Laserfiche WebLink
. ........ . <br />.................................. ........... <br />....................................................... ............................................... ............. <br />AGENDA SECTION'. oRiGINATING DEPT./DIV.: <br />REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PUBLIC WORKS <br />MEETING <br />DATE <br />1128 r <br />DEPT, HEAD APPROVAL. <br />ITEM NO,'... ITEM DESCRIPTION. - ADJU TMENT To LSE oWAS S O STUDY AGREE - <br />MGR. REVIE G/ RECOMMENDS <br />;;�Ie< I MENT WITH i1TAHUE & ASSOCIATES , <br />This spring, an agreement was entered into ,between Donahue and Asso- <br />ci ate s and the governmental agencies of Roseville, Shoreview and <br />Ramsey County, Each of these organs nations agreed to supply one- <br />third of the cost for a $15-000-00 study of the overall Lake Owasso <br />Watershed <br />The study has nearly been completed, but has taken approximately <br />$20,,500.00 of work to complete,-, This work was, at least in part <br />necessitated -by the differences ire data encountered between Ramsey <br />County, the City of Roseville and the City of Shoreview, versus the <br />U.S. Geographical Survey national data* These differences have re- <br />quired all parties involved to devote additional time to ensure that <br />analysis and report findings reflect true cons i s tant topographic. ele- <br />vations <br />The second item was the discovery that the City of ho revi ew ' s flood <br />insurance study from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources <br />had notable differences between their projected 100-year lake eleva- <br />tions comp are d with the findings of the Donahue report, It was ulti- <br />mately determined that the Donahue report was correct, but only after <br />additional time and effort was put into fully documenting this situa- <br />tion, <br />a result of these two ,item the firm 'of -Dondhue & AssociAtes- are re- <br />questing $700,00 from each of the participants for the additional work <br />and i s ' requesting extension to December 17, 1982, to complete the <br />� p report. <br />This has been reviewed by the committee representatives of the three <br />organizations and been found to be appropriate, <br />RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion approving an extension to December 17, 19 8 2 , <br />for the final report and the provision of an addi- <br />tional $700.00 from the City of Roseville as its <br />portion of the cost of this study. <br />