HomeMy WebLinkAbout14.C. Huber Park and Riverfront Development Schematic Design Review and Cost Estimates
t 1'1~
~.
;, CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director
Meeting Date: November 15,2005
Subject: Huber Park and Riverfront Development Schematic Design Review
and. Cost Estimates
INTRODUCTION
This agenda item involves City Council review of the schematic design and updated cost
estimates for Huber Park and adjacent river front developments including the Levee
Drive parking lot, Archery Range relocation, and Boat Landing relocation. If there is a
desire to move forward with these projects, City Council is asked to order the
development of plans and specifications.
BACKGROUND
Huber Park redevelopment has been in the planning stages for several years:
Mid 1990's - Master Plan Developed
2001 - Master Plan Revised
2004 - Final Site Plan Developed
In the fall of 2004, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and City Council reviewed
the final site plan that would guide the redevelopment of Huber Park. That plan was
adopted by City Council, and we were directed to proceed with schematic design. Since
that time, the Huber Park Design Committee has been working closely with Stuart
Krahn, Project Manager from Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik and Associates, to develop
design details for the architectural elements, site improvements, fixtures and furnishings,
as well as updated cost estimates. In addition, we have completed the final grading plan,
which was reviewed and approved by the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District
Board of Managers at their October meeting;
The design committee is comprised of residents, business owners, Scott County staff,
and city staff. We have met about every four weeks throughout the year to develop the
site plan and schematic design. Those involved include:
Ed Wagner Resident
Jane Dubois Resident
Scott Swanson Resident
Melissa McGowan Resident
John Clay Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Arvid Sornberger Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Carol Schultz Shakopee Rotary
Lauri Glenn Shakopee Downtown Partnership Council
Steve Menden City Council Liaison
Jerry Kennen Shakopee Public Utilities
Joe Gustafson Scott County Public Works
.
'" ~
.~
.
Terry Schwalbe Lower Minnesota River Watershed District
Andrea Weber City, Park Planning
Jeff Weyandt City, Engineering
Mark McNeill City, City Administrator
Michael Leek City, Community Development
In addition to Huber Park redevelopment, there are other improvement projects planned
for the river front area. We are proposing to integrate these projects into the final
construction documents and bid all work as a package, but each project as an alternate:
1. Levee Drive Parking Lot
2. River Boat Launch Relocation
3. Archery Range Relocation
By combining into one bid package with alternates, we should receive better bids on all
four projects.
DISCUSSION
Schematic design is a step beyond conceptual design where we have dimensions,
material selections, and quantities. If the schematic design is approved, the next phase
would be developing plans and specifications and bid documents.
There are three elements of the schematic design that you will be reviewing:
1. Architectural
2. Site Improvements (Including CSAH 101/Sommerville Intersection Improvements)
3. Site Fixtures and Furnishings
In addition, we have provided updated cost estimates with project deductions and
alternative funding options identified.
Finally, we have provided information on the projects proposed to be added to the Huber
Park bid package.
Architectural
The architectural design incorporates elements from the historic downtown area: brick
from buildings and steel from the Holmes Street bridge. All surfaces are vandal resistant
and low maintenance (e.g. metal roofs). There are two structures being designed:
1. Performance Area
The performance area is the heart of the park. The design provides a covered
performance area with lawn terraced seating for approximately 500-1,000. The
performance area would be susceptible to flooding, so the structural and electrical
components will be designed with this in mind. Sound, lighting, and designing for a
variety of uses have been common discussion items in the design process.
Ultimately, funding will likely dictate the scope of the design.
2. Park Pavilion Building
The park pavilion building provides the restrooms for the park, as well as storage and
support space for the performance area. The support space is essentially a large
open space that can provide storage as well as performer preparation areas. The
pavilion building is also being design with a vending kiosk area.
Site Improvements and CSAH 101/Sommerville Intersection Redesign
~. ,
~..
.
Site improvements include the terraced seating area, trails, landscaping, parking,
roadways, and pedestrian entrances. For the most part, the site improvements mirror the
approved site plan. We have refined and updated trail alignments to ensure ADA
compliant routes and adequate pedestrian movement throughout the site.
Ensuring, adequate and safe pedestrian and bicycle access to the park from south of
CSAH 101 has been a goal throughout the schematic design process. The safest route
is the current underpass on the west side of downtown. However, we recognize that
more convenient crossings on the east side of downtown will likely prevail for most park
users.
Scott County Highway Department has been part of the design committee to help
. address pedestrian and bicycle acceSs. One area of focus initially was the Fillmore
Street intersection and whether or not traffic signals could be installed there. Due to the
proximity of the signalized Sommerville intersection and not meeting traffic counts,
Fillmore Street is not likely to be signalized.
Our other focus area was the Sommervilleintersection. As part of Bonestroo's work,
they conducted traffic counts and vehicle movement information for the intersection. In
addition, Scott County also analyzed redesign of the intersection geometry to increase
pedestrian and bicycle crossing safety. Together, we have come up with the following
intersection improvement proposals that would improve pedestrian and bicycle crossing
safety:
a) Redesign of the intersection to eliminate the "free right" from eastbound CSAH 101
to Sommerville
The current intersection design has a right turn lane from eastbound CSAH 101 that,
although signalized with a stop bar, essentially operates as a "free right". This
creates safety issues for pedestrians trying to cross since vehicles seldom stop, even
on red. In addition, the "free right" also extends the intersection length, making
pedestrian crossing in the given time frame difficult.
The proposed improvement would redesign the intersection with a right turn lane
instead of the "free right". This would require vehicles to make a 90 degree turn at
the light instead of the "free right" movement that currently exists. The downfall is
that semi-trucks would not be able to make the 90 degree turn, and the city would
need to restrict truck turns from eastbound CSAH 101 to Sommerville. (Trucks would
need to enter downtown from either westbound CSAH 101 or south or west of
downtown.)
We were concerned about the impact this would have on downtown businesses and
their ability to receive product delivery. I met with Brian Turtle to discuss downtown
deliveries. He informed me that would fully support the proposed changes (provided
automobiles could still make the right turn to Sommerville), noting that most delivery
trucks come from the east or south, and that they will take whatever route is
required.
b) Additional Cross Walks
The second improvement would be to install an additional cross walks (and
connecting sidewalk) on the east and south sides of the intersection. These cross
walks would serve those comin'g from the east, since there would not be a crossing
at Fillmore, and give pedestrians two crossing options.
~
..--
.
c) Count Down Timers
This improvement would replace the existing crossing signals with countdown timers
that provide the amount of time left in the crossing cycle.
d) Shorten Turn Lane On Westbound CSAH 101 to Bridge
Finally, the County has expressed a willingness to shorten the turn lane on
westbound CSAH 101 that goes to the Minnesota River bridge, which starts mid
intersection. By shortening this turn lane, it would further reduce the width of CSAH
101 at the pedestrian crossing locations.
If Council supports these options, we will continue to work with the County on further
design and funding for the improvements.
Site Fixtures and Furnishings
The site fixtures and furnishings include the lighting, benches, picnic tables, bike racks,
and signage. There are two different themes of site fixtures presented:
1. Traditional Historic Style
The traditional theme tends to replicate more of what is found in the downtown area.
Materials are generally cast iron (or replicas of cast iron) and tend to be black in
color. This theme tends to be more historical in nature.
2. Architectural Connection
The second theme attempts to blend in more with the architecture used on the
performance area and building, primarily complementing the lines formed by the
steel trusses in the structures. This theme also attempts to compliment elements of
the Community Built Playground, with generally brighter colors. It also attempts to
establish an identity for the park, rather than repeat what is already found in the
downtown area.
Updated Cost Estimates
Your packet also includes detailed updated cost estimates, with options for project
deductions (bid alternates) and alternative funding scenarios. Overall, the cost estimates
are still relatively in line with initial cost estimates reViewed by City Council in early 2005.
As you will see, we will need to keep working on funding~
Project Additions
Finally, the presentation and detailed cost estimates include information on the Levee
Drive parking lot, boat launch relocation, and archery range relocation.
Of these three projects, the only one showing a funding shortfall at this time is the Levee
Drive parking lot. However, the City and Shakopee Public Utilities have not come to
agreement on funding the undergrounding of the power lines. It does appear that the
HRA will full fill their funding commitment for the parking lot. If Public Utilities pays for the
full cost of undergrounding, the funding will be complete. At this point, it funding gap is
listed as "undetermined".
Also, the design of the Levee Drive parking lot is not part of the Huber Park contract. I
met with the Engineering Department to discuss the feasibility of them doing the design.
.
_.
.
Due to the current work load and upcoming developments, they are not able to do the
design work.
If you choose to move forward on the parking lot, this design could be incorporated into
the overall park design. Bonestroo has prepared a proposal to design the parking lot at a
cost not to exceed $12,200.
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed the schematic design at their
October meeting. They had detailed discussion about the following:
Entrance Monuments
One of their primary discussions focused on the proposed Sommerville/CSAH 101
entrance monument, and the lack of other entrance signage or monuments at Fillmore
Street and the west side of the park. The Board's concern was that we had put all of our
focus on this entrance, when the majority of park users would be coming from the east
and west.
As a result, Bonestroo will be providing the design committee options for reducing the
scale of the entrance monument at CSAH 101 and moving some of those dollars to the
east and west entrance. (The design committee is not meeting until after the deadline for
the Council packets. These options will be part of the presentation at your meeting.)
Site Fixtures and Furnishings
We had additional options on the site furnishings for the Board that the design
committee had not had an opportunity to review. The Board asked that the design
committee make the final recommendation to Council on site furnishings. The final
recommendation for site furnishings will be presented at your meeting.)
Funding
The Board asked that I prepare an updated CIP to show how this project could be fully
funded, in the event that additional sponsorship dollars don't come in. This request was
based on the concept that this will be a focal park forShakopee, and given the early
success of the playground, will be a destination for many Shakopee and neighboring
residents. I asked them to affirm that the scope of the project was still what they were
expecting, which they did.
Additional funding could be accomplished by revising the park dedication revenue
projections since there are no plans to limit the number of lots, or possibly the delay of
some other projects. I will be brining back an updated CIP for the Board to review at their
November meeting, which they will need to consider before making a recommendation
to Council.
REQUESTED ACTION
City Council is asked to review the schematic design for Huber Park and, if there is a
desire to move forward, order the development of plans and specifications.
In addition, City Council is asked to discuss the Levee Drive parking lot, and if inclined to
move forward, authorize a contract extension with Bonestroo for the design work in the
amount of $12,200.
-
.,
. HUBER RIVERFRONT PARK
AND RELATED RIVERFRONT.'
DEVELOPMENT
": ,. .'"". ,,'",
Schematic Design Pres~l1tati.on
. ..'
.. . .. .
SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL,-
NOVEMBER 15, 2005 .
. . ~~v .>-~":'j::'
>., . ..:~: i:.:~~t.~::.,;.. .';.....
....f
--~.
.-.
- - "_'~~' ..'io . ~".
."~
If-:~ .'., ".. -~ 0
.:,. ....-_,..c. ~
1
"
40-
,~ -....
"
~..;; t.O. RO. \0' (".01 ,vE.) 0 . . '. "
. (~~
.,. ,," ' .
\1\ 0
'Jill: 112~! ,!i r i; , 'i i! I, iill}t
,,[. I r
I ~.. .!
~ '
side view
front view
2
.
.,1
~I 13'-1-
NI 20';"O~
t--
II.
II
:1/
II
'II 0
IJ ~
IJ
IJ'
IJ
IJ
IJ
/I
II "
/I " J
IJ IJ
/I "
/I "
IJ "
II "
/I 11, '0
/I " I
/I " ~
/I 11 \I
If., " !HI "
II /I ,0'"11
tf.. ".".11 +28- IUl II l\
~ -1L.~ fl m: ,.~:.' /)J.\
~ --=:'~..::.::.~~~/'
,
;,
'2'~O.
44'-0" ~
--,
~___<;~i~;16__loI...f
W.J<.. ",~ur<I""
/l6W"
'11'1-(~
3
, ~~\.tnod'
~~~\.....r
\ ~iel<-Au..J-Urr '7/~$
~~*"""
.__..-r~(Jl'l~
./ i~ ~ Mel:oI--f
r.-er-
~f<.~
1It~;;
-r ~..' ~
l /.'!"-..
(,/........ I .......,,>
l ~ ~ [il ~-~
i ! ;
; I F-:---4
l I ,
,
, ".. ., I
i i
i I
l I
.r= ! ,
i
.- i
i
- i
l ~ ndlif ~ I
,
! I
, I
i ,
! ,
,
; ,
j:.-- ",,,J
.i. W~
WJ ~
l ~...:......... l ,......,,.,
"---->/ (3
~-
4
.
~~~~~~~:. v:---'";: .
5
: i . .. . .
-"!_-'""'-'-~_C"N'" ......... _' --W, ~-i:-L-~~,i".=
~..!'.J!;i!i
, . '.
.;.1--1 i l----w t-.u,.-Ltj~~,,"
~~
~ i
JJ.._____ j ! 1 ; HM 1 ; .; ~
~.,.....".--tr--"t::i='""" .-..' , =
t6SLS~
~4'~CJ$TS'f"
"'-m ,~.:- . ('-=_ ';" ~":;" ""':.';;"<
~= -f\~
!
PCI/IQ'-lIr-1'I.JIo:(
-....
""""
~:\. :..., ,:::. .,:;.:,
- .' ~~
"~Icr
0~~OFDOlJBLESTEPSEKfWALl
r--r ,'-(I' I'lr'lt _~""... "'...............""
r c~n ~"
.. 1lI.0n l!:I.l:tT
O!lC_co.stSlOlC. ".$" 9t.$IT
iItoI-"Wl.lI. t 11(0.0" '~.c"
. 1JUn Uf,''''
~ 1 I~.on 1~J.Cl"
+-troW."-C:
JItN. 0ll0N1U
o SECTION OF SfNGt.E STEPSfATWAU.
S '13''''-0
6
---~---
Huber Park entry plaza
7
.,:""
.,;""',. ,.;.~"
~:.. . ~.;','. .
,~';'."
'. =:", ,~..:.--
"p-~':
.l;lI'....
Ji>;', , :
.,......,'1 CO. RO.
:.~. -'.'
i~ 0
8
~--- ---'\"-
I I
,j I -." I
" i I
, I
;
f ",.....-.s"tl. ,.(.A...I~(o,~....
l t
~,.
.'
:;~:~;:::;'HfI"1" SUI"'- ~-Y&~~J~;
1M ""Ue.~~ """""'lC. "'
S\'\....kO~IS.,M'''lN.~...
~~:::'...~:.:::.. ,....-..,. oI~
I ~...A,l.'l..........,.
.1:,0
l"-;tt>.:l"" "","'."""''-_ i
..-..---.. "".u ....H.
9
.
"~, ~;:t~"i"!>~':'~~"'"'
,.~:
rTi 0
10
.
PIC NI C
B E N C H
Manufacturer. Keystone Ridge Designs
Product: AWous AC26
Manufactul'er: Keystone Ridge Designs
Product; BreakYlater BWHf$.6 wIBW26
ManuraDtlJl'er. TimberFonn
Product; 2834.0T 3'
W Receptacle
...J
U
<(
l-
e..
W
0
W
~
11
.
! " ' . :':.- ./! ~ . ~
*,:i~ 'tA !1f ,f~ r=----. . ~
:,11 :.Ir~~~~
- - ,~ J"'~ '"
--- ~ .% ~ (, - {I ..1 ." .'
- - - - -. -
..
:'I..".~ i\l....: i\~U
!~~_~'~.'.~.~ t :~~.
.. ,
~ , $1J.. ",
'I ~,
, M .',
~r :1'.
.. ..
-:::.--=--
12
..
~
f[~':'::':'::;IIIII\f"" ,
'I":'" ,..' :: 'II ,~: :
;.' ':,': t ',' I
i,,,'l:'~ T)i I
I .,.e,.-..,..".',' , .. I
_0
HUBER PARK SCHEMAllC DESIGN COST ESllMATES AND FUNDING SUMMARY
COST ESnMATES PART 1-11 1,981,301
Incl. &% Conllngency f 2,080,388'
FUNDING
,CouncD Authorized Huber Park Proj.ct Construclion Fundin~ 1,400,000
Grant Proceeds 46,000
(834,3861
Sound system 70,000
Picnic Shener 40,000
Picnic Tables 62,000
Parle Ben..... 19,000
Trash Roc.plIcles 1,400
Trees (60% Reduction) &2,000
Stage Ughtlng 20,000
Acoostal Panels 8,000
TOTAL 280,400
(373,9661
Alternate Fundln~ Opllons
Allay power line undsrgroundlng funding from other sourc.. 21,680
Fllmo", Street water maln funding from other sources 44,000
West Entry Improvements 83,000
SommervlllalCSAH 101 Entryway &3,400
Partonnon.. Area 300,000
Terrace SeatIng 1&0,000
Pavilion Building 41&,000
TOTAL 1,047,0&0
13
.
\
\
\
\
\
\
. .
0 I
=-
I I
_./
14
.;
, ,
~
~j,~":
.,~"~:. .::>,~, ";:.
" ".
"
,~~
;(;.
..~;
15
.
Additional Riverfront Park Development
SchemaUc Design Cost EsUmate
November 15, 2005
PROJECT ADDIllON PART 1 - Levee Drive Parlclng Lot Improvements
Power Une Undelllroundlng LS 1 80,000 80,000
Parking Lot Design LS 1 12,200 12,200
Par1dna Lot Construction LS 1 99.510 99.510
SUBTOTAL PART 12 191,710
HRA Funding 36.000
ONR Grant (50% of Funding) 46.000
Pravlous City Funding Provida to HAA 38,000
PROJECT ADDIllON PART 1 Net Undetennlned Funding Amount 73,710
NOTES:
Funding of power line undergrounding and remaining parking lot costs need to be delennlnad,
PROJECT ADDlllON PART 2. Boat Leunch Relocation
Construction costs LS 1 138 000 138 000
SUBTOTAL PART 13
DNR Funding 100,000
Lower Minnesota River Watershed District 25,000
Park Reserve 13,000
PROJECT ADDIllON PART 2 Net Undetennlned Funding Amount 0
PROJECT ADDIllON PART 3 - Archery Range Improvemants
Construction Costs LS 1 75000 75 000
SUBTOTAL PART 14 7&,000
ONR Funding and Donations 40,000
Park Reserve 35,000
PROJECT ADDIllON PART 3 NoI Undetennlned Funding Amount 0
16
Huber Riverfront Park Redevelopment
Schematic Design Cost Estimate
November 15,2005
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST EXTENSION COMMENTS
PART 1 . Fillmore Street Extension and Alley Improvements
Mobilization LS 1 8,200 8,200
Traffic Control LS 1 3,500 3,500
Sawcut Bituminous Pavement (Full Depth) LF 530 4 1,855
Sawcut Concrete Walk LF 10 6 60
Remove Bituminous Pavement SY 1535 5 7,675
Remove Concrete Walk SF 30 5 135
Common Excavation CY 1025 6 6,150
Subgrade Excavation CY 430 6 2,580
Adjust Existing Catchbasin EA 1 500 500
Concrete Pipe Sewer Design 3006 LF 236 28 6,608
Construct Drainage Structure Design 2x3 LF 8 230 1,840
Construct Drainage Structure Design 48-4020 LF 4 260 1,040
Casting Assembly (includes Build Adjustment) EA 4 400 1,600
Protection of Catchbasin in Street EA 4 150 600
Geotextile Fabric SY 350 2 700
Select Granular Borrow (CY) CY 430 12 5,160
Granular Borrow CY 720 7 5,040
Class 5 Aggregate Base (100% crushed Limestone, 8" thick) SY 3480 6 20,880
Bituminous Base Course, 2.5" thick SY 2600 6 14,950
Bituminous Wear Course, 1.5" thick SY 2600 4 9,100
Bituminous Wear Course for Driveways, 3.0" thick SY 25 10 250
Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GL 160 3 480
Concrete Curb and Gutter, Design 8618 LF 1350 10 13,500
8" Concrete Driveway Pavement SY 25 50 1,250
4" Concrete Walk SF 1475 4 5,163
Pedestrian Ramp EA 5 400 2,000
Utility 'Crossing Conduit LF 80 7 560
Silt Fence, Heavy Duty Type LF 450 3 1,350
Sodding, Type Lawn (includes 6" topsoil) SY 1580 4 5,530
Pavement message EA 2 120 240
12" solid line stopoar LF 24 4 96
6" solid line cross walk LF 76 4 266
4" solid line striping LF 730 1 876
Salvage and Reinstall Sign EA 2 100 200
Install new sign EA 8 150 1,200
SUBTOTAL PART 1 131,134
Feasibility Study Contingency (10%) 13,113
Feasibility Study Indirect Costs (25%) 36,062
SUBTOTAL INCLUDING CONTINGENCY AND INDIRECT COSTS 180,309
Approximate Assessments to Adjacent Property Owners 75,730 Assumes 100% Assessment Option
Approximate Assessments to City (General Fund) 104,579
PART 1 Net Cost to Huber Park Budget 0
C
Huber Park and Riverfront Development Cost Estimates, 10/21/05 1 11/10/2005
.
.
PART 2 - Electrical Undergrounding
Park Electric Undergrounding LS 1 115,000 115,000
Alley Electric Undergrounding LS 1 43,300 43,300
Property Owners Service LS 1 23,430 23,430
SUBTOTAL PART 2 181,730
SPUC Park Undergrounding Donation 115,000
Approximate Assessments to Adjacent Property Owners 23,430 Property owners can pull service at their cost
SPUC Share in Alley Undergrounding Costs 21,650
PART 2 Net Cost to Huber Park Budget 21,650
NOTES:
Net cost to Huber Park Budget assumes project budget paying for City share of undergrounding alley power lines.
Huber Park and Riverfront Development Cost Estimates, 10/21/05 2 11/10/2005
PART 3 . Park Mobilization and Site Preparation
Mobilization LS 1 75,000 75,000
Silt Fence LF 1600 3 4,800
Rock Construction Entrance EA 1 2,500 2,500
Removals LS 1 25,000 25,000
Finish Grading LS 1 20,000 20,000 Rough grading, fill, shapin!! under separate proiect
SUBTOTAL PART 3 127,300
PART 3 Net Cost to Huber Park Budget 127,300
Huber Park and Riverfront Development Cost Estimates, 10/21/05 3 11/10/2005
,
) ,
PART 4 - Site Utilities
Electrical Service LS 1 15,000 15,000
Trunk Water Charge AC 1.3 1,348 1,752 Based on irrigated area
Connect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EA 1 300 300
4" PVC Sanitary Sewer Service LF 150 20 3,000
Connect to Existing Water Main EA 1 1,500 1,500
Cut in to Existing Water Main LS 1 2,500 2,500
Rock Excavation CY 62 60 3,720
6" Water Main - Ductile Iron CL 52 LF 470 23 10,810
6" Gate Valve and Box Assembly EA 2 750 1,500
Patch Bituminous (in 101) SY 155 50 7,750
Traffic Control LS 1 5,000 5,000
Hydrant and lead EA 1 2,500 2,500
Ductile Iron Fittings LB 900 2 1,800
4" Water Service - Ductile Iron CL 52 LF 200 20 4,000
4" Gate Valve and Box Assembly EA 1 600 600
Concrete Pipe Sewer Design 3006 LF 408 25 10,200
Draintile LF 220 10 2,200
Riprap CY 6 60 360
Construct Drainage Structure Design 2x3 LF 4 230 920
Construct Drainage Structure Design 48-4020 LF 23 260 5,980
Casting Assembly (includes Build Adjustment) EA 6 400 2,400
Protection of Catchbasin EA 6 150 900
SUBTOTAL PART 4 84,692
PART 4 Net Cost to Huber Park Budget 84,692
NOTES:
Savings of $20,000 if 101 watermain connection is delayed until road construction in 3-5 years.
Total costs for Fillmore Street waterrnain is approximately $44,000. Net cost to project budget assumes project budget paying forwaterrnain.
Huber Park and Riverfront Development Cost Estimates, 10/21/05 4 11/10/2005
PART 5 - Parking Lot
Subgrade Preparation SY 9000 0 3,150
Geotextile Fabric SY 3335 2 6,670
Select Granular Borrow (CV) CY 1530 12 18,360
Select Granular Borrow (Rainwater Gardens) CY 1000 12 12,000
Geottaxtile Fabric (Rainwater Gardens) SY 250 2 500
Modified Topsoil Borrow (Rainwater Gardens) CY 35 30 1,050
Class 5 Aggregate Base (100% crushed Limestone, 8" thick) SY 6100 5 30,500
Bituminous Base Course, 2.5" thick SY 5025 6 28,894
Bituminous Wear Course, 1.5" thick SY 5025 4 17,588
Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GL 280 3 840
Concrete Curb and Gutter, Design 8612 LF 2090 10 20,900
8" Concrete Driveway Pavement SY 120 50 6,000
Pavement Message EA 6 350 2,100
4" solid line striping LF 1800 1 2,160
Install new sign EA 6 150 900
SUBTOTAL PART 5 151,611
PART 5 Net Cost to Huber Park Budget 151,611
Huber Park and Riverfront Development Cost Estimates, 10/21/05 5 11/1 0/2005
,
PART 6 - Walks, Trails, and Entry Improvements
4u Concrete Walkways SF 9000 5 45,000
Bituminous Trails SY 2000 15 30,000 Use existing DNR trail
Entry Column, Small Lighted EA 4 4,500 18,000
Entry Column, Large Lighted EA 2 6,000 12,000
Brick Wall LF 24 300 7,200
Metal Entry Arch LS 1 7,200 7,200
lettering and Logos LS 1 4,000 4,000
Crossing Improvements LS 1 5,000 5,000 Restriping, Count Down Timers
Lighting-West Entry EA 10 5,000 50,000
Vine Trellis-West Entry SF 300 20 6,000
Landscape Rock Removal-West Entry LS 1 5,000 5,000
Signs-West Entry EA 1 2,000 2,000
Handrails LF 245 125 30,625
SUBTOTAL PART 5 222,025
PART 5 Net Cost to Huber Park Budget 222,025
Huber Park and Riverfront Development Cost Estimates, 10/21/05 6 11/10/2005
PART 7 - Performance Stage and Terraced Seating
Performance Stage and Overhead Canopy LS 1 269,000 269,000 Includes 20% additional contingency
Concrete Pad Around Stage SF 2400 7 16,800
Foundation Soil Improvements Under Seatwalls LF 790 10 7,900
Draintile under Seatwalls LF 900 12 10,800
Curved Precast Concrete Seatwall-Upper Terrace LF 790 100 79,000
Curved Precast Concrete Seatwall-Lower Terrace LF 105 230 24,150
Lower Terrace Foundation LF 105 270 28,350
Special Inspections LS 1 2,000 2,000 Per new IBC requirements
Building Permit LS 1 7,250 7,250
SUBTOTAL PART 7 445,250
PART 7 Net Cost to Huber Park Budget 445,250
Huber Park and Riverfront Development Cost Estimates, 10/21/05 7 1111012005
,
PART 8 . Pavillion Building
Pavillion Building LS 1 386,647 386.647 Includes 10% additional contingency
Sewer Access Charge EA 3 2,000 6,000 3 equivalent SAC Units
Water Access Charge EA 3 2.300 6,900 3 equivalent WAC Units
Special Inspections LS 1 3,000 3,000 Per new IBC requirements
Building Permit LS 1 9,375 9,375
SUBTOTAL PART 8 411,922
PART 8 Net Cost to Huber Park Budget 411,922
Huber Park and Riverfront Development Cost Estimates, 10/21/05 8 11/10/2005
PART 9 - Amenities
Benches EA 10 1,900 19,000
Trash Receptacles EA 5 1,400 7,000
Bike Racks EA 4 350 1,400
Picnic Shelter EA 1 40,000 40,000
Picnic Tables EA 20 2,600 52,000
Interpretive Signage EA 4 1,500 6,000
SUBTOTAL PART 9 125,400
PART 9 Net Cost to Huber Park Project 125,400
.
l
Huber Park and Riverfront Deve'opment Cost Estimates, 10/21/05 9 11/10/2005
.
,
PART 10 - Lighting and Sound Systems
Pedestrian Light Fixtures EA 15 3,500 52,500
Parking Lot Lighting EA 4 5,000 20,000
Landscape Uplights EA 4 1,000 4,000
Stage Lights EA 10 2,000 20,000
Portable Acoustical Panels LS 1 6,000 6,000
Sound System LS 1 70,000 70,000
Electrical Outlets, Sleeves, Etc. LS 1 5,000 5,000
SUBTOTAL PART 10 177,500
PART 10 Net Cost to Huber Park Project 177,500
Huber Park and Riverfront Development Cost Estimates, 10/21/05 10 11/1 0/2005
PART 11- Seed, Turf, Plantings, Erosion Control
Trees EA 205 500 102,500
Shrubs EA 240 50 12,000
Perennials EA 500 15 7,500
Rainwater Garden Plantings EA 850 12 10,200
Sod SY 1200 4 4,800
Turf Seeding SY 25000 2 50,000
Prairie Seeding AC 2.4 4,000 9,600
Steel Edging LF 550 10 5,500
Erosion Control Blanket SY 7900 2 11,850
, Irrigation System SY 56275 1 33,765
SUBTOTAL PART 11 247,715
Taro Company Donation 33,765
PART 11 Net Cost to Huber Park Project 213,950
Huber Park and Riverfront Development Cost Estimates, 10/21/05 11 11/10/2005
, .
, I
HUBER PARK SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SUMMARY
COST ESTIMATES PART 1-11 1,981,301
Incl. 60/0 Contingency I 2,080,366 I
FUNDING
Council Authorized Huber Park Project Construction Funding 1,400,000
Grant Proceeds 46,000
BALANCE (634,366)
Deduct Options
Sound System 70,000
Picnic Shelter 40,000
Picnic Tables 52,000
Park Benches 19,000
Trash Recepticles 1,400
Trees (60% Reduction) 52,000
Stage Lighting 20,000
Acoustal Panels 6,000
TOTAL 260,400
Funding Shortfall (373,966)
Alternate Funding Options
Alley power line undergroundlng funding from other sources 21,650
Filmore Street water main funding from other sources 44,000
West Entry Improvements 63,000
Sommerville/CSAH 101 Entryway 53,400
Performance Area 300,000
Terrace Seating 160,000
PavllionBuilding 415,000
TOTAL 1,047,050
Huber Pa~ and Riverfront Development Cost Estimates, 10/21/05 12 11/10/2005
Additional Riverfront Park Development
Schematic Design Cost Estimate
November 15, 2005
PROJECT ADDITION PART 1. Levee Drive Parking Lot Improvements
Power Line Undergrounding LS 1 80,000 80,000 SPUC estimate
Parking Lot Design LS 1 12.200 12,200
Parking Lot Construction LS 1 99,510 99,510 From grant application. Assumes no stormwater
SUBTOTAL PART 12 191,710
HRA Funding 36,000 Verbal discussions with HRA
DNR Grant (50% of Funding) 46,000 Grant application funding for trail head parking
Previous City Funding Provide to HRA 36,000
PROJECT ADDITION PART 1 Net Undetermined Funding Amount 73,710
NOTES:
Funding of power line undergrounding and remaining parking lot costs need to be determined.
PROJECT ADDITION PART 2 - Boat Launch Relocation
Construction Costs lS 1 138,000 138,000 Engineering Estimate
SUBTOTAL PART 13
DNR Funding 100,000
Lower Minnesota River Watershed District 25.000 Contingent on approval by Board of Managers
Park Reserve 13,000 CIP previously estimated at $25,000
PROJECT ADDITION PART 2 Net Undetermined Funding Amount 0
PROJECT ADDITION PART 3 - Archery Range Improvements
Construction Costs LS 1 75,000 75,000 DNR Estimate
SUBTOTAL PART 14 75,000
DNR Funding and Donations 40,000
Park Reserve 35,000
PROJECT ADDITION PART 3 Net Undetermined Funding Amount 0
Huber Park and Riverfront Deve'opment Cost Estimates, 10/21/05 13 11/10/2005
. "
~ B Bonestroo
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113
-=- Rosene Office: 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
. lJ1 Anderlik & www,bonestroo,com
, Associates
Engineers & Architects
November 7,2005
Mr. Mark Themig
Parks, Recreation, Natural Resources and Facilities Director
City of Shakopee
1255 Fuller Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Levee Drive Parking Lot Improvements Design Services Proposal
Dear Mark:
Thank you for this opportunity to provide professional design services for the Levee Drive
Parking Lot Improvements adjacent to Huber Riverfront Park, The following letter presents our
understanding of the project, scope of services, and fees,
Project Understanding
The City wishes to construct a new parking lot along Levee Drive between the former and
current river bridges. This parking lot will serve as a trailhead to the Minnesota Valley DNR
Trail and also provide parking for visitors to Huber Park, This parking lot will be adjacent to the
existing. restroom building, and its design will include curb and gutter, bituminous paving,
signage, lighting, and landscaping, We understand that stonn water management for the parking
lot will use the existing storm sewer system, and that no additional water quality improvements
are required. The estimated cost for this parking lot is approximately $100,000.
We. understand that the City, has ordered the existing overhead electrical lines through the
parking lot area be placed underground, however, this work is not part of our scope of services,
We have also assumed that soil borings or other geotechnical' design is not required for the
design of the parking lot improvements.
Consultants Scope of Basic Services
The design of this project will require professionals in the areas of landscape architecture and
civil engineering, Bonestroo will provide all services in-house, We have previously surveyed this
area, and we do not anticipate the need for an updated preliminary survey to complete the design,
. St, Paul, St, Cloud, Rochester, Willmar, MN · Milwaukee, WI · Chicago, IL
Affirmative ActIon/Equal OpportunIty Employer and Employee Owned
-
Mr. Mark Themig. November 7, 2005
Parks, Recreation, Natural Resources and Facilities Director Page 2 "
City of Shako pee
Preliminary Design Phase
We will prepare preliminary design layout alternatives for the parking lot. We anticipate that two
or three alternative layouts will be provided for evaluation. We will also prepare a preliminary
construction cost estimate prior to submittal of the preliminary design documents for City
approval. We anticipate two meetings during the preliminary design phase,
Final Design Phase
We will prepare construction documents based on the approved preliminary design documents
and an updated construction cost estimate, The construction documents will detail the
requirements to construct the project and will include drawings and specifications required for
the project. We understand that the proposed improvements will be bid as a part of the first phase
of the Huber Riverfront Park Project.
We will prepare a final construction cost estimate at approximately 90% complete construction
documents to confinn that the project design is within budget.
, '
The construction documents and fmal construction cost estimate will be submitted for review
and approval by the City, We will help the City file the required documents for the approval of
governmental agencies/authorities having jurisdiction over the project. The City of Shakopee
will review plans for permits. We anticipate two meetings in the final design phase,
Bidding Phase
Bonestroo will prepare and distribute the advertisement for bids, We will also prepare and
distribute bidding documents, including drawings and specifications, to prospective bidders, A
log of bidding document distribution will be maintained. We will prepare responses to questions
from prospective bidders and provide clarifications and interpretations of the bidding documents
to all prospective bidders in the fonn of addenda,
At the City's direction, we will organize and facilitate a pre-bid conference for prospective
bidders. Bonestroo will be responsible for organizing and conducting the opening of bids, We
will analyze all bids received and, based on the qualified low bidder, provide written
recommendation for contract award, We will help the City prepare Owner/Contractor Contract(s)
for the contract(s) awarded, Again, we understand that this project will be bid in conjunction
with other Huber Park improvements,
Additional Services
Any services not covered in the previous paragraphs may be provided, as an additional service,
only if specifically requested and authorized in writing by the City,
. St, Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, Willmari MN · Milwaukee, WI · Chicago, IL
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Em ployer and Employee Owned
..
Mr. Mark Themig November 7, 2005
~ Parks, Recreation, Natural Resources and Facilities Director Page 3
City of Shakopee
Compensation
We propose to be compensated for the services outlined in the above scope of basic services on a
lump sum not to exceed basis as follows:
Preliminary Design Services: $2,800
Final Design Services: $8,400
Bidding Services: $800
Reimbursable Expenses: $200_
Total $12,200
Contract
If this proposal is acceptable to the City, we will prepare an Agreement Extension to our existing
contract with the City to perform this work,
I welcome any questions you may have, You can reach me at (651) 604-4861, I look forward to
working with you on this project,
Sincerely,
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, mc.
~-pL
.. .. . ..
, "
.. . ' ,
>> . ,
, . 0"'
.~ .', . - .
. -:.- .,.,,'. .---,.....' , .',
. ... . ' "'. ..
v, .. .
, '
Stuart M, Krahn, R.L.A.
Project Manager
. St, Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, Willmar, MN · Milwaukee, WI · Chicago, IL
Affirmative Ac:tlonlEqual Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned
\ 'f
", J'f~
~
-1990's Master Plan
-2001 Revised Master Plan
-2004 Final Site Plan Approved
-Design Committee
.Comprised of local residents, business owners, and staff
.Began work in 2004
.Met about every four weeks
.Provided guidance in both the site plan and schematic
design
1
,. I
...
-October Meeting
-Comments and Recommendations
-Consider reconfiguring entrance monument focus from
Sommerville/CSAH 101 and add to east and west entrances
-Final determination on site fixtures and furnishings up to design
committee's recommendation
-Requested an updated CIP to determine if feasible to provide
additional funding for entire park development in the event that
additional funds are not raised
2
.
,
..'
3
"
,
'"
,^.,,_m"~b>>i;r;;;1t'" "",bI....f
/;/
/ . .~.~
! /- "";t
/ II ,
! '-r!t/ts1~.eJ
...l.''o . ",i>t<' '
! .,,",' ,
~d /.n I, -'.
<~ i" '"
li!fJ;~
.. U/\ " , .',' .,~ .
~If<< i " "" ., .'
m.ff~!J '\:" . / ~ '
. .,. '..'y':.......
~r~41-1h<f.W ~ '- . .' . ,
" "1/1/1&
4
,
\
.-
...--fo-v.1<-~
/'
" /~~~\-r
___~"""""~tb~
~J_
~'f-e:KtI
'lhvO$
\ -~ ---. ..If~"jL.".~rr!;;.m'-L
"~_t;r!~ ~~<:e~lj-.". 1(eY05
_________'l!~...:___~__
,
~ f/I~
.. U@
~'
!Z
5
.
"
..
QPEN- ~
W !.AWN
~- .-
6
.
~
7
"
'l
8
,
,.
9
..
.
~
Ulf CONCEPT 2
10
.
...
Intersection Redesign
-Eliminate "free right" and reduce CSAH 101 width
-Would increase pedestrian safety
-May require restricting truck turns from eastbound CSAH 101 into downtown. Other
truck turns not affected
-Met with Brian Turtle to discuss truck delivery (most comes from east or south)
-Would require continued work with Scott County
11
.
"-
Intersection Redesign
12
,
~
13
<t
14
.
~
_"_v_~.",~,,,^
N C
MarlUract~lrer: TimOOfFcrrr;
Product: 2834.CT 3'
Ftw€ptade-
15
~
16
.
,
HUBER PARK SCHEMAllC DESIGN COST ESllMATES AND FUNDING SUMMARY
COST ESTIMATES PART 1-11 1,981,301
Incl. 5% Contingency I 2,080,3661
FUNDING
Council Authorized Huber Park Project Construction Funding 1,400,000
Grant Proceeds 46,000
(834,366)
Sound System 70,000
Picnic Shelter 40,000
Picnic Tables 52,000
Park Benches 19,000
Trash Receptlclss 1,400
Trees (50% Reduction) 52,000
stage Lighting 20,000
Acoustal Panels 8,000
TOTAL 260,400
(373,966)
Alternate Funding Options
Alley power line undergrounding funding from other sources 21,650
Filmore Street water main funding from other sources 44,000
West Entry Improvements 63,000
Sommerville/CSAH 101 Entryway 53,400
Performance Area 300,000
Terrace Seating 150,000
Pavilion Building 415,000
TOTAL 1,047,050
17
.
'\.
/
I
/
-'
--
I ----------------~--
I
LEVEE PARKING LOT: 41 STALl.S
SCALE: '<'3G
18
"
"
19
.
,
Additional Riverfront Park Development
Schematic Design Cost Estimate
November 15, 2005
PROJECT ADOmON PART 1 ~ Levee Drive Parking Lot Improvements
Power Line Undergrounding LS 1 80,000 80,000
Parking Lot Design LS 1 12,200 12,200
Parkinq Lot Construction LS 1 99,510 99510
SUBTOTAl PART 12 191,710
HRA Funding 38.000
DNR Grant (50% of Funding) 46,000
Previous City Funding Provide to HRA 36,000
PROJECT AD0lT10N PART 1 Net Undetermined Funding Amount 73,710
NOTES:
Funding of power line undergrounding and remaining parking lot costs need to be detelTl1ined.
PR.OJECT ADDITION PART 2 .. Boat Launch Relocation
Construction Costs LS 1 138 000 138 000
SUBTOTAl PART 13
DNR Funding 100.000
Lower Minnesota River Watershed District 25,000
Park Reserve 13.000
PROJECT ADDITION PART 2 Net Undetermined Funding Amount 0
PROJECT ADDITION PART 3.. Archery Range Improvements
Construction Costs LS 1 75 000 75000
SUBTOTAl PART 14 75,000
DNR Funding and Donations 40,000
Park Reserve 35,000
PROJECT ADOlTION PART 3 Net Undetermined Funding Amount 0
-Schematic Design?
-Order Plans and Specifications for Park?
-CSAH 101/Sommerville Redesign?
-Assistance with Scott County for funding work
-Levee Drive Parking Lot?
-Would require contract extension for design, $12,200
20