Laserfiche WebLink
is( ary Kueffner <br />Page 4 <br />athe $11.45 for <br />l <br />April, <br />1989 is not allowable becaus <br />d in Apit is <br />September, 1989 are not lowable. In addition, <br />Quicksilver Express incurred <br />a cost that has already been included in the indirect rate under postage. <br />30. Therefore, only the <br />can be file is to the allowable hours. in <br />The current approved indirect rate on file is In, profit is only <br />indirect rate °profitt are not eligible. profit is a <br />approvedthe costs for P e of the work. <br />addition, increase in the star specified in that <br />allowed when there is an <br />the profit amount is fixed no matter if actual <br />fixed amount in the contract based on the tasks <br />contract. Subsequently, <br />costs are less than or greater than the estimated costs. <br />The breakdown of the allowable engineering costs is as follows: <br />1 30 = $1027.00 <br />Associate and/or Senior Engineer <br />Drafting and/or Design Tech 11 <br />Mileage costs Total <br />C. Legal Costs <br />Total Requested - $7,317.91 <br />34 hours x $23.23 x ' 8.25 <br />.5 hours x $12.69 x 1.30 41.80 <br />(2/89 to 9/89) $10-'77.05 <br />Total Allowable - $7,182.91 <br />owed unt of 135 have been disall overnmente(40sCFR partr357 <br />Legal costs in the amothe normal functions of g <br />considered related t,The breakdown of the unallowable costs is as follows: <br />Appendix A, 8.2.a). _ MpCA letter <br />Review correspondence <br />10/11/89 $60.00 Research re: Federal Statutes Reimbursemen <br />$15.00 <br />11/01/89 $3000 Revise letter to MPCA <br />11/08/89 $15.00 Review correspondence from client <br />11/15/89 $15.00 Review correspondence from client <br />11/21/89 <br />SUMMARY because the request was not <br />prior to the January 31, 1989, budget period end date <br />The budget period extension request was denied 198ements before the <br />roved p rant req satisfied the <br />submitted and approved <br />all the grant the city <br />and because the city fu t period end date. e, 35.2000. <br />January 31, 1989, rant in accordance with 40 <br />primary purpose of the g <br />from the condemnation award appeal and <br />is a summary of our determination of the allowable lan an <br />The following resulting <br />related acquisition costs <br />judgment on Site D: <br />