CR 95-159 Public Hearing, 1996-200 Capital Improvement Plan•
September 1, 1995
n a
PUBLIC HEARING, 1996 -2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Proposed Action
Staff recommends no action on this item at this time.
Council Report 95 -159
The purpose of this meeting is to review the Capital Improvement Plan and to accept public
comments during the public hearing process.
Overview
The Capital Improvement Plan is a financial and physical planning tool utilized by the City
since 1987. The purpose of the CIP is to discuss and organize future years major projects
and to analyze the available revenue sources necessary to accomplish those projects.
The CIP is intended to be flexible in timing of the projects and does not require completion of
the projects in the specified years of the plan. Projects require additional approvals during the
budget process as well as individual approvals as the projects move forward. Thus, the CIP is
truly a planning tool from which projects are scheduled for completion in future years.
Primary Issues to Consider
o Does the CIP adequately address the needs of the City?
The Capital Improvement Plan has been formulated with the input of the staff, Park
Board, Planning Commission and City Council. While no tool is all encompassing, it
thoroughly represents the anticipated projects and needs of the community.
o What process will be used for final adoption of the plan?
Along with the proposed expenditures will be the proposed revenues. The revenues
available for projects will be estimated and matched against the proposed projects.
Should revenues be unavailable, projects would need to be prioritized and scheduled
according to the revenues available. It is anticipated that the City Council will adopt the
CIP at its first regular meeting in October. Public comment is encouraged during the
month of September to complete the input process toward completion of the CIP.
Supporting Information
o Draft - -City of Hopkins 1996 -2000 Capital Improvement Plan
Steven C. Mielke
City Manager
•
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jim Gessele J 7-
Date: Thursday, August 24, 1995
Subject: Amend Section 945 City Code
Landfill Gas Control District
Second Reading Ordinance 95 -775
Attached you will find Ordinance 95 -775 for second reading. Adoption of this ordinance
will establish building setback requirements at the Opus and Greenfield Apartment sites
on the south side of the 7th Street Landfill and at the Pipeline Supply site on the
northwest side. In addition the ordinance provides for City imposition of controls over
unauthorized vehicular access to the landfill.
• No revisions have been made to the original ordinance as submitted for first reading.
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance 95 -775 for second reading and order
published.
•
•
•
1 60
L4. 45
40. 05
N87'2 ' 2'K 677. St}
THE OOLLS
2
(6)
9
OF CAIGICKM
c'S�$. g8
275.77
668.51 587
25
2 7
(5)
1
477.
(92)
40.04::
uJ
t
z
Qs
677.58 S87
(3)
11
294,f
EMP
93 -94)'
( IO -61
r22-
En
118
130
NM
M®
IMMO
116
126
113.160
EOM
MEE
1—
1 41
•6
■®
11
NM
16
-T
95.88
S87'23'07•E
OL A
(66)
1187. 23'07•x
195.88
8
1
53
1241 12T
195. 58
S 87. 23'07•E
Ot, A
(66)
HU'23'
95.
(56)
213.82 - --
MI MI C E MI
CI. 3
6
(28)
1 '. 22
113.110
5
(27)
58T• 42' 3•E
131. 8
( 67)
13 12 11 12
1391 144
717 3113
316 315
313
314 313
n
N
• .v
i
(49)
2
2
577..59
(w)
THE HMS
(5)
577..al 597'22'45'.
(3)
365T785
T �
(29) (26)
128.
of
mA7•,2
( kANOMA I
322 -33S 5 9 -3213 -3213
W
as? ► iii
w✓�
CI
22
r�I 25
( I $ -271)
PATI
1 1 7 3 37 3
1
!I
137.13{
!30-133
TlfTi i
.34
1
hE
(
•
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. 95 -755
An Ordinance relating to Landfill Gas Control District;
amending Chapter IX of the Hopkins City Code by adding Section
945.03, Subd. 6, 945.09, 945.11 and 945.13.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS DOES ORDAIN:
Subd. 6. Institutional Controls: Imposition of setbacks on
premises adjoining the Landfill Gas Control District.
945.09. Setbark Requirements. In order to provide for the health,
safety and welfare of people in proximity to the boundaries of the
Landfill Gas Control District located on properties adjoining
thereto, there is hereby imposed thereon certain setbacks on the
following described property adjoining said Landfill Gas Control
District upon which no structures or construction of any kind shall
be permitted without consent of the City of Hopkins and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Authority:
Parcel 1
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 25, Township 117, Range 22, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, described as follows: .
Commencing at the northeast corner of the Southwest
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 25,
thence westerly, along the north line of said Southwest
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 195.88
feet to the point of beginning; thence southerly, at a
right angle to said north line, a distance of 80.00 feet,
thence westerly, along a line parallel with and distant
80.00 feet south of said north line, a distance of 250.00
feet, thence northerly, at a right angle to said parallel
line, a distance of 30.00 feet, thence westerly, at a
right angle, along a line parallel with and distant 50.00
feet south of said north line to its intersection with
the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter, thence northerly, along said west line to the
northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter, thence easterly along said north line
of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter to the
point of beginning.
c:\ file \hopkins \ordinanc \llandfill 1
•
parcel 2
That part of Section 25, Township 117, Range 22, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the north line
of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said
Section 25 with the southeasterly right -of -way line of
the Soo Line Railroad Company (formerly known as the
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad);
thence northerly, at a right angle to said right -of -way
line, a distance of 120.00 feet, thence southwesterly
along a line parallel with and distant 120.00 feet
northwesterly of said southeasterly right -of -way line to
its intersection with the west line of said Section 25,
thence southerly, along the said west line of Section 25
to its intersection with the said southeasterly railroad
right -of -way line, thence northeasterly, along said
southeasterly railroad right -of -way line to the point of
beginning.
945.11. Expiration of Setback. The setback requirements contained
within in Section 945.09 shall expire without further action on
October 31, 2000 or at the earlier date of October 31, 1998 if
eight consecutively quarterly landfill gas samples disclose
landfill gas levels are below the lower explosive limit at wells
designated by the MPCA.
•
945.13. The City shall impose from time to
time certain controls necessary and appropriate to prohibit
unauthorized access to, over and upon landfill property by the
general public.
This Ordinance is effective subject to the following:
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Date of Publication:
Effective Date of Ordinance
c:\ file \hopkins \ordinanc \11and£i11 2
August 15, 1995
September 5, 1995
September 13, 1995
October 3, 1995
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
City Attorney Signature Date
c:\ file \hopkins \ordinanc \llandfill 3
•
•
o
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dave Johnson, Director of Recreation Services
DATE: August 22, 1995
SUBJECT: Review of Shady Oak Beach Redevelopment Process
At the April 18, 1995, Council meeting, Gene Maxwell was appointed to work on the
Shady Oak Beach Design Committee which included representatives from the
Minnetonka City Council, Hopkins and Minnetonka Park Boards, and staff from both
cities. The Design Committee first met on May 24 to discuss the redevelopment
concept plan which was developed by the Joint Recreation Board in conjunction with
Brauer and Associates, Ltd., the consultant selected to develop a master plan.
A second meeting was conducted on July 18 to review architectural plans which were
developed by the consultant. included in the plans were the Committee's
recommendations for family changing areas and increased storage.
Subsequent the Committee's approval of the architectural plans, the redevelopment
concept plan was presented to Shady Oak Beach area residents at an August 11
neighborhood meeting. Although a number of neighborhood residents expressed
concern regarding current boat access and water quality issues, comments regarding
the redevelopment project were generally positive.
The purpose for discussion at the September 5, 1995 Council meeting is to review a
number of issues pertaining to the potential redevelopment of the beach.
Items for Council discussion include the following:
Plan Review
The Council is asked to review the prepared architectural plans and provide any
comments to the Design Committee.
Outlot "B"
The City of Minnetonka, as part of its Loop Trail System, has scheduled completion
of the bridge linking the peninsula for November 15, 1995. Neighborhood residents
have expressed a desire that current parking available at outlot "B" be eliminated in
conjunction with the bridge opening. The redevelopment concept plan includes a
children's play area at the site.
•
Financing
•
Review of Shady Oak Beach Redevelopment Process
August 22, 1995
Page 2
This request presents the following questions /options:
1. Will the City of Hopkins allow the current parking to be eliminated? If
so, construction of a play lot, paid for by Minnetonka, would be
completed in the spring of 1996 and be separated from the beach
redesign project.
2. Is the City of Hopkins interested in transferring ownership of outlot "B"
to the City of Minnetonka? If so, could this transaction be used to
support part of Hopkins commitment to the redevelopment project.
3. Last winter, Hopkins Public Works maintained access to the beach
parking area which allowed users of the lake to park in the beach parking
lot. This option lessened the demand for parking at outlot "B ". Does the
provision of parking and boat /canoe access at the beach site satisfy the
Councils need for parking at outlot "B "?
Minnetonka Council member Dick Allendorf, indicated to the Design Committee a
desire to have Minnetonka fund the redevelopment project, with reimbursement from
Hopkins over an agreed upon time period, if phasing of the project was not financially
beneficial. Jeff Schoenbauer of Brauer and Associates, Ltd. has estimated that
phasing the project will require an additional $1 17,000 to complete. Costs
contributed to inflation at 5.5% estimated to be $91,000.
Based on an estimated $1 .6 million budget which does not include costs associated
with phasing, the cities of Minnetonka and Hopkins have included the following
amounts in their Capital Improvement Programs:
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Minnetonka 500,000 600,000 - - -
Hopkins 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
(proposed)
Maintenance Concerns
There are three maintenance concerns related to the operation of the beach that will
need to be addressed regardless of whether the beach redevelopment project is
approved.
•
•
•
Review of Shady Oak Beach Redevelopment Process
August 22, 1995
Page 3
I. Replacement of Deep Water Docks
The existing condition of the deep water docks requires their replacement prior
to the 1996 season. Prior to the 1993 swimming season, a portion of the east
dock was removed because it was deemed unsafe. The estimated cost for
replacement of the docks is $50,000 - $75,000.
11. Sanitary Sewer
Staff recommends that replacement of the current septic system be considered.
Last February, the consulting firm of Short, Elliot, Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH)
performed a study to determine various options for replacement of the current
system. Their recommendation, which would connect the beach facilities to
service on Dominick Drive, could be completed for $47,500.
111. A.D.A. Compliance
At the request of the Joint Recreation Board, Brauer and Associates, Ltd.
prepared an estimate that determined compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (A.D.A.) would require $443,750. Under A.D.A. guidelines,
plans providing access for persons with disabilities to public facilities and
programs were to be in place by January 26, 1995.
Based on this information, Council is asked to provide staff with direction regarding
each of the Shady Oak Beach Redevelopment issues outlined in this memorandum.
•
Shady Oak Beach Redevelopment Study Joint Recreation Board
Cost Analysis Supplement for Hopkins and Minnetonka
Date November 20, 1994
To Joint Recreation Board Advisory Committee
Representing:
• City of Hopkins
• City of Minnetonka
From Project Planning Team Project Manager - Jeff Schoenbauer, RLA,Vice
President, Brauer & Associates
Overview At the request of staff, the following is a breakdown of potential costs associated
with upgrading the existing beach area facilities to meet minimal ADA and code
compliance requirements. The costs are based upon review of the site and our
estimation of the work involved to improve the facilities to meet minimal
standards.
Cost Analysis
Closure
The forthcoming cost figures are intended to be used for budgeting purposes and
comparing the relative cost of upgrading the facility to meet minimal
requirements versus a more complete redevelopment of the site as per the Master
Plan.
Upgrading Existing Buildings and Surrounding Pavement:
1) Buildings and surrounding pavement as required
to meet ADA and code compliance: $48,000
2) Additional existing building upgrades for maintenance and
stabilization concerns (i.e. re -roof, elastomeric finish, etc.): $38,000
3) Additional 1,400 square feet of building space to meet
identified program space requirements -- primarily
lifeguard station, restrooms, and changing rooms: $135,000
(Current building s.f. is 1,232)
4) Miscellaneous site improvements impacted by above
(Rework entrance tum- stile, fence, etc.) $20,000
Subtotal for above: $241,000
25% contingency, fees, and testing: $60.250
Total for Upgrading Existing Buildings
and Surrounding Pavement (1-4): 5301,250
Additional Initial Site Improvements to Consider:
5) Sanitary sewer to building cluster (replaces septic system): $52,000
6) ADA access into water: $12,000
7) Renovation of existing diving platforms $50,000
Subtotal for above: $11 4,000
25% contingency, fees, and testing: $28,500
Total for Additional Initial Site Improvements (5-7): 5142,500
Grand Total for All Items Listed Above: 5443,750
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you.
BRAUER & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Jeff Schoenbauer, RLA -- Vice President
Brauer & Associates. Ltd. 1
=SEN
February 14, 1995
Mr. Dave Johnson
Director of Recreational Services
City of Minnetonka
14600 Minnetonka Blvd
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 -1597
Dear Dave:
5909 BAKER ROAD. SUITE 590, MINNETON■A, MN 55345 612 931-9501 FAX 612 937-1188
ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION
RE: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Shady Oak Beach Sanitary Sewer Study
SEH No: MINNE9503.00
We are pleased to submit the results of our study on the alternative means to provide sanitary sewer service to the
proposed Shady Oak Beach Redevelopment Project. As background information, we were provided the following:
1' Section 3 -- Master Plan Cost Analysis from the Shady Oak Beach Redevelopment Study
by Brauer and Associates Ltd
• Y Feasibility Study for Sewer and Water Service to Shady Oak Beach by Schoell & Madson,
Inc. dated May 17, 1982
Contour maps
Sanitary sewer as- builts
•
The study was to address alternative methods of sewer service to the site, their associated costs, and environmental
impacts. Of particular concern is the potential impact of routing a sanitary sewer near or under the water level of
Shady Oak Lake and the cost associated with that construction.
General Discussion
There are two locations where sanitary sewer service is reasonably available. One location is in Dominick Drive
near the intersection of Jorissen Drive. This would require a crossing of Shady Oak Lake in the old railroad grade.
The other location is in Beachside Drive which serves the townhouse development east of Shady Oak Road and
south of the Soo Line Railroad.
The sewer in Beachside Drive is only about 1000 feet frorn the buildings clustered at Shady Oak Beach. However,
gaining access to that sanitary sewer includes crossing several hills, railroad tracks, Shady Oak Road, and a parking
area in the townhouse development before reaching the sanitary sewer in Beachside Drive. Crossing of the railroad
tracks and Shady Oak Road would require additional permits, engineering costs, and construction costs. Crossing
the parking lots of the townhouse development would require easements and driveway and sod restoration. Even
though new trenchless construction methods are available for the crossing of the railroad tracks and Shady Oak
Road, the extra expense, complexity of the design and construction, and lack of actual ownership of the sewer
alignment are all detrimental to this connection location. It would be our recommendation that this connection
location be considered only if all other methods of crossing Shady Oak Lake in the old railroad grade are rejected.
Although it is possible to connect to the trunk sewer in Dominick Drive with a gravity sewer extension to the Shady
SHORT ELLIOTT
HENDRICKSON INC.
ST PAUL. MN ST CLOUD, MN
CHIPPEWA FALLS WI MADISON Wr
Mr. Dave Johnson
February 14, 1995
Page 2
•
•
Oak Beach site, it is not a practical alternative. Excessive dewatering would be necessary along with tree removal
along the old railroad grade. The initial cost would exceed the cost of a pumped alternative. Even considering long-
term operation and maintenance costs of a pumping station, a pumped alternative is, in our opinion, the most cost -
effective alternative. In addition to the cost factor, the gravity sewer alternative could be highly detrimental from
an environmental standpoint.
The Shady Oak Beach Redevelopment Project is still in the conceptual stage. Accordingly, the amount of sewage
to be generated at the site is still largely unknown. However, preliminary designs of pumping stations which could
serve the site indicate that with a nominal 1V? forcemain, pumping rates of over 25 gallons per minute are easily
achieved with some of the smallest pumps available. This should be adequate for any reasonable application at this
site.
The forcemain alignment for Options 1 through 3 which follow is shown on the attached drawing. The lift station
would be located near the existing/proposed buildings. It would pump westerly down the old railroad grade across
Shady Oak Lake to an existing manhole of the trunk sewer in Dominick Drive. For purposes of this study, it was
assumed that the forcemain project would incur no restoration costs except the cost of crossing the existing parking
lot and Dominick Drive. It is anticipated that a more formalized trail would be constructed along the forcemain
alignment concurrent with or after the forcemain is constructed.
Option 1
This option would consist of constructing a small "grinder pump" lift station on the Shady Oak Beach site. A
control panel with local alarm would be installed in one of the buildings occupied by staff. The lift station would
pump westerly through a 1 V2 forcemain to a discharge manhole constructed approximately at the east end of the
parking lot at Dominick Drive. Sewage would then flow by gravity through a 6 -inch sewer service to the trunk
sewer in Dominick Drive. The forcemain would be constructed at approximately a four -foot depth by use of a
ditching machine or a vibratory plow. Either alternative only leaves a scar at the surface with little disturbance of
soil horizons. In fact, at a four -foot depth the forcemain would be at or above the normal lake levels of Shady Oak
Lake except for the channel crossing. Vegetation loss would be minimal.
At the channel crossing, the forcemain would be trenched or plowed below the channel bottom, but yet in the old
railroad fill above the lake bottom. The natural lake bottom that existed prior to the railroad fill would not be
pierced. No dewatering would be necessary. The equipment used for this kind of installation could easily travel
through a couple feet of water at the channel location. Sediment control would need to be carefully designed for
the channel crossing.
The type of forcemain proposed comes in large rolls and would be field fused so as to be one continuous length
of pipe, thereby making leakage from the forcemain almost impossible. However, due to its shallow depth, future
construction in the area could damage the pipe. To minimize the possibility of damage by future construction
activities, a trace wire would be installed in the trench with the forcemain to aid in locating the forcemain for any
contractor working in the area.
This system, being too shallow to provide frost protection, would not normally be useable in the winter. We
understand that there are currently no plans for the beach area which would require sewage service in the winter.
However, should the need arise, such as for a trailhead or skating facility, there is a way to make this alternative
useable in the winter. This would be accomplished by using a larger than normal wet well at the pumping station.
With the very limited flows likely in the winter, the wet well could function as a holding tank. Sewage would need
to be hauled periodically during the winter, perhaps as seldom as once a season at very nominal cost.
Mr. Dave Johnson
• February 14, 1995
Page 3
Option 3
Similar to Option 1, a grinder pump lift station would be constructed with a 1W forcemain discharging to the sewer
at Dominick Drive. To provide frost protection and potential year -round use, the forcemain would be installed at
a seven -foot depth. The wet well for the lift station could be of normal size since it would not need to function as
a holding tank in the winter. The trace wire would not be necessary. Even at a seven -foot depth, the forcemain
would not be below the lake bottom, again avoiding the potential of piercing the bottom of Shady Oak Lake.
Option 4
This option would consist of constructing the conventional lift station contemplated in the May 17, 1982, Feasibility
Study for Sewer and Water Service to Shady Oak Beach by Schoell & Madson, Inc. This type of lift station
included larger duplex pumps with a remote alarm system and all other amenities similar to the City's other lift
stations serving multiple properties. We have not reexamined this option, other than to update its cost based on the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. Based on this index for May of 1982 and the current index,
the cost estimate should be increased by approximately 54%, which would result in an estimated total project cost
of about $79,000. No other review of this option was made.
•
The operation and maintenance impacts of this option are also minimal. Each fall, it would be appropriate to
pressure test the forcemain to verify its continued leak -proof status, flush the main, and blow all liquids out of it
so the main does not freeze and break. The large wet well should be pumped dry in the fall to remove any sand and
other sediment which may have been deposited in it from the swimmers using the showers and restroom facilities.
Option 2
This option is very similar to Option 1 except that the channel crossing would be accomplished by suspending the
forcemain from the bottom of a bridge. We understand that a bridge is being contemplated for the channel
crossing to complete the Loop Trail system. Suspending the l' /! forcemain from the bottom of the bridge avoids
the need for an under water channel crossing and its associated sediment control. However, an air relief valve will
be necessary at this location potentially resulting in odors discernable by trail users. The system becomes more
complex with additional fittings, valving, and the need to protect the exposed pipe. This option, of course, requires
that the bridge be built concurrently with the forcemain.
Option Comparison
The table attached to this report provides a quick comparison between the various options described. It can be seen
that the costs of Options 1, 2, and 3 are all very similar. Accordingly, the option best serving the needs of the City
should be chosen. If none of these options are deemed appropriate, then a connection to Beachside Drive should
be further studied.
Recommendation
We would recommend that the City consider Option 1 for the following reasons:
1. Its cost is similar to the other two least expensive options.
2. Environmental damage during construction will be minimal or nonexistent with the proper sediment
control system.
3. There is little risk of leakage from the type of forcemain proposed, particularly if occasionally pressure
tested to verify integrity.
4. This option does provide a means of serving the site in the winter should winter uses of the facility
become attractive.
Mr. Dave Johnson
February 14, 1995
Page 4
o
•
Detailed cost estimates are provided at the end of this report for your reference. We would be happy to review the
contents of this report with the City Council and others as appropriate should you require further assistance.
Sincerely,
Daniel R Boxru g
ymb
Attachments
c: Mr. Steve Mielke, City Manager, City of Hopkins
Issue
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Description
Shallow 1W forcemain
under channel, grinder
pump station in large wet
well
Shallow 1W forcemain
suspended from bridge,
grinder pump station in
large wet well
Deep 11/2" forcemain
under channel, grinder
pump station in normal
wet well
Full -sized lift station, 3"
forcemain
Cost
$47,500
$47,000
$47,400
$79,000
Leakage Risk
Little: jointless pipe, but
not very deep
Exposed pipe under
bridge, more fittings
Almost none: jointless pipe
at a 7' depth
Almost none: jointless pipe
at a 7' depth
Construction
Damage
Little: crossing of channel
will require sediment
control
Little
Little: crossing of channel
will require sediment
control
Little: crossing of channel
will require sediment
control
Operation and
Maintenance
Issues
Pressure test and blow out
forcemain each fall; pump
sediment from large wet
well
Pressure test and blow out
forcemain each fall; pump
sediment from large wet
well; check exposed
piping under bridge
Pressure test forcemain
each fall; more pump wear
without large wet
well /sediment trap
Pressure test forcemain
each fall
Seasonal Use
Restrictions
Haul sewage from large
wet well if used in winter
Haul sewage from large
wet well if used in winter
None
None
•
•
Option Comparison
Detailed Cost Estimates
• Option 1
Mobilization $1,800
Duplex grinder pump lift station, lump sum 12,000
1' polyethylene pipe forcemain w /trace wire - 4' deep, 1800 LF @ $7/LF 12,600
6" PVC service, 200 LF @ $12/LF 2,400
Inside drop connection to existing manhole 500
Manholes with valving, 3 each @ $900 each 2,700
Pavement restoration, 2200 SF @ $2 /SF 4,400
Sediment control 1,600
Subtotal $38,000
+25% legal, engineering, contingencies 9,500
Total Estimated Project Cost $47,500
Option 2
Mobilization $1,8Q0
Duplex grinder pump lift station, lump sum 12,000
1' /z polyethylene pipe forcemain w /trace wire - 4' deep, 1600 LF @ $7/LF 11,200
1W polyethylene pipe forcemain suspended, 200 LF @ $10/LF 2,000
6" PVC service, 200 LF @ $12/LF 2,400
Inside drop connection to existing manhole 500
Manholes with valving, 3 each @ $1100 each 3,300
Pavement restoration, 2200 SF @ $2 /SF 4,400
Subtotal $37,600
+25% legal, engineering, contingencies 9,400
Total Estimated Project Cost $47,000
Option 3
Mobilization $1,820
Duplex grinder pump lift station, lump sum 11,000
11/2 polyethylene pipe forcemain - 7' deep, 1800 LF @ $7/LF 12,600
6" PVC service, 200 LF @ $12/LF 2,400
Inside drop connection to existing manhole 500
Manholes with valving, 3 each @ $1200 each 3,600
Pavement restoration, 2200 SF @ $2 /SF 4,400
Sediment control 1.600
Subtotal $37,920
+25% legal, engineering, contingencies 9,480
Total Estimated Project Cost $47,400
P195.4
no
57-tAOT OW L*(
'1
SHAW 0 UWE
WZ. LO
0
•
y
SCALE IN FEET
, iS7
--I 0 100 200
gtoov
Ci-er114° 0
0