My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01575
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1500-1599
>
pf_01575
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/20/2024 10:27:18 AM
Creation date
2/20/2024 10:25:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1569
Planning Files - Type
Rezoning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
119
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
i <br />2660 CIVIC, CENTER DRIVE <br />November 15, 1985 <br />Thomas Ehrlich <br />TANURB Developments, Inc. <br />550 Queen Street East, Suite 200 <br />Toronto, Ontario <br />Canada M5A1Z2 <br />rosevi e <br />RE: Loehmann's Plaza, City Project SS-84-39 and W-84-40 <br />Dear Mr. Ehrlich: <br />MINNES0 55 1 13 <br />As you have requested during recent discussions, the City of Roseville has <br />reviewed the compensation due you for public improvements of sanitary sewer <br />and water utilities in the Loehmann's Plaza Development. I have reviewed the <br />original agreements, the city's April 18, 1985 feasibility study for these <br />public projects, as well as the October 2, 1985 breakdown of costs by Kraus - <br />Anderson. <br />The conclusion is that while many of the costs are, in deed, appropriate and <br />valid, that some are either not incorporated as part of the public improvement <br />or higher than that originally agreed to. As a result of this, I have <br />attempted to break the cost down in as fair a manner as possible to indicate <br />what the city would improve. In the case of the sanitary sewer project, the <br />costs are as shown in your submission of costs and will be approved in this <br />manner. In addition, we would be agreeable to paying for up to $500 worth of <br />design and administration engineering in conjunction with this project. <br />In regard to the watermain project, it was concluded that the fairest method <br />would be to use the basic items actually earfstrueted as shown in Kraus - <br />Anderson's letter and apply the unit prices set forth in the city's feasibility <br />study. In order to reflect some minor inconsistencies in the exact items, it <br />is agreeable that the entire 10% contingency amount be utilized in the project. <br />It is further agreed to pay the cost of jacking the watermain under Fairview <br />Avenue. This was not envisioned in the original estimate of work, but was, in <br />deed, required by Ramsey County and, therefore, is a legitimate expenditure on <br />this project. Engineering expenses of up to $5,000 would also be accepted in <br />conjunction with this project. It might be noted that these engineering <br />expenses would require submission of engineering expenses of this amount or <br />higher to be eligible. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.