Laserfiche WebLink
Office of: <br />JOEL. R. HANSON, Administrator <br />515 Little Canada Road <br />Little Canada, MN 55117 <br />612-484-2177 <br />FAX: 612- 484 -4538 <br />CITY OF LITTLE CANADA <br />RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA <br />MEMO <br />TO: Mayor Fahey and Members of the City Council <br />FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator <br />DATE: October 5, 1990 <br />RE: Heritage Water Main Oversizing <br />Developer Cost Reimbursement <br />MAYOR <br />Michael Fahey <br />COUNCIL <br />Beverly Scalze <br />Bill Blesener <br />Rick Collova <br />Jim LaValle <br />As you will recall, we have been presented with some information from <br />Heritage Development regarding reimbursement for the oversizing from a <br />six inch to a ten inch water main on DeSoto Street relative to their <br />1988 office park project. The amount requested for reimbursement from <br />Heritage was $7,452.50 based on calculations prepared by their <br />Engineers. Don Carley had recommended an amount of $3,772.00 based on <br />his analysis of this matter. In my review of this issue, I feel the <br />maximum amount to be reimbursed should only be $2,694.50. This is <br />arrived at in the following manner: <br />431 ft. of 10 in. water main @ $18.00 per lineal foot = $7,758.00 <br />- 431 feet of water main @ $13.50 = 5,818.50 <br />Sub -total = 1,939.50 <br />+ wet tap difference of 300.00 <br />+ fittings difference 455.00 <br />Total due to Developer 2,694.50 <br />The basis for my recommendation consists of the following: <br />* Actual cost of water main construction considering a 10 inch <br />versus a 6 inch main ($18.00 /lf versus $13.50) <br />* The fact that no authorization or documentation exists <br />„indicating that the City would reimburse anymore than this <br />amount. (However, reimbursement from 6" to 10" seems fair <br />irrespective of the lack of any agreement.) <br />* The fact that the Development Agreement dated the 24th day of <br />October, 1988 by and between the City of Little Canada and <br />Gardner Brothers references private improvements as approved <br />by the City Engineer. No evidence exists that the Engineer <br />approved the initial plan of Gardner Brothers which would <br />then justify their request for a higher reimbursement amount. <br />Ped' °50 <br />