Laserfiche WebLink
Burns, Diana <br />From: Majid Allan <mafreecycle@gmail.com> <br />Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 9:01 AM <br />To: Burns, Diana; Andros, Pamela <br />Subject: Fwd: Tower Review services for Dane County <br />Hi Diana, <br />First time checking my emails. Sorry but trying to avoid work while we're on vacation. Below is the first quote I received <br />from <br />Ben Evans. I will try to find the subsequent one where he agrees to a lower price that I referenced in my return email to <br />him (which he just sent you). Stay tuned... <br />Majid <br />Sent from my iPhone <br />Begin forwarded message: <br />From: "Ben Evans, P.E." <ben@evansenPsolutions.com> <br />Date: April 13, 2016 at 3:39:10 PM EDT <br />To: <mafreecvcle@gmail.com> <br />Subject: Tower Review services for Dane County <br />Majid, <br />My fee to perform third -party reviews on individual sites proposed for either cellular or wireless <br />broadband use would be $2,500. I'm trying to keep the fee very reasonable, and I believe the fee is <br />justified given the preparation involved and the breadth of topics covered in our reports. When we were <br />Evans Associates, we were charging Dane County $1,200, but this fee was set in 2001, and even at that <br />time, Dane County was getting a bargain, given the information we provide. Other consultants charge <br />$3,000 or more for the same service. <br />The fee normally would not include travel nor attendance at meetings if they were needed or <br />requested). Extra engineering time would be billed at $165 per hour. However, for the one Bug Tussle <br />proposal now pending, I'll make an exception and include the meeting in Madison in the $2,500 fee. We <br />can later decide on the inclusion of out of town meetings in the fee for subsequent work. <br />Included in our review of a tower proposal would be the following: <br />1. Validation of Need for Site to Achieve Proponent's Objectives <br />2. Verification of Before/After Signal Coverage <br />3. Conformance to Industry Standards <br />4. Validation of Need for Proposed Tower Height <br />5. Response to Nearby Residents' Questions (if known) <br />6. Appropriateness of Proposed Tower Lighting/Marking <br />7. Visual Impact, including Alternatives to lessen Impact <br />8. Alternative Sites (including existing) that may be utilized <br />9. Reasonableness of Proponent's Explanation for Why an Existing Tower cannot be utilized <br />