The URL can be used to link to this page

EDA Agenda 07-27-2004 . 1. ,., ..... 3. 4. . 5. . AGENDA MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 4:00 p.m. City Hall - Academy Room MEMBERS: Chair Bill Demeules, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Roger Carlson, Robbie Smith, Clint Herbst, Ron Hoglund, and Darrin Lahr. ST AFF: Treasurer Riek Wolfsteller, Executive Director Ollie Koropchak, Recorder Angela Schumann. GUESTS: AI Loch and other Block 35 property owners. Call to Order. Consideration to approve the June 22, 2004 EDA minutes. Consideration of adding or removing agenda items. Consideration of notices received from some Block 35 property owners and consideration whether to move forward or not move forward with the Block 35 improvements. Consideration to define terms and conditions and authorize preparation of a draft copy of the Development Agreement between the EDA and Block 35 Property Owners. 6. Consideration to approve authorization to execute a Satisfactory of Mortgage for GMEF Loan No. 016 (Aroplax). 7. Other Business. 8. Adjournment. . . . MINUTES MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 4:00 p.m. City Hall - Academy Room MEMBERS: Chair Bill Demeules, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Roger Carlson, Clint Herbst, Ron Hoglund ABSENT: Robbie Smith, Darrin Lahr STAFF: Executive Director Ollie Koropchak, Recorder Angela Schumann. GUESTS: John Simola, Public Works Director, Al Loch and other Block 35 property owners, Bruce Cochran, WSB, Inc. 1. Call to Order. Chair Demeules called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM, declaring a quorum. 2. Consideration to approve the June 15,2004 EDA minutes. MOTION BY SCHWIENTEK TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 15l\ 2004. MOTION SECONDED BY HOGLUND. MOTION CARRIED WITH CARLSON ABST AINING. 3. Consideration of adding or removing agenda items. Koropchak asked that the EDA consider authorization of execution of a satisfaction of mortgage. 4. Consideration to review the revised Feasibility Study prepared by WSB, Inc. for authorization to proceed with alley and plaza improvements to Block 35. Koropchak referred to the Feasibility Study provided by WSB and Associates, which identified options for reducing costs for the improvement project. Cochran stated that each of the cost estimates reference specific items that WSB was asked to address. WSB prcpared estimate options that climinatcd pavers in place of plain concrete, aggregate concrcte or stamped/colorcd concretc. Cochrane also referred to EDA Minutes - 06/22/04 prepared drawings for catch basins, enclosures and plantings. . Koropchak inquired about removing private drainage connections. Cochrane stated that the estimates include a cost share analysis for those items. Cochrane concluded that the estimates are still above the threshold of the EDA budget of $145,000. There are also indirect costs including bonding fees, land costs, etc. Koropchak indicated that the storm sewer items should be a public cost. Loch indicated that he had spoken with Karen Schneider about assigning costs based on linear feet per land owner, rather than splitting evenly among property owners. Loch inquired what the next steps would be in terms of the cost being over what was desired. Loch inquired whether some of the costs could be assessed back. Herbst asked Cochrane how close actual costs have been compared to estimates on other projects. Cochrane replied that the estimate may be on the high side to build in a small contingency. Schneider discussed differences in the site from property owner to property owner. Cochrane indicated that there are a number of different ways to assess, including some that could account for those differences. He also indicated that just because a catch basin . isn't located near a specific property, all properties benefit. Schneider asked if it is a City sewer, how would future maintenance issues be handled? Cochrane indicated that maintenance agreements or easements arc options. Schneider asked why the system moved to the north. Cochrane indicated that they were trying to avoid lowering alley more than needed, however, the catch basin can be moved to center of the island. Overall, they are lowering the existing grade just under a foot, including curb. Larson inquired about the depth of pavement estimated. Cochrane clarified that there is approximately five inches of bituminous figured in the estimate, which is at the thinner end of the spectrum. Koropchak stated that John Simola is comfortable with that amount, estimating a 25 year life. Koropchak clarified that the only major difference in the estimates is in the plaza surfacing. Herbst stated that catch basin issues could be solved with an easement. Herbst stated that should the EDA commit to $145,000, property owners could choose commit to whatever goes beyond that. Once the bids come in, property owners could choose whether the project should move forward. Discussion commenced on the storm sewer and the property owner' s responsibility. Larson asked if assessment was possible. Koropchak stated that she had spoken with the EDA attorney regarding a maintenance . agreement. If improvements were not installed, the City cannot assess to complete EDA Minutes - 06/22/04 . improvements on private property. Those items would require a servicc district. In that case, the City needs to draft an ordinance establishing a servicc district for default assessments. The district would also include those property owners who may not want to be included. Council may be able to include the dissenting property owner(s). Koropchak stated that by the time the bids came back and the design is completed, the district could be created. It does two things, allows for default coverage and allows privatc property improvements to be assessed. Koropchak stated that the property owners would need to draft a petition. Loch addressed removal of shrubs for visibility and dumpster location and screening. The current location is not acceptable to property owners as they are a visual impediment. They would like to move them back to the corners. Simola stated that he is opposed to having the dumpster located so close to the right-of-way becausc of littering and garbage pick-up. Loch stated that could be resolved through contract with garbage service going after hours. Herbst agreed, stating that they may affect the visual impact of plaza. Herbst also commented that this may be the time to bury the lines. Loch statcd that it really isn't an option, however they arc open to landscaping around the poles. Simola stated that there is no problem with moving the dumpsters as long as they are safe locations that providc the right slope and cut for the garbage containers. . Schneidcr asked about dedicated parking. Koropchak stated that the area needs to be public parking due to the input of City dollars, although there could be designated loading and unloading areas. Businesscs could choose to post one or two hour parking. Larson asked about handicap designations for the lot. Simola stated that he is not aware of any further requirements for accessibility for municipal lots. Schwientck commented on extending the parking lot island to help traffic now. After further review of the rcvised Feasibility Study, the commissioners were advised of additional funds available for the Block 35 project. The amount is $36,000. The $36,000 is the remaining balance of the Liquor Funds (non-restricted dollars). Of the initial $383,000 Liquor Funds, the EDA dedicated back $147,000 and earmarked $200,000 for the DMRF. Koropchak noted the use of grant monies is restricted for the usc of job and wage creation. With the lowest estimate of $195,000 ($25,700 privatc) and noting pcrhaps the City could rcceive more favorable bids if the Municipal Parking Lot was included in the bidding process, the commissioners were hopeful the bids may be lower than the estimates. . COMMISSIONER SCHWIENTEK MADE A MOTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL AUTI-IORIZE DESIGN AND PREPARATION OF BIDS AND SPECS FOR BLOCK 35 ALLEY AND PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTING OF A BITUMINOUS P A VEMENI" ALLEY AND PARKING AREA AND PLAIN FOUR INCH CONCRETE PLAZA wrrH AN ALTERNATE BID FOR EXPOSED EDA Minutes - 06/22/04 AGGREGATE CONCRETE PLAZA, AUTHORIZE TO GO OUT FOR BIDS, AND TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING DATE SUBJECT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS PETITIONING FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A SERVICE DISTRICT. IT WAS SUGGESTED THE CITY DESIGN AND AUTHORIZE BIDS AND SPECS FOR THE BLOCK 35 MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT AS A COMPANION AS A MEANS TO RECEIVE A MORE FAVORABLE BID. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOGLUND AND WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE MOTION CARRIED. . The second Council meeting in July was targeted as the date to award the bids. 5. Consideration to request the City Council to authorize WSB, Inc. to design the project and go out for bids. Covered under item no. 4. 6. Consideration to authorize preparation of a Contract for Development between the EDA/City and said Block 35 property owners. The Commissioners felt this action was premature and tabled authorizing preparation of a . Contract until bids were received. 7. Other Business. Add on item: Consideration to authorize execution of a Satisfaction of Mortgage for GMEF 015 for Mainline Distribution. Koropchak informed the commissioners the EDA received a check in the amount of $86,902.74 from Mainline Distribution which included the balloon payment and past due accrued interest. Since GMEF No. 0 15 was a real estate loan, the commissioners were requested to authorize execution of the satisfactory of mortgage. COMMISSIONER HOGLUND MADE A MUrION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR GMEF NO. 015 FOR MAINLINE DISTRIBUTION. COMMISSIONER I-IERBST SECONDED THE MOTION AND WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE MOTION CARRIED. . . . . EDA Minutes - 06/22/04 8. Adjournment. COMMISSIONER HOGLUND MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE EDA MEETING. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEMEULES AND WITH NO FURTl.IER BUSINESS, THE MOTION CARRIED. THE EDA MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:25 P.M. Recorder Recorder . . . EDA Agenda - 07/27/04 4. Consideration of notices received from some Block 35 property owners and consideration whether to move forward or not move forward with the Block 35 improvements. A. Reference and backeround: First, let me give you a little background since the last EDA meeting of June 22. The Council did approve the EDA's recommendation and received Attachment A on June 28. On July 6, a meeting was called by the property owners who met with Commissioner Lahr, Wolfsteller, Bruce Cochran, and Steve Grittman. Upon returning from vacation, I met with Loch and suggested I meet with the property owners to review the context of a Development Agreement and to explain the 429 Public Hearing notice and a Special Service District. EDA Attorney Beth Mercer-Taylor, Kennedy & Graven, attended the July 21 meeting with me. At that meeting, I was informed that the carry through of the July 6 meeting was to call a special meeting of the EDA for action relative to criteria for parking signage. Some of the property owners requested in writing that the EDA would not prohibit installation of "no parking" signs. That's why this EDA meeting was called. Two questions needed to be answered: (See Attachment C.) 1. Legally, can the EOA or City use public dollars to pay for private parking? 2. Secondly if the EDA or City can legally do so, what is the policy ofthc EDA/City? Upon writing thc July 26 City Council agenda item to open and continue the public hearing relative to a 429 Project for certain improvements, Attachments B were received. Upon the advice of the EDA Attorney, staff recommended to the Council to open and continue the public hearing. Update of Council action on July 27. Given two of the seven property owners which includes four of the ten parcels is not interested in the EDA assistance, improvement project, or potential of a Service District; the immediate question fe)[ the EDA is whether to cancel the preparation of the plans and specs and advertising for bids and cancel the public hearing. EDA Agenda - 07/27/04 B. Alternative Action: 1. A motion to cancel the preparation of the plans and specs and advertising for bids, and request Council eanccl the 429 public hearing. 2. A motion to amend the plans and specs, advertise for bids, and request Council continue the 429 Public Hearing. 3. A motion of other action. c. Recommendation: Although the EDA, consultants, staft~ and Block 35 property owners have put in years of work and meetings relative to the improvements proposed for Block 35, the City Administrator and Executi ve Director recommend Alternative No.1. Because 100% of the property owners are not interested in the improvements or assistance and the remaining parcels do not provide a contiguous improved area, the project appears to no longer have merit. D. Supportine Data: Attachment A. Petition against Special Service District submitted June 28 to Council. Attachments B. Letter of no interest submitted to City Hall on July 22. Attachment C. Comments from EDA Attorney following July 21 meeting. 2 . . . . . . ~\\o.L\r\~ H PETITION AGAINST SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT The undersigned, Block 35 property owners, DO NOT consent to the creation of a "special service district" with the City of Monticello. PROPERTY ADDRESS /1 C)// It.! /J) 13(;)IJ daJtLL OkR J ;(Jj.J-;!,aIv#;,<-- IS! tV &O'ulwtzFVtuP-rJ-I Vf-) II) . . /. .//// ~ . ;A1!,1 . . #, /y--r A), '/-J~ d<-( ',---- (J'f ).?/y "/ ~,,6ti& .l..oo/:.t.--i"'i'/6 - 5C'x ;2;2;:2 ~ 1: ~ /-'7tJ W/ ;;f;Cl?/ft/w/lY /Ob7/06 \\t\ Q- \. \, \'Y\ ~ V\-t ~ July 21, 2004 . Monticello, City of 505 Walnut 8t. Monitcello, MN 55362 Attn: Economic Development Re: Block 35 Improvements I/We the undersigned property owners do hereby decline your request for the use of public funding on our private properties. I/We also decline to take part in the Block 35 Improvement project, which may include a "Special Service District". Although we may continue to improve our private property with our own funds, this should in no way be construed as part of the EDA's project. You may however, continue the project with the . rest ofthe owners but we are unable to grant you access to our properties(in any way) for the Block 35 Improvement project. Property Address Owners If Z -r /1'-/ W ~ BIZ-<nOtbuJ4Y )3? w.. BJ2.cv.ihA.v(UACA.JT / t-oT / '-/ if tAJ, B ,2-0 r+ 'p (J..l ~ I Thank you for your time in this matter . July 21, 2004 . Monticello, City of 505 Walnut St. Monitcello, MN 55362 Attn: Economic Development Re: Block 35 Improvements I/We the undersigned property owners do hereby decline your request for the use of public funding on our private properties. I/We also decline to take part in the Block 35 Improvement project, which may include a "Special Service District", Although we may continue to improve our private property with our own funds, this should in no way be construed as part of the EDA's project. You may however, continue the project with the . rest ofthe owners but we are unable to grant you access to our properties(in any way) for the Block 35 Improvement project. Property Address Owners 1,6 c? t/. J1/..//.5?rJL7te1/'1 Y !1 tJ X" .:z..:t.:2- Mp/y' nc:;e:-,LLC7;>,p?,/V ?:77c;;;:::r fJ1u11/ IJR lip 1'Pt><.$P/1 J.& LtJ7 :# .1<1174 T/C 4-ZLb L t.?J7~,E / P ,Jl /~ ~~ Thank you for your time in this matter . . . . rage 1 or 1 \\\\ C\ L \~ \f\\ e V\t C Ollie Koropchak From: Mercer-Taylor, Beth [bmercer-taylor@Kennedy-Graven.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 5:58 PM To: Ollie Koropchak Subject: RE: Meeting with Block 35 owners I talked briefly with Steve on the way home about the private parking issue. Legally, there would be no problem for the city to pay for the parking, with the reasoning being that improving the parking area is part of general redevelopment in the downtown that is done in order to improve the whole community. The situation would not be the same for another property where there isn't such a clear redevelopment objective In such a case, there would be a question as to the authority for the public expenditure. In terms of public policy, Steve and I both understand why the EDA and City might not want to provide public money for private parking. At the same time, given the downtown redevelopment objective, there might be justification to do so in this case. The policy decision is of course the EDA to make, in consultation with you. On the special service district questions, I'm going to send an informational package that I'd prepared for another client a year or so ago. There are some general articles about the idea behind passing state laws to permit such districts, and practical pointers about setting up of successful districts. Tomorrow, I will email you an example of an ordinance setting up a district and an ordinance setting the charges You and I can talk again about what might be helpful for the property owners to look at. I can see this will be a demanding project, regardless, and I applaud your patience in working through the process. Beth Mercer-Taylor Kennedy & Graven, Chartered -----Original Message----- From: Ollie Koropchak [mailto:Ollie.Koropchak@ci.monticello.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:53 AM To: Mercer-Taylor, Beth Subject: Meeting with Block 35 owners Things to cover: Security for fac;;ade improvements - Escrow or letter of credit Need for temporary construction easements for city to work on private property Maybe permanent alley easement for city snowsplowing? Approximate ($25,000) roof drainage pipe connection to catch basin as 429 project. Gives property owners option to be assessed. Maintenance Agreement? How to assess? Maybe redo in Development Contract? Business subsidy question? Not greater than $25,000 per owner assistance_ Approximate $145,000 by 10 property owners. Oliie You may want to stop by City Hall first before the 2:30 p.m. meeting at Dino's 7/23/2004 . 5. 1. 2. . 3. 4. 5. 6. . EDA Agenda - 07/27/04 Consideration to define terms and conditions and authorize preparation of a draft copy of thc Devclopment Aereement betwecn the EDA and Block 35 Propertv Owners. A. Reference and background: IF THE EDA ELECTED TO CANCEL THE PREPARATION OF THE PLANS AND SPECS AND ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS lJNDER ITEM NO.4, THIS ITEM CAN BE REMOVED. IF NOT, PROCEED: As mcntioned carlier, the EDA meeting was initially called to address thc request of some property owners - in writing, the EDA critcria for parking signage. The Executive Director expanded this into defining the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement in order to provide all the property owners of a sense of the obligations of the EDA and the property owners. In a bricf summary, here are some of the terms and conditions to discuss and define: Commencement and completion datc of puhlic and private improvements. Description of facade improvements to be constructed hy individual property owners including cost estimates per parcel. Description of roof drainage improvements, cost estimates to individual property owners, and the option to be assessed as a 429 project. Description of the plaza, parking, trash enclosures, storm sewer drainage, catch basin, and alley improvements and cost estimates to be paid by EDA. Temporary easement for construction of improvement by City on private property. Define improvements to bc maintained hy the property owners via a Maintenance Agreement and perhaps the establishment of a Service District which allows the City the ability to levy for maintenance fees. 7. EDA attorney suggested a permanent easement for thc northerly one-half of the alley as thc City plows the alley. 8. Securities and cure for default. 9. Policy for use ofpuhlic dollars for private parking: No mcntion, certain numher of loading zones, or no loading or parking zones. 10. If business subsidy would apply, how to handle. B. Alternative Action: 1. A motion to authorize the EDA Attorney to prepare a draft copy of the Development Agreement for Block 35 including the terms and conditions defined. EDA Agenda - 07/27/04 2. A motion to not authorize the EDA Attorney to prepare a draft copy of the Development Agreement for Bloek 35. 3. A motion of other. C. Recommendation: As the Administrator and Executive Director did not recommend moving forward with the Block 35 project, this agenda item can be removed. However, if the EDA did decide to move forward, the recommendation then becomes Alternative No.1. D. Supportill!:! Data: Comments from EDA Attorney. 2 . . . . . . '-' Ollie Koropchak From: Mercer-Taylor, Beth [bmercer-taylor@Kennedy-Graven.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:44 PM To: Ollie Koropchak Cc: Mercer-Taylor, Beth Subject: Maintenance Agreement Review and NEW OPTION Ollie, Upon further reflection, it occurred to me that the City, EDA, and property owners should consider using a special services district (Chapter 428A) as a mechanism to charge the property owners for the costs of maintenance, with all of the roles and default issues set forth in the statute. The City cannot legally assess property owners for unpaid private maintenance, except in very particular situations defined in Minnesota Statutes Read through my memo, attached, which in the second part describes the special services district. We have done the whole proceeding for other cities, so can answer more questions if you are interested in pursuing that. My memo also summarizes our conversation this morning. I am available at 4 today should you want to call. Good luck with the meeting. Beth Mercer-Taylor Attorney Kennedy & Graven, Chartered Phone: 612-337-9283 Fax: 612-337-9310 bm ercer- tay lor@kennedy-graven.com 6/1 5/2004 . 470 Pillshury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 & (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337~931O fax http://www.kennedy-graven.com CHARTERED BETH MERCER-TAYLOR Attorney atl.aw Direct Dial (612) 337-9283 Email: hmercer -taylor(!IJkcllllcdy-graven MEMORANDUM To: Ollie Koropchak and City of Monticello EDA From: Beth Mercer-Taylor, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered Date: June 15,2004 Re: Block 35 Maintenance Agreement . As requested, I have reviewed the Block 25 Maintenance Agreement, which Ollie Koropchak indicated has been signed by the relevant owners of property on Block 35 in the City of Monticello (the City). This agreement is inadequate to ensure that the property owners will maintain the Block 35 property for several reasons, discussed below. If maintenance is a critical issue for the City and the Economic Development Authority of the City (the EDA) as the expenditure ofremaining downtown revitalization funds is considered, then a more detailed agreement or agreements between the property owners and the City should be drafted and executed. Alternatively, the City, EDA, and property owners should consider creating a Special Services District, described in the latter part of this memo, to create a legal mechanism for the City to charge property owners for the maintenance of improvement to Block 35. I can provide much more information about that alternative, which has been used by several other city clients. Issues with the Current Contract The Block 35 Maintenance Agreement is signed by the individual property owners, yet the Agreement obligates a group, referring to the property owners as "they." The legal obligations of each of these owners to this collective group is not clear. What would happen to owners who voted against paying into the maintenance program, for various reasons? If an individual owner refused to pay for a share of the maintenance, would that . EMT-249345vl MN325-17 . . . owner be individually in default? Would all the owners be in default? Could the City then assess that owner, or even all of the owners? In order to give the EDA and the City the right to cure defaults, the EDA and the City need to be parties to the Agreement. Consideration on both sides should be stated. The City cannot assess property owners for maintenance that has not been provided, as there is no legal authority to do this. A special service district under Minnesota Statutes Section 428A.0 1, further described below, would offer a way for the City to levy service charges on property owners, and the statute provides a means for the City to collect unpaid charges. The agreement states that an agent shall be employed for snow and trash removal, but that "they" (the owners) shall replace and maintain improvements on the property as well as landscaping. It is not clear what level of replacement and maintenance will be acceptable and who will decide whether what has been done is acceptable. If the owners, either individually or collectively, do not agree with the City or EDA regarding acceptable maintenance, it is not clear whether or not a default has occurred. Unless this Agreement is recorded and made a covenant to the deeds of the individual property owners, successors in interest and assigns will not be legally bound. A buyer without notice of this contract would not be bound by it. The contract needs to clarify that current property owners will guaranty that successors and assigns will take over the responsibility and sign the contract, and if not, that the current property owners would continue to be bound. This Agreement does not handle the various problems between the owners themselves, or between the owners and the EDA and City that could arise. Without guidance from the contract, such disputes would have to be resolved in court, with increased risk of an undesirable outcome for everyone involved. Special Service District Alternative Minnesota Statutes Section 428A.01 through 428A.1 01 (the Act) provides authority for local units of government, in cooperation with commercial and industrial property owners, to implement special service districts to finance special services beyond those ordinarily provided throughout the City. "Special services" are defined as having the meaning used in a given city's ordinance, but exclude those services not typically provided throughout the city from the general fund. Services that are typically provided throughout a city may be included if there will be an increased level of that service in the district. See MINN. STAT. 9 428A.Ol subd. 3. The Act defines a "special services district" as "a defined area within the city where special services are rendered and the costs of the special services are paid horn revenues collected from service charges imposed within that area." MINN. STAT. 9 428A.Ol subd.4. Special services districts may only include commercial, industrial, public utility, and vacant properties. EMT-249345v] MN325-17 . . . Before a city may adopt an ordinance enacting a special service district, a public hearing must be held. The hearing has to be preceded by two notices in the official newspaper of the city two weeks apart. In addition, notice must be mailed to each owner of land within the district. MINN. STAT. 9 428A.02 subd. 2. All property owners that will be subject to the service charge must be allowed to be heard at the hearing. MINN. STAT. 9 428A.02 subd. I. The ordinance may be adopted by the governing board of the city at any time within six months after the conclusion of the hearing. MINN. STAT. S 428A.02 subd. 2. The city can impose service charges as long as they are reasonably related to the services provided. The charges must be "as nearly as possible proportionate to the cost of furnishing the service, and may be fixed on the basis of the service directly rendered, or by reference to a reasonable classification of the types ofprcmiscs to which service is furnished, or on any other equitable basis." MINN. STAT. S 428A.02 subd. 3. The charges must also be imposed on the basis of the net tax capacity of the property on which the service charge is imposed. MINN. STAT. S 428A.05. Any affected landowner may file a written objection asserting that their land should not be subject to the charge. The city's governing body has the ability to exempt complaining landowners from the charge if: (I) they will receive services that are already provided throughout the city to the same degree, (2) the property is exempted, or (3) neither the landowner's property nor its use will receive a benefit from the proposed special service. MINN . STAT. 9 428A.02 subd.4. Before the city can start any of these proceedings, at least twenty-five percent of the owners of the land area that would be subject to the charge and owners of at least twenty- five percent of the net tax capacity of the area must file a petition requesting a hearing on the proposed action. MINN. STAT. 9428A.08. In addition, after a city has approved an ordinance creating a special service district, they must mail a summary of it to each property owner within the district. If more than thirty-five percent of the property owners or holders of grcater than thirty.;.five percent of the net tax capacity file an objection within forty-five days of the city's approval of the ordinance, it does not become effective. MINN. STAT. 9428A.09. Therefore, the landowncrs have a power to commence and a veto power. Lastly, the Act has a sunset provision that makes it expire on June 30, 2005. MINN. STAT. 9428A.IOl. EMT ~249345v J MN325-17 . . . EDA Agenda - 07/27/04 6. Consideration to approve authorization to execute a Satisfaction of Mort2a2e for GMEF Loan No. 016 Aroplax. A. Reference and back2round: On July 20, 2004, Aroplax called and requested the outstanding principal and interest balance of their GMEF No. 016 as of Friday, July 23, 2004. The company plans to prepay the balloon payment which is due December 2004. Total principal and interest outstanding as of July 23 is $86,587.60. Since GMEF No. 016 was a real property loan and assuming the loan is prepaid, the EDA is requested to simply authorize execution of the Satisfaction of Mortgage. Additionally, the original Promissory Note will be returned to Aroplax. B. Alternative Action: 1. A motion authorizing the execution of the Satisfaction of Mortgage for GMEF Loan No. 016 for Aroplax. 2. A motion to not authorize the execution of the Satisfaction of Mortgage for GMEF Loan No. 016 for Aroplax. 3. A motion of other. C. Recommendation: Assuming the payment is received, the recommendation is Alternative No.1. D. SupportiDf! Data: None. . c:::c:J . AROPLAX . CORPORATION 200 Chelsea Road, Monticello, MN 55362 033290 PAY TO TH E ORDER OF r '~" I ~ ~ 75-1045 Dollars 919 STEARNS BANK N.A. 4191 2nd Street South SI. Cloud, MN 56301 Eighty Six Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Seven and 60/100 US CITY OF MONTICELLO 505 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1 MONTICELLO MN 55362 . I' ........ r I '\ . ," " c ,- i,\ i} /' , \ k ~ ' I "\' l o!. \ , '. 1. \' '., i" \ l~~\ Itlki / \J\' _t l1JVL--' v AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE III 0 3 3 2 gO III I: 0 g . 9 . 0 .... 5 5 I: III 2 . 0 B B g . II" ~. CITY OF MONTICELLO Invoice # GMEF LOAN Inv. Date 07/23/2004 Check Date 07/23/2004 Remaining Due 0.00 Discount 0.00 Paid Amount 86,587.60 CHECK NUMBER 33290 TOTAL AMOUNT 86,587.60 . . . . FEASIBILITY REPORT AMENDMENT TO BLOCK 35 ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 2004. FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO June 22, 2004 Prepared By: WSB & Associates, Inc. 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 300 Minneapolis,.MN 55422 (763) 541.4800 (763) 541-1700 (Fax) Amendment to Feasibility Report for the City of Monticello Block 35 Alley Improvements City Project No. 2004- WSB Project No. 1488-77 _ ____ _~ ~_OIIIL......-- ~ _. . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTR 0 Due TI ON........ ........ .......... .................................... .............. ............. ............ ......... .................... 1 2. D ISCU 5 510 N ........................... .......... ................. ........................ ..... ...... ............. ............. ...................... 2 2.1 Plaza Alternative Material............................................................................................................. 2 Appendix A Figures Appendix B Opinion of Probable Cost Amendment to Feasibility Report for the City of Monticello Block 35 Alley Improvements City Project No. 2004- WSB Project No. 1488-77 -,,, -- .......... ,----.. 1. INTRODUCTION . The City of Monticello Economic Development Authority (EDA) met on June 14,2004 in an open meeting with the property owners of Block 35, a representative of the Chamber of Commerce, and a representative from WSB & Associates, Inc. The primary topic of discussion was the proposed improvements to the Block 35 alley. Specifically there was discussion regarding drainage, pavement material, surface effects, planters, trash enclosures and cost. . . Amendment to Feasibility Report for the City of Monticello Block 35 Alley Improvements City Project No. 2004- WSB Project No. 1488~77 Page 1 ~_..-d:....- 2. DISCUSSION . The group seemed to be generally in support of the proposed improvements but requested information for another scenario and the associated opinion of cost. The requested scenario includes: . Grading as shown in Typical Section A o (Low point on the north edge of the existing alley) . Bituminous pavement for the alley and proposed adjoining parking . Substitution of plain concrete, exposed aggregate concrete, and stamped/colored concrete for the proposed paving brick in the plaza area . Itemize the low planters . Itemize the trash enclosures . Itemize the storm sewer cost . Itemize the sanitary sewer costs Appendix A, Figure 1D, shows a plan view of the proposed project. Figure D shows a Typical Cross Section of the proposed project. The EDA's budget for the project is $145,000, not including storm sewer or sanitary sewer costs. . Revised opinions of probable cost have been prepared for the described work. A separate opinion of probably cost has been prepared for each of the three concrete types in place of brick pavers in the plaza area. These opinions of probably cost are included in Appendix B. Generally speaking, the plain concrete surface is the least expensive option, with costs in the neighborhood of$3.00/fe. Exposed aggregate concrete costs about $6.00 to $7.00/ft2, colored and stamped concrete costs $8.00 to $12.00/ft2 depending largely on the color selected and to a lesser extent the stamped pattern. It is generally assumed that a brick pattern will be selected to visually tie into the existing pavers in the City of Monticello. The project can be builtwithin the EDA's budget if they are willing to make some concessions on the scope ofthe project, contingency or indirect costs. 2.1 Plaza Alternative Material Evaluation of the material for the surface of the plaza revealed costs between $3.00/ft? and $12.00/ft2. The lower cost being for plain, non-colored concrete and the higher cost for a red/brown stamped concrete. Generally, interlocking brick pavers can be installed for the $9.00 to $ 12.00/ft? cost. At comparable prices to paving brick, the pavers are recommended because of their modular nature and authenticity. Considering the overall cost and that the project area is an alley, and not a "front door" area, the plain concrete is an acceptable alternative for the plaza area. 2.2 Conclusion . The revised project scope is estimated to cost $194,675 with $33,340 from the property owners and $161,335 from the EDA. These costs appear to be above the threshold of available funds. Amendment to Feasibility Reportfor the City of Monticello Block 35 Alley Improvements City Project No. 2004~ WSB Project No. 1488-77 . . . Guidance is needed from the EDA to determine if the scope of the project is going to be altered again to reduce the probably costs, or if other action is to be taken. Amendment to Feasibility Reportfor the City of Monticello Block 35 Alley Improvements City Project No. 2004- WSB Project No. 1488-77 . . . APPENDIX A Figures Amendment to Feasibility Reportfor the City of Monticello Block 35 Alley Improvements City Project No. 2004- WSB Project No. 1488-77 . ..... . dgn .r::..r::..r::.@ " " (flf'Tl""U -lX, N )>""U)> ::: $:0........ """O(flZ :t> f'Tl f'Tl C) 0 () C) m , 0 ::0 ::: () Z JTl 0 () C) Vl , :::0 )> -l --l 0 ,f'Tl f'Tl 0 :::0 -l ::v f'Tl f'Tl CD s: 0 1:> (f) (fl , () ITl 1:> 0 -l Z f'Tl n fTl O......::e: , ::0 ::001:> 1:> fTlfTlr t.n r -i::E;;><:: f'Tl:t> ""T1 r 0 ;;><:: ::0 :0 0 0 ""T1 0 :0 P Z (/l c==:> . . BUILDING I o o-.t J """ON 'LTl 1:> N 1+ 1:> m " 1:> CJ C) :::0 f'Tl G) 1:> -i f'Tl N~ ri I I 1 I I I I I I I -> I I I I 0 I I o-.t I I J I I I I I I I I I I -O""U _ -i VI ,::0 OI )>f'Tl -0:::0 ZO U'lC -i)> OOJ JTl(f) ........, )>OJ :::O-i r-i zm ::0 0-> ->0 fTl """0 N 00 fTl )> G) ~Z ::ON en 1 n ;;><::0 -i0 ->:::0 -lZ N [Tl Z f'Tln ~-l G) ::0 [Tl n 0 C ::0 1:> OJ CD )> VI fTl <:> )>OJ ZO'l 0-> I N -o.r::. G) " cn fTl [Tl -i0 )>X -0 N -lZ ,~ )> fTl fTln rU'l 0::0 0 :::0 f'Tl--l 'N ::0 '1 o-.t n -<........ '0 )>0 C Z fTl ........:::0 ::0 G) -< Z)> CD -i -i ........fTl 10 fTl . APPENDIX B -. - Opinion of Probable Cost Amendment to Feasibility Report for the City of Monticello Block 35 Alley Improvements City Project No. 2004- WSB Project No. 1488-77 City of Monticello Block 35 Alley Improvements Feasibility Report Opinion of Probable Cost Typical Section D Bituminous Pavement Alley and Parking Plain 4" concrete plaza No. Mat. No. Item Units Qty Unit Price Total Price 2021.50l/MOOOO MOBILlZA nON LUMP SUM $5,000.00 $5,000.00 2 2101.511/00010 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LUMP SUM $2,500.00 $2,500.00 3 2104.505/00110 REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQYD 828 $5.00 $4,140.00 4 2104.505/00120 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQYD 1921 $2.30 $4,418.30 5 2104.501/00022 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER L1N FT 600 $3.00 $1,800.00 6 2104.503/00010 REMOVE SIDEWALK SQFT 1200 $2.00 $2,400.00 7 2104.511/00011 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT LIN FT 120 $5.00 $600.00 (FULL DEPTH) 8 2104.513/00011 SA WING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT UN FT 264 $2.60 $686.40 (FULL DEPTH) 9 2104.505/00120 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQYD 1921 $3.50 $6,723.50 10 2104.509/00102 REMOVE CATCH BASIN EACH $250.00 $250.00 11 2104.501/00016 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) UN FT 210 $7.21 $1,514.10 12 2105.501/M0226 COMMON EXCAVATION (P) CUYD 1134 $6.50 $7,371.00 13 2112.604/00010 SUBGRADE PREPARATION SQYD 2881 $2.00 $5,762.00 14 2211.501/00051 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 MOD TON 1305 $9.00 $11,745.00 15 2301.501/00010 CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQYD 83 $39.00 $3,237.00 16 2350.502/33300 TYPE LV 3 NON WEARING COURSE TON 240 $38.00 $9,120.00 MIXTURE (C) 17 2350.501/33300 TYPE LV 3 WEARING COURSE TON 146 $40.00 $5,840.00 MIXTURE (C) 18 2502.541/07040 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN UN FT 335 $4.50 $1,507.50 Page 1 of 2 F:\WPWIN\1488-77\MateriaITable Feasibility 1488-77 Typical Section D 1 Opinion of Probable Cost ..... Typical Section D Bituminous Pavement Alley and Parking Plain 4" concrete plaza ...... No. Mat. No. Item Units Qty Unit Price Total Price 19 2503.511/90183 18" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS III UN FT 215 $30.00 $6,450.00 20 2503.603/00106 6" PVC PIPE SEWER - SDR 26 UN FT 580 $16.00 $9,280.00 21 2503.603!O0706 6" PVC SANITARY SERVICE PIPE UN FT 120 $22.50 $2,700.00 22 2506.602/00025 CONNECT INTO EXISTING MANHOLE EACH $250.00 $250.00 23 2506.501/02420 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE UN FT 24 $185.00 $4,440.00 DESIGN 48-4020 24 2506.602/M051I CASTING ASSEMBLY (CA TCHBASIN) EACH 2 $400.00 $800.00 25 2521.501/00040 4" CONCRETE WALK SQFT 4120 $3.05 $12,566.00 26 2521.501/00060 6" CONCRETE WALK SQFT 1200 $3.10 $3,720.00 ..... 27 2531.501102310 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN UN FT 918 $10.50 $9,639.00 ...... B612 28 2540.618/00065 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SQFT 471 $20.00 $9,420.00 29 2540.602/00006 DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE EACH 2 $5,050.00 $10,100.00 30 2571.501/05050 CONIFEROUS TREE 5' HT B&B TREE 10 $200.00 $2,000.00 31 2571.504/04025 CONIFEROUS SHRUB 2.5" SPREAD SHRUB 50 $80.00 $4,000.00 CONT Total Estimated Construction Cost $149,979.80 10% contingency $14,997.98 $164,977.78 28% indirect Costs $29,696.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $194,673.78 .... ...... Page 2 of 2 F:\WPWIN\1488-77\MateriaITable Feasibility 1488-77 Typical Section D 1 Tentative Cost Share Plain 4" concrete plaza Description EDA Property Owner Total Pavement (Removals (except $ 92,209.70 $92,209.70 storm), curb, pavement 4" pipe drain, concrete approaches, concrete walk at Pine and Walnut and plant material) Storm (Removals, 18" Storm, 6" $ 22,984.10 22,984.10 laterals, catch basins Sanitary (lateral to the Masonic 2,700.00 2,700.00 Lodge) Plaza (4" plain concrete) 12,566.00 12,566.00 Low Planter 9,420.00 9,420.00 Trash Enclosures 10,100.00 10,100.00 $ 124,295.70 $ 25,684.10 $149,979.80 10% Contingency $12,429.57 $2,568.41 $14,997.98 Sub-total $136,725.27 $28,252.51 $164,977.78 18% indirect Costs $24,610.55 $5,085.45 $29,696.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $161,335.821 $33,337.96 $194,673.78 Page 1 of 1 F:\WPWIN\1488-77\MateriaITable Feasibility 1488-77 Typical Section D 1 ~ ~ City of Monticello Block 35 Alley Improvements Feasibility Report Opinion of Probable Cost Typical Section D Bituminous Pavement Alley and Parking Exposed aggregate concrete plaza No. Mat. No. Item Units Qty Unit Price Total Price 202 1.50 1/MOOOO MOBIUZA TION LUMP SUM $5,000.00 $5,000.00 2 2101.511/00010 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LUMP SUM $2,500.00 $2,500.00 3 2104.505/00110 REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQYD 828 $5.00 $4,140.00 4 2104.505/00120 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQYD 1921 $2.30 $4,418.30 5 2104.501/00022 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER UN FT 600 $3.00 $1,800.00 6 2104.503/00010 REMOVE SIDEWALK SQFT 1200 $2.00 $2,400.00 . 7 2104.511/00011 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT UN FT 120 $5.00 $600.00 (FULL DEPTH) 8 2104.513/00011 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT UN FT 264 $2.60 $686.40 (FULL DEPTH) 9 2104.505/00120 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQYD 1921 $3.50 $6,723.50 10 2104.509/00102 REMOVE CATCH BASIN EACH $250.00 $250.00 11 2104.501/00016 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) UN FT 210 $7.21 $1,514.10 12 2105.501/M0226 COMMON EXCAVATiON (P) CUYD 1134 $6.50 $7,371.00 13 2112.604/00010 SUBGRADE PREPARATION SQYD 2881 $2.00 $5,762.00 14 2211.501100051 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 MOD TON 1305 $9.00 $11,745.00 15 2301.501/000 I 0 CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQYD 83 $39.00 $3,237.00 16 2350.502/33300 TYPE LV 3 NON WEARING COURSE TON 240 $38.00 $9,120.00 MIXTURE (C) 17 2350.501/33300 TYPE LV 3 WEARING COURSE TON 146 $40.00 $5,840.00 MIXTURE (C) . 18 2502.541/07040 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN UN FT 335 $4.50 $1,507.50 Page 1 of 2 F:\WPWIN\1488-77\MateriaITable Feasibility 1488-77 Typical Section D 2 Opinion of Probable Cost Typical Section D Bituminous Pavement Alley and Parking Exposed aggregate concrete plaza No. Mat. No. Item Units Qty Unit Price Total Price 19 2503.511190183 18" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS III UN FT 215 $30.00 $6,450.00 20 2503.603100106 6" PVC PIPE SEWER - SDR 26 UN FT 580 $16.00 $9,280.00 21 2503.603/00706 6" PVC SANITARY SERVICE PIPE UN FT 120 $22.50 $2,700.00 22 2506.602/00025 CONNECT INTO EXISTING MANHOLE EACH $250.00 $250.00 23 2506.501102420 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE UN FT 24 $185.00 $4,440.00 DESIGN 48-4020 24 2506.602/M0511 CASTING ASSEMBLY (CA TCHBASIN) EACH 2 $400.00 $800.00 25 2521.501100041 4" CONCRETE WALK-EXPOSED SQFT 4120 $6.50 $26,780.00 AGGREGATE 26 2521.501100060 6" CONCRETE WALK SQFT 1200 $3.10 $3,720.00 27 2531.501102310 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN UN FT 918 $10.50 $9,639.00 B612 28 2540.618/00065 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SQ FT 471 $20.00 $9,420.00 29 2540.602/00006 DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE EACH 2 $5,050.00 $10,100.00 30 2571.501105050 CONIFEROUS TREE 5' HT B&B TREE 10 $200.00 $2,000.00 31 2571.504/04025 CONIFEROUS SHRUB 2.5" SPREAD SHRUB 50 $80.00 $4,000.00 CONT Total EstImated Construction Cost $164,193.80 10% contingency $16,419.38 $180,613.18 18%. indirect Costs $32,510.37 Total Estimated Project Cost $213,123.55 Page 2 of 2 F:\WPWIN\1488-77\MateriaITable Feasibility 1488-77 Typical Section 02 - - Tentative Cost Share Exposed aggregate concrete plaza .... Description EDA Property Owner Total Pavement (Removals (except $ 92,209.70 $92,209.70 storm), curb, pavement 4" pipe drain, concrete approaches, concrete walk at Pine and Walnut and plant material) Storm (Removals, 18" Storm, 6" $ 22,984.10 22,984.10 laterals, catch basins Sanitary (lateral to the Masonic 2,700.00 2,700.00 Lodge) Plaza (Exposed aggregate walk) 26,780.00 26,780.00 Low Planter 9,420.00 9,420.00 Trash Enclosures 10,100.00 10,100.00 $ 138,509.70 $ 25,684.10 $164,193.80 ~ 10% Contingency $13,850.97 $2,568.41 $16,419.38 $28,252.51 $180,613.18 Sub-total $152,360.67 18% indirect Costs $27,424.92 $5,085.45 $32,510.37 Total Estimated Project Cos $179,785.59 $33,337.96 $213,123.55 . Page 1 of 1 F:\WPWIN\1488-77\MateriaITable Feasibility 1488-77 Typical Section D 2 - City of Monticello Block 35 Alley Improvements Feasibility Report Opinion ofprobable Cost - Typical Section D Bituminous Pavement Alley and Parking Stamped and colored concrete plaza No. Mat. No. Item Units Qty Unit Price Total Price 2021.501/M0000 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM $5,000.00 $5,000.00 2 2101.511/00010 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LUMP SUM $2,500.00 $2,500.00 3 2104.505/00110 REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQYD 828 $5.00 $4,140.00 4 2104.505/00120 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQYD 1921 $2.30 $4,418.30 5 2104.501100022 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER UN FT 600 $3.00 $1,800.00 6 2104.503/000 I 0 REMOVE SIDEWALK SQFT 1200 $2.00 $2,400.00 - 7 2104.511/00011 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT UN FT 120 $5.00 $600.00 (FULL DEPTH) - 8 2104.513/00011 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT UN FT 264 $2.60 $686.40 (FULL DEPTH) 9 2104.505/00120 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQYD 1921 $3.50 $6,723.50 10 2104.509/00102 REMOVE CATCH BASIN EACH $250.00 $250.00 11 2104.501/00016 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) UN FT 210 $7.21 $1,514.10 12 2105.501/M0226 COMMON EXCAVATION (P) CUYD 1134 $6.50 $7,371.00 13 2112.604/00010 SUBGRADE PREPARATION SQYD 2881 $2.00 $5,762.00 14 2211.501100051 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 MOD TON 1305 $9.00 $11,745.00 15 2301.501/00010 CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQYD 83 $39.00 $3,237.00 16 2350.502/33300 TYPE LV 3 NON WEARING COURSE TON 240 $38.00 $9,120.00 MIXTURE (C) 17 2350.501/33300 TYPE LV 3 WEARING COURSE TON 146 $40.00 $5,840.00 MIXTURE (C) -. 18 2502.541/07040 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN UN FT 335 $4.50 $1,507.50 - Page 1 of 2 F:\WPWIN\1488-77\MateriaITable Feasibility 1488-77 Typical Section 0 3 Opinion of Probable Cost Typical Section D Bituminous Pavement Alley and Parking Stamped and colored concrete plaza No. Mat. No. Item Units Qty Unit Price Total Price 19 2503.511/90183 18" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS III UN FT 215 $30.00 $6,450.00 20 2503.603/00106 6" PVC PIPE SEWER - SDR 26 UN FT 580 $16.00 $9,280.00 21 2503.603/00706 6" PVC SANITARY SERVICE PIPE UN FT 120 $22.50 $2,700.00 22 2506.602/00025 CONNECT INTO EXISTING MANHOLE EACH $250.00 $250.00 23 2506.501/02420 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE UN FT 24 $185.00 $4,440.00 DESIGN 48-4020 24 2506.602/M0511 CASTING ASSEMBLY (CA TCHBASIN) EACH 2 $400.00 $800.00 25 2521.501100042 4" CONCRETE WALK SPECIAL SQFT 4120 $9.50 $39,140.00 (Stamped and colored) 26 2521.501100060 6" CONCRETE WALK SQFT 1200 $3.10 $3,720.00 27 2531.501/02310 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN UN FT 918 $10.50 $9,639.00 B612 28 2540.618/00065 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SQFT 471 $20.00 $9,420.00 29 2540.602/00006 DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE EACH 2 $5,050.00 $10,100.00 30 2571.501/05050 CONIFEROUS TREE 5' HT B&B TREE 10 $200.00 $2,000.00 31 2571.504/04025 CONIFEROUS SHRUB 2.5" SPREAD SHRUB 50 $80.00 $4,000.00 CO NT Total Estimated Construction Cost $176,553.80 10% contingency $17,655.38 $194,209.18 18% indirect Costs $34,957.65 Total Estimated Project Cost $229,166.83 Page 2 of 2 F:\WPWIN\1488-77\MateriaITable Feasibility 1488.77 Typical Section D 3 . . - Tentative Cost Share Stamped and colored concrete plaza Description EDA Property Owner Total Pavement (Removals (except $ 92,209.70 $92,209.70 storm), curb, pavement 4" pipe drain, concrete approaches, concrete walk at Pine and Walnut and plant material) Storm (Removals, 18" Storm, 6" $ 22,984.10 22,984.10 laterals, catch basins Sanitary (lateral to the Masonic 2,700.00 2,700.00 Lodge) Plaza (Stamped and colored $39,140.00 $39,140.00 concrete) Low Planter 9,420.00 9,420.00 Trash Enclosures 10,100.00 10,100.00 $ 150,869.70 $ 25,684.10 $176,553.80 10% Contingency $15,086.97 $2,568.41 $17,655.38 Sub-total $165,956.67 $28,252.51 $194,209.18 18% indirect Costs $29,872.20 $5,085.45 $34,957.65 Total Estimated Project Cost $195,828.87 $33,337.96 $229,166.83 Page 1 of 1 F:\WPWIN\1488-77\MateriaITable Feasibility 1488-77 Typical Section 0 3