My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 07/14/1992
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1992
>
Agenda - Council - 07/14/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2025 9:01:05 AM
Creation date
2/25/2004 11:12:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
07/14/1992
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
201
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
! <br />I <br />i <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />~',, Steve J~nkowski, City Engineer <br />Uuly 9, ~992 <br /> <br />Secondty,i we estimated our field services based on ideal <br />conditions,.[since we were told repeatedly that all of the grading <br />would be ~om~leted by the developers to within one-tenth of a foot. <br />This was Dot[the case. Grading was not completed until this spring <br />and in some cases street grades were off by several feet and <br />boulevard g~ades were off by over five feet. In fact, some <br />developers nave not provided topsoil for boulevard restoration. <br /> <br />To help ~aV~ the developer's money, we staked the centerline for <br />the sewed c~ntractor so he could grade the streets to the proposed <br />subgrade.! H~d this not been done, the street contractor would have <br />charged ~8 ~per cubic yard to grade the streets. We also had to <br />stake the sgrvices, since the contractor could not base the grade <br />on the iBou~evards as they existed. The cost of staking the <br />services ian~ subgrade amounted to $10 617 74 <br /> ~ ~ ' · · <br /> <br />In addition,! we spent 208.5 hours staking easements, gathering as- <br />built information, recomputing plat control, restaking and staking <br />park corBer$ for trail construction which amounted to $7,380.83. <br />None of !thgse items were addressed in the proposal, but were <br />requiredltoicomplete the project. Recomputing plat control was <br />require~ s~nce the plats and street grades were changed numerous <br />times atl.the request of developers. <br /> <br />In summary, ithe added work and charges in scope from our proposal <br />could ha~e resulted in added cost of $28,232.57 over our original <br />estima~e~ ICurrently, our costs are only $13,897.81 over our <br />estimate~ ~omparing our costs to projected engineering costs in <br />the feasibility studies, the cost of field services is less than <br />the seven p~rcent of construction as estimated. <br /> <br />Overall, ;our total engineering costs, including our not to exceed <br />costs, a~eilapproximately four percent less than the 15 to 17 <br />percent estimated in the feasibility studies. <br /> <br />If you hav9 any questions or need any additional information, <br />please l~t me know. <br /> <br /> Sincerely, <br />I . ssoc TES, <br /> <br /> File: RA6:t5-23 <br />! <br /> <br />$! <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.