br />RE: LITTLE CANADA ROAD FEASIBILITY STUDY <br />Dear Mr. Hanson: <br />This correspondence is intended to provide additional information into some of the items listed <br />in your October 21, 1999 memo to the City Council regarding the Little Canada Feasibility <br />Study. The issues that you asked for clarification or further input are as follows: <br />1. Engineering Costs <br />It is my understanding that the agreement for Ramsey County will require them to pay 10% <br />of their eligible construction cost as a design fee and for construction services, 12% of the <br />eligible construction costs for a total of 22 %. This should provide sufficient engineering fees <br />for the design and construction of the project with a couple of exceptions. Those exceptions <br />would be if there is substantial involvement in the right -of -way acquisition and /or substantial <br />public involvement during the design phase. These costs may exceed the 22% funded by <br />Ramsey County. <br />2. Construction Schedule <br />Your memo indicates that you hope construction could be completed within 120 days if not <br />sooner. I also understand from our discussion that Ramsey County indicated construction <br />could likely be done within 60 days. I would be concerned about limited construction to a <br />period as short as 60 days for fear that it may drive up construction costs. However, I due <br />believe that 120 days may be longer than a contractor really needs. 90 days seems to be a <br />reasonable time line for substantial completion with potentially another 30 days added on for <br />the contractor to finish up miscellaneous issues such as sodding and driveway restoration. <br />It will be much easier to zero in on the number of days to allow the contractor for substantial <br />completion as the project design is completed. <br />C: \WINDOWS \TEMP \teas study Itr- 2702.oct99.doc <br />PAGE 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.