New Search
RICH Nancy L <br />From: <br />HOSTETLER Kandra 5 <br />Sent: <br />Tuesday, March 09, 2010 9:04 AM <br />To: <br />STEFFEN Adam R <br />Cc: <br />RICH Nancy L <br />Subject: <br />FW: 09-01475-01 Fire Station #8 <br />Adam - <br />I had Nancy Rich (x5456) look into the accounting for this item. Please contact her directly to review how the <br />resolution will occur. <br />Thanks <br />Kandra <br />From: HOSTETLER Kandra S <br />Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:48 AM <br />To: STEFFEN Adam R <br />Subject: RE: 09-01475-01 Fire Station #8 <br />It looks like the plumbing fees were "double fee'd". I'll have someone check into it; I don't see any obvious <br />reason for them to be double fee'd. <br />From: STEFFEN Adam R <br />Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:40 AM <br />To: HOSTETLER Kandra S <br />Subject: RE: 09-01475-01 Fire Station #8 <br />Thanks Kandra. The question is why the fee amount charged for the 89 If was twice the amount normally charged? My <br />understanding, from the fee estimating guide, is that $112 is charged for the first 100 If. <br />Thanks. <br />Adam Steffen <br />541.682.5040 <br />From: HOSTETLER Kandra S <br />Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 7:24 AM <br />To: STEFFEN Adam R <br />Subject: 09-01475-01 Fire Station #8 <br />Hi Adam,.- <br />To follow-up on the sanitary sewer piping fees, the project was charged off at 89 ft. - see print screen from Apt <br />Win record below. <br />Thanks <br />Kandra <br />