Laserfiche WebLink
• April 17 , 190.r <br /> Page 2 <br /> merely wants to determine the potential impact upon her finan- <br /> cial interest. <br /> Regardless of the tanks, we have the following addition- <br /> al comments with respect to the cost estimate submittal by <br /> your office: <br /> 1 . The cost estimate is not in your letterhead, <br /> thus it does not identify from whom it was submitted. Before <br /> Mrs. Conrady makes any financial commitments, we must know <br /> who will be conducting the work. We must be assured that <br /> American Savings has employed a reputable engineering firm. <br /> 2 . The estimate does not describe how the soil <br /> samples are to be taken. In particular, it does not describe <br /> where samples will be taken, at which depths, or whether they <br /> will merely be grab samples. <br /> 3 . There are no provisions for any groundwater <br /> monitoring wells. It is essential to Mrs. Conrady that it be <br /> determined whether there is groundwater contamination. Appar- <br /> ently the RWQCB will not approve any site assessment unless <br /> it includes provisions for ground water monitoring. <br /> 4 . The "contingency" provision appears exces- <br /> sive. Most firms provide a contingency on complex actions of <br /> no more than 2-10 percent. Even so, I am not certain a con- <br /> tingency is appropriate in this matter. <br /> Although Mrs. Conrady desires to be cooperative, she <br /> ought to have some say in the course of action and believe <br /> that the assessment activity achieves a goal. Because we <br /> have determined that tank removal is premature at this time, <br /> the costs for excavation, backfilling, and tank removal per- <br /> mits are not agreeable at this time. The costs you have <br /> submitted are not substantially similar and include activi- <br /> ties to which we have not agreed. Our client is still commit- <br /> ted to sharing the cost o£ .the preliminary site assessment, <br /> but the cost that you have submitted is beyond the 'scope of a <br /> site assessment. <br /> In January, our client indicated that based on her past <br /> agreement, she was willing to cooperate and pay fifty percent <br /> (50%) of a site assessment not to exceed -her total estimate <br /> of $28 , 900 . The site assessment submitted by Leedshill- <br /> Herkenhoff was approved by the Regional Board. She has been <br /> in a position to go ahead since that time. We cannot proceed <br /> at this -time until a serious proposal from an engineering <br /> firm is submitted which will be approved by the Regional <br />