No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 13_4/13/2023Agenda Item #13. Regular Council STAFF MEMO -D Meeting: Regular Council -Apr 13 2023 Staff Contact: Jeremy Allen, Village Manager Department: Manager Consider Acceptance of the Village -Wide Undergrounding Feasibility Assessment Developed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. SUMMARY: Alk April 3, 2023 Village Council was presented the Draft Village -Wide Undergrounding Feasibility Assessment presented by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. The Final Assessment has been included in your agenda back-up for consideration of final acceptance. At the October 13, 2022 the Village Council approved a Work Authorization with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to provide a Village -Wide Undergrounding Feasibility Assessment. In order to evaluate the feasibility of this large—scale project, the development of a Feasibility Assessment is needed to evaluate anticipated program elements and costs prior to moving forward with subsequent steps such as master planning, detailed design, or construction. The objectives of the Feasibility Assessment process are: - Description of the Conversion Process - Data collection of existing overhead utility infrastructure a review of general right of way conditions to assess potential easement acquisition needs - Development of an order of magnitude opinion of cost for the program - Provide pertinent information on next steps. This document and any attachments may be reproduced upon request in an alternative format by completing our Accessibility Feedback Form, sending an e-mail to the Village Clerk or calling 561-768- 0443. PROJECT NAME: Village - Wide Undergrounding Feasibility Assessment Proposed: $48,950 PROJECTED TOTAL: $48,950 BUDGET: $50,000 ENCUMBERED: $48,950 Projected Remaining: $7)342.50 Page 202 of 556 Agenda Item #13. Staff recommends approval of the Village -Wide Undergrounding Feasibility Assessment. TeguestaFeasibilityAssessment-040423 Final Page 203 of 556 Tf]L VILLAGE C- Form UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT qu IL 14C IL JAG T At :IN dab Ili Hoyq: AgendaVq�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Introduction Data Collection Design Criteria Program Phasing and Duration Easement Needs Order of Magnitude Opinion of Probable Cost Program Funding and Cost Reduction Opportunities Next Steps 5 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT ' Over th-P past two decades mu Itipl e hurrica nos havp- -PM Pact E.I .] South Florida causing widespread electricAl and communications disruptions. In 2006, the Florida Public Service Cam mission voted to amend the Florida Administrative code to requ i re -investor-owned uti I itiles to file ccmprehensive storm hardening plans. These plans included storm preparedness initiatives such as storm hardening. Storm hardening is the upgrading of facilities, and maintenance praaice5, so they are better able to withstand extreme weaher. Florida Power & Light (FPF), the electrical service provider for thp ViIle of Tg%q"g%ezt-P m.A hnq ipipmented -;tm nrrc1pnn ig measures in many municipalities as storm preparedness Initiatives were rolled out through their service area. Based on the su bsta ntial costs and ire pacts to the electrica I gri d caused by past hurricanes, FP has embarked on a program to harden their network to increase resiliency during future storm events. Currently, there are multiple FPL hardening projects that have either been completed or are currently underway with i n the Village. However, the Vi I I age Counci I has -expressed interest in burying overhead power lines as a recommended infrastrocture project -and has approved this Feasibility Assessment to gain more information about such a project so further discussior and decisions can be made regLq rd 1 ng the program. The conversion of overhead utilities to an underground location, also known as undergrounding, will improve the reliability, safety, and aesthetics of the electrical and communications infrastructure serving the Village. These attributes are distinct, special benefits directly resulting from an underground utility system. A brief description of each benefit can be found below: Reliability: Ba seld on a report entitled Out of Sight, Out of Mind, An Updated Study on the Undergrounding of Overheod Power Lines by the Edison Electric Institute (2012), an u nde rg round util it system is genera I ly more reliable than an overhead utility system because it is less susceptible to impacts from weath-er events, exposure to wI16I ife., and contact with vegetation. The design of under -ground utility systems a ISO creates reliabi'lity 'benefits. For example, a typical neighborhood street in Tequestia -15 eNed by an overhead rad is 11-1 no con nected to a feede r ci rcuit that usual ly dead ends without co nnecting to a mother feeder ci rcult. With this type of design, if there i s a fau It on the radial line all customers connected to the 11 rye will be out of service u ntil a reps 1 r can be made, In an undergrou n d system., the line serving the street will be looped between two feeder connection points with an open point in the middle, generally at a tra n sf ormer. if a fa u It -occurs, i t will on IV affect a portion of the looped system. U tility crews responding to the problem can Isolate the problem area, restoring service to as much of the loop as possible whil-e keeping the problem area de -ones gized, 6 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Safety: An underground utility system is generally safer than an overhead utility system because the electric and corgi rr u nicati on cabl es a rid equi pment are less accessible to acci dental contact by the pu bl ic. For example.. during windstorm events, overhead facilities may �'be blown down Creating impacts to property an d exposing the pu bl is to a potentia I ris k of electric shock. Additi ona Ily., routine ma i ntenance trimming of landscaping may cause accidental contact with overhead 11nes, resulting in risk of electric shock. Apsth etics: Teq u esta ma 1 mains a , high standard of vl-�Lidl aesthetics throughout the Village, The V1118ge Council endeavors to protect this visual image tky-rouprh the review process for new construction and renovation projects. Under rounding provi'des an opportunity to enhance the visual aesthetics in the Village and allows greater flexibility for architectural and landscaping -improvements in areas previously restricted by overhead utillities- I n 2022, the V1 I lage Counci I took the first step i n . - 11 the under ground irig process and authorized Kimley-Horn to prepare th is Feasi b i lity Assessment to guide the Village Council in decision -making around a potential municipal -wide under ground ing program. This Feasibility Assessment will provide guidance on priorities such as cost, duration, and other factors. The first step in performing a feasibility assessment unique to the Village was to gather information related to zoning and land use designations. The existing overhead infrastructure was also col leCted from utility own ers a nd reviewed. Planned capita I project.5 throughout the Vi I I age were also d i5cu-5sed. Each of these elements affects how the program could be executed. The results of the data collection process are presented in the fullowirig sections. Zola U90 The Village consists of residential, commercial, light industrial, public, and conservation, land uses. A zonin mportarat tnrsta o udpnthe relatio d nshithat the p _q mop is presented' on the folio in page. I t i i zonin I I I priorities 11dential district-5 have with the exetut on of the program. The needs and priorities of the re,s community are different than those found in the cornn-iercial community, It is impor-tant the de-518n, considers these differences so specific requirements are clew rly,cornmunicated to the construction team. An exam pie woul d be the dal IV til mi ng of i rn pacts to private p roperty- I n genera 1, the residential property owner will likely desire impacts to their property (such as the brief service di: rupticn that occurs when swa ppi rig the ellectric and ccm mu n ication services f rorn eve rhead to undergrou nd) be ti med during the middle of the day when they are otherwise away. ConverselYr the commercial property owner will likely deli re that Service disru pti on s occur ,after hours to aval d busi ness impact5. 7 of 556 77 31- -IL ire-1 — I.Ie. — F-P — A. L -b.L A rq MEN -.3i'doN LrTuA Hill L i.t M. rrrL r:6.7 —71- -h6 -LZTr' Emmons MEg -j 7= e IM MC■SO W12:0 u �■ ■■ no= 050 ■ MEN 6OMNI .1m m 4 12 IFS 9F 1A .71A m -.j UIT jrb Era jL =71r p P1 LEL IF IS MEN NONE L7m NONE Bill MENEM on I �'� � � �� �� ,ice �■■ ■■ W■ , M.1= TrIZIN 1= 3�9 AP A A A o iamW 6�Am N, 5. L AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Ddsting Overhead lufreshucture and Planned C'spital Projects It is impor"try nt to understand the existing overhead infrastructure that will be ultimately be converted underground and any existing underground infra.5tructure that will need to be avoided during the m p lementation of the program. It is all-5o im portant to ildent ify other sign if I -cant Ca pital projects pla n ned for the Village that wi I I occur duri ng the u ndergrounding program so that work ca n be coord-i nated to the -� ct 1 ca . 1 extent prL Kimley-Horn coordinated vvith the stakeholders listed below to obtain readily available information regarding the existing ove rhead infrastructure within or near Vi I lag-e limits, as well as information on a ny planned capital Improvements. Descriptions of the data collected from each entity and how it impacts the unider grounding program follow. VMage of Tequesta The Village does not have any overhead fac-11-1tie% but did providp- z4tlas-1�v�1 data of the w8tclr and storm sewer 5ystern for rev i ew. I nfo rma i o n regarding capita I improvements was also provided -,ind indicates that road, sidewalk, and water system improvements are planned over the next S years. If the. Village were to implement an under gro,.ndirig program, there is an Ur the Vill-age's oppor ity to on pla ran capital projects in coard i n at'ton Frith the under ground irig program. Th is w ill allow effidenci-es to be realized in constrocting the capital pro Irne as i I 1 1 lects at the same ti undergroundin,g. Some of th-e benefits of per -forming pr J ojects concurrently include: • Increased schedule coordination • Reduction of long-term traffic impacts • CastIng savings resulting from shared restoration costs This may require that the capital project timing be replannied in crder to correlate With the undergrounding activities, however- The same concept may apply to the Loxahatchee River E nvironmentall Control District -and any planned ca piltal grog ra m5 to replace sari t-ary sewer -infrastructure in the VI I I age- Atrida der & hght FPL provided atlas-ievell data of the el-ectrica I system in the V11 [age. Such maps are not included in this assessm�2nt report to proti2ct the confidentiallity/security of the Information. Instead, an existing overhead utility lines map was generated that F�■■�� shows.the aggregate location of all overhead electric -and communication lines within the Vi I lags I units. This map can be found at the end -of th;'s section. 9 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Most of the Village is provided electrical and communication service through a network of overhead wires mo u - tQd on wooden or concrete poles. While there are some areas of the Vi I lag� already u nderground, there -are � pproxi mately 22 pol e-m lies of overhead i nf rastructu re in the Vi I lage. A pole -mile Is def 1 ned as the 11 near distance in m ilea along a set of utility poles, regardless of how many wi res., ca files., o r pieces of equipment are attached to those poles- Thy is estimate is based primarily on: Information conveyed by the uti I ity providers ■Maps that w-er-e obtained from the utility providers Field observations of the exist[rig facilities The majority of the poles observed support both electrical and comet unlications infrastructure- However, -there are a seta I ler num her.of poi es that su pport only el ectric, or only comma n ications, inf rastructure - Electrical service is provided to the Village from substations that can be found, to the north and south of the municipality. Thesesubstations are the origin cf the Village distribution grid comprised of feeder lines, primary lines, secondary lines, and individual custoner services. The grid is comprised of multiple service areas based an the load capacities of the various feeder circuits- The service areas are all interconnected by switches that provide isolation if a problem with any specific area occurs. To better understand how electricity 1-5 delivered to indivi dual hom e5 and b u.5i nesses, bel aw is a brief over ew of the functions of the various corn pone ntS Df the exi sti rig el ectrica I system with 1 n the Village: Electrical power generated at FRL's power plants travels through transmission lines to the substations that bracket the municipality Feeder li-ne-s carry power distributed by the substations to the various service -areas across the viflage Primary lines branch off the feeder lines to provide power to overhead transformers that reduce the voltage to a leve I that is required by the C.Ustome r Second a ry/service I i nes ca rry lower- vo I ta ge power f ram the transformers to the electric meter on the home or business FPL has been carrying out plans for capital improvements with the 'Village, FPL's Storm Secure Program previously converted the overhead power lines to an underground location at the South end of the Teque.sta Country Club along, Fairview West, Fairview East;, Yacht Club Place and Palmetto Way. Corn munications facilities in the areas are still aerial as FPL's Storm Secure program does not convert utilities they do not own. Additionally, many of the feeder circuits in 0 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT thQ Vil lage have been ha rdened with new, tal ler and stronge r concrete poles. The foil ovvi rig corridors were noted to have hardened infrastructure: Tequesta Drive (between Country Club Drive and Norfolk Avenue) Riverside Drive Pole 11 ne along the southern m urn icipal boundary (between Riversi de Drive and LJ SI) Seabrook Road 0 County Line Road US1 N 01 d Dixi e H ighway (between Bridge Road an d County Li rye Road) Beach Read At the ti me of this report, ha rdeni ng of the aerial i nf rastructu re was u nde rway along the U S1 corridor in Teq uesta . AT&T AT&TAT&T prov"I atlas -level data of m the telephone/data systewithin the Village. Maps of AT&T's system are not -included to protect the confidentiality of the informations but the -existing overhead utility lines map includes such foci lities..To better understand how telephone service is delivered to i nd ivid ua- I hornes and businesses, here is a brief overview of the functions of the W] rious components of the ex isti rig c-om rri u n ications system -within the Vi I lage,, Communications service enters the Village through backbone lines that branch off to serve a network of se rvice area interf ace ca bi not. a n d cc ntrol led envi ronmental va ults a Trunk lines provide service to distinctservice arc!a:s E Radial lines branch off the trunk lines to provide service to overhc_Nad tc)�rrriinals and ground - mounted pedestals Service drops connect the term i na Is to the corms munication service point on the home or bu sines %T 1� ?) 6n1CaSt .APO Comcast provided atlas -level data of the television/data system within the Village. Maps of Comcast'S SyStem are not included to COMCAST protect the confidentiality of the information, but the existing overhead utility lines map includes such f@cilities, To better juride rstarid hovv television service is delivered to i ndivid uall homes and b.usi resew, here i s L� brief overview of the f u n ctions of the va rious co mponents of the existi ri g communications sy_�tem w ith i n th e Vifflage Communications service -enters the Village through backbone lines that branch off to serve a network of fiber nodes Distribution lines provide service to distinct service areas and associated overhead taps and ground -mounted pedestals -Service d raps connect the taps to the comm u n ication service poi nt o n the home or busi ties 1 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Other Mer/Cammunimfim% IkEty Novilem Palm Beach County Traffic S in a I Multiple Traffic Signak, No, Localized Traffic Operations Con tro I Yes and Cro��walk Signals infrastructure at throughout the Village signal areas M a rt in County Traffic Traffic Count ye5 Country C1 u b Drive at No, Buried Operations Information Martin County Ling Resurgence Fiber Optic I nfast ru ctu re 6 roup r Communications Yes Ra i I roa d R iglu t -of Way No, Buried (RIG,) Ce n tu ryLin k Fiber Optic Yes Railroad Right of Way No; Buried Communications Fiber Optic Crown Castle Communications Yes Railroad Right of Way No, Buried and Conduit and U51 Corridor i ref rastr u cture T-Mobile / Sprint I'l-ber Optic Yes Railroad Right of Way No, Buried Communications Yes, Aerial Old [pixie Highway and Facilities are Ve ri z on F I ber Optir Communications Yes the US1 in the southerri shown. Buri'ed portion of the Village Facilities are not 5h own, Ad d it ions I I the V1 I I age of Teq uesta is served by its own Uti I ity Department for potable water service, the Lox -ahatchee Environmental Control District for sanitary sewer service, and Florida Public Utilities and TECO for natu ra I gas service. These utilities provided Kimley-H orn wi tip Atlas I evell i nforma ti on about thei r undj,_%rround network of infrastructure.. However, these facilities are not shown on our 61S maps conLaireed in this report. In general, these facilities will be avoided to the greatest ext-ent practical in can s- I ri ng a n overhead to underground conversion pro rn. 2 of 556 smesslimemal pri MEN IN M IN IN■smommommill Ad a IN 0 IN Elm ■;A a I IN IN IN IN ME IN &wA memo Via IS M M IN■M IN IN 0 ME 0 OPP a ME M M 0 0 MIKI-0imsms I ME No a ONE IS Elm E!oolgmmol .1 I EM 'ib IS MENEM ims IN I IN lam IS ILI 0 an 0 IN I . flAmq a i Elm IS Iff on v is , ir I A-r MEN None Mim�■ Elm& AN NONE kd0"INMIF-110 00111dERRENIN ■ Ell lmomme Range NONE on smommomm In Elm m 0 soon" .1mamovill W-41bfilw�l r2io5 meam -we i son■0 rm mmmma;.g AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Through corre%pondence and meetings with the Village, and past exp ri with FPL AT&T, Comcast., and other stakeholders on sir T) Ilar projects, Kirnley-Hoirin has assembled general guidelines for design criteria th at was use d to develop ou r or r of magnitude cost opini on for an u nderground'i rig progra rn In the Vi I lage. These guidelines are not i ntended to be a I I inclusive, or the only criteria to be f ol I owed duri ng the design and construction of the overhead to underground conversion improvements. They are intended to be guidance only for the design of the physical location and placement of coed uit and equipment and do not govern the detailed electrical or communications network designs that vvill be performed by the utility providers. These criteria are intended to be used as guidelines during the implementation of the program so consistency in design and construction can be realized over the life of the progra m. A sum ma ry of the criteria follows be low. CvneTa The following codes and standards, as applicable, shall govern the design MANUAL OF UKIFORM MINIMUM STANDARDS. of the improvements: FOR DESIGN, CONST RUC T1 l'jH AND MAINTENANCE FOR $TREE TS AND F I IGHWAYS 0 Vill-age of Tecluesta Code of Ordinances (Catmmuniv known ar. the "Florida Greenbaokl 0 Florida Dopy rtmentr of Transportation Florida Greenbook 0 Pa I m Beach County Design Stan da rds M an ua I 0 Florida Department of Transportation Design Manual e. 0 Florida Department of Tran5portation Standard Plan5 for Road Construction Sum vi[R-Pr do 0 Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for M-partmaint of Tra nspon:atiu) Road and Bridgp- Construction ■Vi I lage of Tecluesta Water Uti I ities Standa rids a nd Specif i cations ■ Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District Standards and Specifications 0 Florida Building Code 0 National Electrical Code 0 Nationa I Electrical Safety Code 0 FPL insta I lation details Mb of Tequesta The Vi I lage is responsible for the operation a A ma intenance of vari ous types of infra structure with 1 n the m unicipallity. The design criteria prese nted on the following pages was assu rned to govern i mproveme nts specifically re lated to the u ndergrou rid i rig program. Any i m pacts or I rnprovem eats to other Inf rastruCtU re are assu med to be governed by the design criteria establ ished for those i nd ivid ua I i mprovements by the Vi I Inge of Tecluesta, 4 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDiNG FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Euoment PhizemeM Equipment shall be placed to meet the lateral -offs-et requirements contained in the FDOT Florida Groe nhook or Design Manual, as applicable depending on right-of-way r mAinership Lquiprom placement shall meet the sight distance requirements contained in the FDOT Florida Groe nbook or Design Manual, as applicable depending on right-of-way ownersh i p The above criteria are also applicable to any landscaping planted around the equipment for sewe r, pavement, cu rb, a rid si de al k restoration sha I I meet the requi rements of the V-11111age of Tequesta, FIDOT Florida G ree nbook, the FIDOT Design Standards Manual, or the Standa rd Plans for Road Construction and the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, as appl ica ble dependi rig on right-of-way ovvnc rsh i p 0 Water i3nd sanitary sew-er restoration shall meet the requirements of the Standards and Specifications of the Village of Top uesta or Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District, as appl icable depending ,on uti I it ovv nersh i p Landscaping 'Impacted by improvements shall be restored to a condition equal to or better than what exi-steel prior to com me ncement of the work 9tmet Tieb g The underground ire g project wi I I I rinpact a significa rat number of 5treetl his wilthi n the Vi I lage. The i m patted streetligh is cons ist of those cu rrently mounted to utility poles. When these poles are removed, the streetlights will be taken down wf h them, therefore, these impacted streetlights will need to be replaced, some areas of the Village have no existing streetlfghts or the spacing of the impacted I ights is not regu[ar. This means that the lighting levels within a particul.-ir, area are elth-er non-existent, may be less than a desired illurnination level, or may not bc! un if orm- At this time, the it Inge has requested that on ly exi5ti rig streetlighta be consl"clered for replacement. Therefore, a more comprehensive program to install streetlights throughout the project corridors is not considered in this feasibility assessment. During the design of each project ,phase, we recommend discussions vvith Village staff to determin-e if there is a desire to install any additional street lighting concurrently vvith the under grounding project - Additionally, the Village may consider - installing FPL standard lighting as a cost -savings measure. FPL currently administers a street lighting program where they will furnish and install street % % WOOL % % Exis tin g U 61i ty Po le wi ter a ttach ed S tre e tfight 5 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT lighting. For the standard lighting options, there is minimal cost for the insta I lation.; therefore, the Vi I I age %--vould be required to enter into an FPL Lighmerit ting Agrnt requiring the Village to pay a monthly MAiatone rice fee and electrical service charge to FPL_ A premium lighting package i:s -also avail -able frorn FPL with more decorative light�, but these add an initial capital cost and increase the monthly maintenance fee- RoM a Power &fit The layout and design of overhead electric infrastructure is different in nature than underground electric infrastructure. The Village's current overhead systern can be generally described as a series of main overhead feeder I Ines with rad ial d istri bution Iii nes connected to the feeder I i nes with f used switches. The f eed',er Ni nes a re I nterconnected to provide redunda racy, but generally the radix I distribution Imes are not interconnected. Conversely, an underground system will have -interconnected feeder kines and distri-buti on 1-1 nes. This en ha ricer rel is bi I-Ity of the system as it provides multi pie f ee d sou roes as opposed to a radial system that provides only one electric feed source. In general, there is very I-ittle choice in the type of equipment that is installed when perform i-rig an underground conversion project. All the equipment and materia Is installed are. provided by FPL, so they are consistent with their electrical distribution standards. This is done to maintain System con5istency and cost efficiency -in both installation and maintenance. That, being the c-ase., there are two aspects of the design where the min icl-pia I ity can make a der ision based on eq u i prnent preference. Two types of switch cabinets can be provided by FPL based on preference or circumstance: the qt nrhrd VM rwltr r;4hinpt or tho cabinet. The standard PME Switch cabinet is the cabinet that Is deployed most often In the FPL electrical d1stri bution system- The alternative to a standard PM E switch is a Vista switch cabinet- When cornea red to a standard PIXIE switch cabinet, the Vista switch cabinet has a -slightly smaller footprint, is shorter, and only requires Sr of clearance in front of the cabinet and 3' behind the cabinet, rather than 9f in front of and 8' behind the cabinet like the standard 5witch, This offers .5ome unique advantages when the equipment is required to be placed ifn fight spaces or when tkorin ic n n t-kpt1r ra "irp m pn+ f h-_-at riirtmtac +ko r- ni n IIor 1-1 cabinet. The Vista cabinet is also hermetically sealed to prevent water intrusion- Asig nificant drawback of the Vista switch tabinet is that it costs approximately $60.rOO-O more than a standard switch cabinet. Due to space constraints that may exist 1-n the bu 1 It environm ent some Vista ca binets may be required regardless of preference for use of a standard switch. Two types of concrete pads for transformers can also be provided by FPL based on preference. One concern in the Vi I Inge is the consistent flooding of low-lyi rig a real. When 6 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT transformers are flooded, FPL cannot service them until the water recedes. FPL now offe rs the choice of the standard 6" height concrete tra nsformer pad., two pads stacked to 12.r_r , or a 24" pad, With concerns about Sea level rise and the potential for storm surge from hurricanes., the additional cost of concrete for the to I ler pads may be warranted in low-lying areas - This feasibility study assumes that the Village will' elect the option for the "'Customer to Perform Al I the Work." This allows the Village far greater control over costs., schedule and realization of construction efficiencies in both cost and schedu le d uring -1 mplementation of the program. I n this ma nner, FPL wil 11 per -form the electrical network design for the pro grarn, followed by the Village's Engineering Consultant assisting the Village with easement acquisition and developing supplemental conduit plans to aid the Village"s contractor in installing the conduit for the prograrn. FIDL will require the following general guidelines be followed related to the design of the improvements. All FPL electric infrastructure shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the FPL DiStLribution System Standards, latest edition. All electrical de.sign decisions will ultimately be made and/or approved by FPL. In genera I, overhead electrica I infrastructure located i n rea r easernents wi I I be re located to a front street location. There is an exception where the buildings are served from existing transformers at the rear of the building. If FPL has access to the transformers and conduit via private drives, glass over head lines maybe under rounded within existing ease me rats and the tran_sformers may remain at the rear of the bu-1 Flings. E lectrical equi prnent sha I I be located so it can be accessed easi ly by a 11 rye t ruck. To the extent practical, standard switch cabinets are to be used. Vi5ta style switch cabinets can be used as circumstances may requi-re or as requested by the Village Z15 previously noted. The base opinion of cost considers a rnix of standard and vista switch cabinets. At least one capacitor bank will be required ithin the service area of each feeder grid. The capacitor bank most be located within 100' of a switch cabinet. 0. FPL prefers 10'x10' easements for single-phase transformers. Open delta transformers require a 13'x10' easement. Three-phase transformers require anywhere from 10'x10' to 20'x2O' easements depending on th-e load- FPL prefers 24'x24' ease rntints for switch cabinets and capacitor banks. Underground feeder splice boxes requi-re a Tx22' ea5ement. Underground handhole easements can vary between 5'xT -and 5'x2C' depending on the size of the handhole and configurati on of the u nderground i ngwiring. Actua I easemient di mension s a rid configurations may vary depending on the specific situation, field :cDnditions, and types of equipment to be installed. Easements that have collocated commun iCat ions eq u1i pment are I arger tha n those sizes quoted above. Easements must be located adjacent to and accessible from the public right-cf- way. I Transformers will be located based on electrical loading requirements- For example, a horne with a la rge el er-trical service may need a single dedicated transformer- Conversely, homes with Erna lier electrical services may be able to share a 5 ingle transformer. 7 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT E Transformers should be located on one side of the street to the extent practical. P Tryin sformers should be the "low Profile" style to the extent Practical. In certain situations, such ICJL as tphase -s three phi�i rvi cos and la rge se rvices req u i ring service greater than 75kVA, a regula r" style transformor shall b� used. 0 Concrete tram sformitn-r pads shall be 5" in height unless higher pads are otherwise requested by the Vi I I a ge or requi red by ci rcu rnstances as previously noted - Electrical equipment requires 3" of clearance on the sides and rear of the equipment and 8 feet in the front of the eq LA i prinient for -access and maintena nce. to ndard switch cabi nets and capacitors requi re 8' of cl earance i in the front and rear of the cabinet a nd 3' on the sides. Existing ha nd holes co nnected to existing electrica I se rvices to bui Id 1 ngs/f aci 1 ities ma V be reu sed if they a re located near the front street. Conductors may need to be replaced depending on the load and new service length. Existing hand h oles located a t the rea r of the property general ly Wi 11 not be allowed to be reused if the service is being converted from the rear to the front of the lot, Th is is for safety, mai ntenance, a nd to prevent u nauthorized connections. 0 New cord ult will be -installed between the transf Orrin er a n d the fa d I itv servicep-ritra nce or exi,_5ti ng hand hole, a5 a pp[ icable, to contain the service or seconda ry se rvice cab le -- Fa ci I Ity servi ce e ntra aces, shy al I meet current Nat -Iona I El ectrica I Code, stanch rds for co nnecti on to the new underground sy5tern. Overhead services will be converted to an underground location. This may require replacement of the service entrance if the meter can cannot accommodate new underground conductors. Service entrance replacement costs can vary but are ge nera I ly in the range of $ 1,000 to $7,500 d e-pendi rye. on the:silz� and complexity of the service, Overhead weather heads will be abandoned in place, This feasibility assessment does not consider any modifications to rooftop penetrations, All electrical equipment and materials shall be ntai mai de d by FPL and shall be owned and reed by fro i I FPIL at the con clusion of the project. Contractors installing FPL infrastructure must be pre - approved by FPL. AT&T AT&T will perform the communications network design for the program with the Vill-age's Consulting Engineer developing supplernental conduit plans to aid the Village's contractor In installing the conduit for the program. AT&T will require the following general guidelines be followed related to the design of the improvements. Malin underground trUnk lines and equipment shall remain in service (-Including existing service are a interfaces a n d control led environmental via ults). 8 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT ■ Distribution of service will be converted underground th rcu gh con nection to the trunk lire at ex isting tru n k li rye manhole locations. AT&T prefers major equipment easements to be 10'x10' for the -or future f1ber equipment needs.. Equipment may be in the right-of-way if sufficient lateral offset requirem rents are met. Service pedestals will generally be installed in the public right-of-way or the same easement as the electrical equipment. These pedestals will then provide communications service to individual facilities. For pedestals not sharing an easement with FP equipment, AT&T prefers a 5'x5' ease ment- Pedestals require I foot of clearance around all sides for access a nd maintenance. Pu I I boxes will be required at regu I ar interva Is to facilitate cable pulling and slack cable storage. AT&T prefers 24"x36" and 30"'x48" pull boxes. Pull boxes are to be located outside of the road -way surface. When required, pull boxes can be placed in the paved surface andr in this case, will be required to be H-20 load rated. Conduit and pull boxes -are to be National Electrical Code compliant for communications service and conduit shall be gray in color. ■ Cored uilt will be provided for service cable between the pedestal and the facility to be served. Equipment -and cabling will be provided and -installed by AT&T. Conduit and pull boxes shall be furnished and installed by the Vi I lage's contractor. r Comcast wi I I perform the comm u nications network de sign for the program with the Village's Consulti ng Engineer developing supplemental conduit plans to aid the Village's contractor -in -install-Ing the conduit f or the p rogra m. Corks st will req u i re the fol to rig general guidel Ines be f ol lowed related to the design of the improvements. Main underground .fiber` optic trunk lines and power supply equipment can be reused if practical. Reuseof power supplies sha 11 be evaluated during the design phase since a power supply will be re qui red to serve both the new net -work and the exi-sting network during the cut -over phase. This may overload a power supply if it is not suffi-ci-ent to serve both networks simultaneously. One fi ber node can accom mod -ate a maxim u m of 2 56 co rune ct-lon s. Fi her nodle service areas should be designed with I ess tha n 256 connections to provi de roe m f or future growth. Each fiber node location is -supported by three pieces of equipment that serve as the Fib c,i Distribution Hub (FO-H ). For a hybrid fiber/coaxial system, the LCP would not be used - Power supply cabinet 9 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT rn ,.. Virtual hub node housing (VHub) rn Li Local convergence poi rat ,(LCP) 0 Comc.-q 5t prefers that the power supply, VH ub, and LCP be i n a com man 10'x 10" easeme nt. The equip me. nt can a Iso be in the public right-of-way if the red u-J red late ral offsets are met. The power supply can be separated from the VHub and LCP by a maxi morn of 80C'. However, separating the equipment increases cost due to the additional cond it required to connect all three pieces of equipment. The power su pply ca bi net requ i res a 12OV, single-phase metered servi ce from FPL. Multi pie VH ubs and LCPs ca n be served bV a si nglepower supp IV locate d i n a common easement. In locations with multiple VHubs, an easement larger than 10'x10' may be required. Service pedestals and vaults will be installed generally in the same easement as the electrical equipment. They can also be installed in the public right-of-way if the required lateral offsets are met. These pedestals will then provide communications service to the individual facilities. For pedestals not sharing an easement with FPI_ equipment,, Comcast prefers a 5'x5'easement, Pedesta Is req u 1 re 1' of clearance arou rid a I I sides f oraccess an d ma i rite nance. Cables containing greater than 9.6 fiber strands will require 24"x-3 6,r va u Its. Ca bles conta 1 ring less tha n 96 strands can be accommodated -in 17 x30" vaults. Higher fiber count ter. o cables wiH be found generally closerr. to node locations. Ribe r counts reduce as the strands radiate from the nodes in the service areas. Vaults are to be located off the roadway. Conduit and pull boxes are to be N ational Electrica I C.ode compliant for communications service and conduit shall be orange in color. Conduit [:s required for coaxia I service cable to the home- A coaxial cable service pedesta I can serve up to eight homes., but Comcast prefers to design for a pp roxi rn ately four home s- Coaxia I cable service lengths should be kept under 150'r in length. Equi pment, vaults/pedestals., and cabling will be provided and install-ed by Comcast, Conduit shall be furry ished and -1 nsta Iled by the Village's contractor. 0 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT CXher Uffiy ProvWm -%&h rastructIve The other utility providers having existing overhead infrastructure within the Village will be responsible for their communications network designs for the pro -gram. The supplemental conduit plans developed bythe ViflInges Consulting Fngineerto aid the Village"s contractor in installing the con dulit for the program will include these other providers. General guildelines related to the design of the improvements are L DSSLA-iied to be substantially, similar to Comcast's fiber installation requirements for the purposes of this teasi:)ility assessaient. ,D eve I P, p rn ent of a detailed phasing map alongwith the related sequencing of an under grouriding program within the Village is be-yond the scope of this feasibility assessment. This level of effort is generally mclutied during the master planning phase of a program. However, -in order to develop an order of n it de cost opi nic n for the pro I gram,. an a pproximate number of phases must b(� cst-mato-d so that a ge ner j I Li Me du ration for the program can be developed. The time d urati on of th e program I s 1 rn portant Su th �j L th e I mpa cts of i nflation throughoLit the program duration can he i ncluded i n the -cost opinion. As described previously in this feasibility assessment, there are approximately 22 pole line miles of aerial Infrastructure in the VillageofTequesta. Based on our experience with similar programs., we expect that the Village would be divided into 5 or 6 phasesThese phases could be further sub -divided into Soho phases that would a I I ow work to be cc nducted i n two areas si multa neously. Phases generally to ke I to 2 Fears to dp_�ign followed by 18 to 31) months to construct, The schedules of each individual phase can overlap with each to -a d eg ree, but gene ra I IV a new ph-aso i 111 not sta rt any sooner than 1 year after the o previous phase started- This hold-5 true for of de -%ILgn and construction, Based on the number of phases and the -anticipated timelines to implement each, we would expect the program to have a duration of approximately 8 to 10 years. The design timeline is mostly impacted by the easement acquisition process and final'izing the network designs with th-e individual utility owners. The construction process is mostly impacted by a lengthy conduft -installation process., the switchi-ng procedure to energize the new underground, system whifich -15 controlled by FPL, and the removal of the overhead system which is generally considered low priority work by the utility owners. Low priority work can cause a I ag in the schedule as the uti I I it owners will redirect crews who per -form th e remova I work to address outages ellsewhe re i n the overal I d istribution system. The potent -pal need for easements was evaluated during the development of this feasibilit y -assessment. The need f oreasements -is ge nera I ly driven by the availlabi'l sty of public right of way throe gh out the V-1 I la ge that is suitable for equipment placement. Factors that drive whether the right of way is suitable for equipment placement include the following: Sufficient roadside shoulder area -within the right of way that allows equipment to b-P placed outsi de of the code req u i red roadside clear zones Sufficient roadside shoulder area within the right of way that allows equipment to be places a 'de of the code requ- red cl e-a r sight lines (a p plicable t I utsi I I I I o equ i pme rat that is ta I ler the n 30") 1 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Sufficient roadside shoulder area within the right of way that 'Is free from underground utilities b,elow the proposed equipment location In assessing available right of way across the Village, it was generally observed that wider roadside shoulders exist towards the western end of the Village. It can reasonably be assumed that easement needs will be less in the western portion of the Village than in the eastern portion of the Village. We anticipate that easements will still be required for larger pieces of equipm s Bch ch as switches and capacitors. Towards the ea stern side of the Vill age, t he roadside shy oulder spice is na rrower, and sPdewalks to A to re duce ava ilabl e s pace eve n further making it tech ni cal ly 1 nfea-s-I ble to use the road shoul cler for any equipment placement. This is also true i n the com me rci al areas of the Villages. We antici pate a higher need for easements in these areas as result. AWo$oh The fallowing elements were considered when developing the order of magnitude opinion of cost (QPC) for the program: Use of recent cost 'Information from similar pro-IeCtS: R-ec-ent bid prices for overhead utility underground conversion projects currently underway or a I read V completed in similar' Noce I., coastal comm u nities were used for the development of unit prices for this planni ng-level 0PC_ Use of comprehensi've construct'lon costs: Fi na I hid prices for si millar projects 1 n the area were used to develop pan it co is that we re a pplied to the progra m. This allows for i ncl union of many smaller scale costs that may otherwilse be overlooked during the planning process. Use of a consistent unit cost application methodology: Since it 1,s not feasible to perform clet-a i I ed design for the entire pro m at this ti me, bid prices f ron-, �d miler projects were used to cre ate u n it price-5 for two project area types, re--;i dential -a nd con-, me rci al. These unit prices were then sc8 I ed based on the linear footage of overhead to undergrou nd con rsi on requ ired i n each type of a rea th roughout the Vi I I age - Unit Cbst Development To develop unit costs that could be applied to quantities for a large-scale program, separate unit costs that were representative of the residential and cornmerc[al areas in the Village were considered. With these unit costs established, Kimley-Horn then prepared quantity estimates for both residential and commercial areas- Typical Residential and Commercial areas and their relationship to unit costs for the program -are generally described -as follows-. 1. Typical Residential Area/Roadway Installation — Units costs were developed for this type of project area which considered installation of underground utility infrastructure within road right- of-way in a single -farms it resi dential area where servi ce I i nes wou Id be converted from the rear to the front street. These -unit costs were alsoapplied in areas where the overhead power lines are already -in a front street location because the proposed conversion work would be substantially si mil a to a re r to front conversion. 2 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT 2. Typi ca I Cornmercia I Area/Roadway Installation — U n it costs for this type of project area were developed which considered installation of underground utility infrastructure within road right- of-way and accounted for the more complex and more condensed undergrounding utility infrastructure that 1-5 nece:5sary to convert commercial areas from an existing overhead system. Commercial -areas generally have a higher load demand which requires more equipresent and larger servi ce wi res tha n are found in residentia I a roar, unit costs that were. developed for these representative project areas include the following Design and Construction work el-ements: a Construction general conditions (project management., mobilization, maintenance of traffic, bonds, survey, etc.� a FP L, AT&T, and Comicast conduit, ca ble and equi pment i nsta I lation Other U ti I it Owner condu it, cable and eq u i pimentinsta I lation Miscellaneous Conversion Costs, (modifications the built environment required for conversion, utility relocations, etc.) ■ Pavement restoration Site restorati on inckid i ng landscaping for' equipment screen i rig Direct costs from FPL, AT&T, Comcast, and other uti[itV owners for their labor, equipment, and materials rel'ated to both installation and demolition activities, 0 Soft costs related to program management, engineering design, permitting, surveying, easement acquisition, and construction phase services 0 Soft costs related to publi-c outreach/-Infc"rmat-ioncommunications W Soft costs related to developm ent of -an assessment methodology and legal services The u n it costs for each type of project area were then appi led on a Village -wide basis to the quantity of infrastructure in need of conversion that was identified cloring the data collection process. The unit prices are categorized into line i to ms i n our order of magn i toile cost opi nion. Qumtkyar��� To develop q ua ntities f or the underground I rig progra m, the exi 5ti rig overly ea d 1 nf rastru cture, roads, -a rid0 other sign if kart attri bates were -a ssessed. The f ol I owi rig qua ntiti es were devel oiled Exist i rig overhead i nf rastructu re to be conve rt-ed unde rground Roadway and private property areas anticipated to be impacted by conduit installation General Requirements and Construction Management Direct -Costs Assessed by the U t i I ity Own ers W Ease mes anticipa ted to be req u 1 red for the conversion 4 Streetl ights expected to be re placed as utility pol es a re removed 0 Enginee r-Ing, Permitting and Survey Cost5 0 Construction Phase Assistant-e Master Planning G ra rat Adm 1 nistr-otion Servi ces Public Outreach 3 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Specific Program Area Inclusions and Exclusions The Vi I lage Counci I previously recognized that the unique shape of the Vi I lage's municipal boundaries may create situations, where it would, be advantageous for the Village to -convert overhead utilities to an underground location in a real of u n I ncorporated Pa I m Beach Cou nty, M artin Cou nty, a nd/or J upiter. For th is reason, Ili mley-Horn rood acted a n eva I uat-lan of these a reas. arou A the peri meter of the Vi I I age to make recommendations to either include or exclude specific areas outside of the Village within the undergrounding program for Village consideration. We also evaluated areas with -in the Village's limIts that could be excluded from the program. Areas that have been recommended for inclusion in the Village"s program are included in the base opinion of cost that was developed for this feasibillitV assessment, Areas that have been recommend°edl for exclusion in the Vill lage"s program are excluded from the base opinion of cost that was developed for this feasibility assessment. However, a separate cost has been provided for most of these areas in the event thp village wool rather these areas be included. %commm&d leas ofUhinomporated Palm lkach Cbun ty / WNrtin sty / A-q*cr to InckWe The following areas are recommended to be included in the Village's program. We have included these areas i n the base cost opi n ion for th-e pro g ra in. Win golftssell Streets, East of Seabrook Road — There are 5everall homes at the east ends of these Streets that are within the Village of Tecluesta, We recommend this area be included in the pro grarn becaus-e the conversion toil benefit Tequesta residents directly while also benefiting Pa I m B ea ch Cou my residents on those sa me streets. Win go Stree t/South Side of Robert Street, West of Seabrook Read — Th e re a re s ev era I ho rn es at the west ends of these streets that are wit hi n the i 11ag-e of Te-questa- We recom mend this area be 1 ncl ud ed in the pro rn because the conversion will benefit Teq uesta residents directly while also be reef it 1 ng Pa I rn Beach County resi dents on those sa me streets. %oommim&d Amos ofUninomporated In Beach Cbunty / Mwtin Cbimty / Jupiter to 11imbide The following areas are recommended to be excluded from the Village's program. We have developed ire cost opinions for these areas and provided as separate fine it -ems, unless otherwise noted below. Bermudo Terrace — Bermuda Terrace is a significant residential community that is located in un i ncorporiated Ra I m Beach County- The community Is bounded on three sides by the Vi Flags and the east side by the North Fork of the Loxa hatchee River. Both the electrical and com muniication5 infrastructure can be characterized as. lateral feeds that serve only Bermuda Terrace. There are no mayor electrical feeders or communication trunk Ir ines passing through this community that serve the Village. We recommend th i s area be exclud ed from the program beca use the rc! is no qua ntif lable benefit for the Vill age to undertake th I s work at the V! I lagefs cost. Rio into Drive — Ri o Vista D rive south of Bay Ha rb or Road is I ocated in uni ncorporated Palm Beach County. The community is bounded on three sides by the Loxahatchee River and the north side by the VIllage- Both the ellectrica I and communications infra:&,tructure can be characterized as lateral fee ds that serve only the homes with -in the area. There are no major electrical feeds rs or communication trunklines passing through this corgi rnurn ity that serve the Village. We recommend this area be excluded from the program because there is no quantifiable benefit for - the Village to undertake this work at the Village's cost. County Line Road — The aerial infrastructure a I.Q rig County Line Road is located in Ma rtin Cou my at the northern boundary of the Vi I Inge. The poles host1 ng the electrical 1i nes a nd equi prinent I I I 4 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT this a rea have all ready been hardened of feri rig the V1 I lage a greater degree of electrical re liabi I ity already. The Comm uniffies along Chapel Court and Chapel Lane are already served with underground infrastructure that are connected to the lines on County Line Road by means of several riser poles. We recommend this area be excluded from the program because the benef-its vvou Id be far greater to residents i n M arti n � rid Pa Im Beach County t ha n for Village resi dents.. The lines along County Road are therefore recommended to remain aerial. A separate cost opinion was not prepared for the conversion of the lines along County Line Road. PoleLine North of Do ver Rood and West of Garden Street — W e a re re c o m m e n d I n g th at t h -15 particul ar pol e I i ne remain aerial. The horn es o n the north side of Dove r Road wi I I be refed from a new underground system -in the overall uncle rgroundi-rig program, but the pole 111-ne that currently serves these- homes also serves the community along Ni-cole Circle, which is located in un i ncorporated Pa I m Beach County. Additionally, th is pole 1-1 ne does not host a ray ma or ell ectrical feeders or communication trunklines that serve larger areas of the Village. The multi-familV homes to th e east -Li I ors g Ga rden Street are fed from th is pole 111ne but thei r services are already underg round- W e recornmen d this pole line, be excluded from the progra rn because the benef1 is woul d be fa r .create r to residents in Pa I m Beach County than for V1 111age residents. TIC is pole line is therefore recom nriended to remain aerial. Rcmnmm&d Areas ofthe Mkgc of Tequesta to EkDkk The following areas are recommended to be excluded from the Village's program, despite bein located with i n the m urn icip a] Ii nits of Teq u esta: ■ Corcif Cove Park — This area of Teqluesta is located on South Beach Road near the southern bou n dart' of the Town of J u piter Island. The Pa rk is i solated between th e Town of J u piter Island and unincorporated PaIrn Beach County. While there is a small aesthetic and safety benefit that result in undergrounding this section, there are no reliability benefits that will directly impact Tecluesta residents. We recomm end this pol e I ire be excl uded f rom the progra m for this reason. Thi s pol e I 1-ne ifs the ref are reco m me n ded to rem al n aerial. The US-1 Corridor — The US-1 corridor is home to many of the commercial businesses in the Village. The corridor is also tin der go[rig hardening at the time of this writing. The recent hardening of the infrastructure will cause its under rounding costs to be significantly higher than areas that have not been recently hardened. This is because F PL will assess the Vil lage an amount equal to the depreciated value of the hardened assets during a conversion project. Because the infrastructurei nd new the I Village would need to reirnburse FPL for nearly its full value. Because this corridor is primarily commercial and will have re-c-elved the resiliency benefits that harden I n g offe rs., we are recom mending that the Village consider having the anti rety of the a e-ri a I lines -in the Usl corridor remain aeria I. Aerial laterals to the east -a rid -west are sti'l I recom mended for conversion so Tequesta businesses along the corridor can benefit from underground connections back to the hardened poles. Riverside Drive between Riverside Oaks and TeQuesto Pines — There is a very short pole -line segment of Riverside Drive between the Riverside Oa ks a nd T-equesta Pines comm unities that is currently aerial, Soth of these communities already have underground infrastructure and it is only the pole-1 i ne on Riverside Drive that Is sti I I aerial. We recommend that this segment rem ai n aerial because it Is our opinion that the benefits do not outweigh the costs, for conversion of such 5 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT a short segment of aerial lines. We recommend this pole line be excluded from the prograrr for this reason. Thmsma* M'n Ikeg Aerial transr-nission lines exist vvithin the Village along North Old Dixie Highway. This feasibility assessment assumes that these 6 facllitlp� will remain aerial after the conversion program is completed. Ili rule y-Horn has had previous di5cus-signs recently with FPL regarding the relocatI on of' transmission line s to an underground location on a similar project in Palm Leach County. The cost information provided by FP for that similar project WOU I d yi cl d � cost i n the ra nge of $23 to $2.5 mill ion If app] ied to the lines along North Old Dixie Highvvay in Tequesta. In consultation with Village staff, this effort was determined to be cost -prohibitive and is therefore excluded from the OPC contained in this feasibility assessment. Inflation The Construction Cost Index (CCI), as calculated by Engineering News -Record, was used to estimate an average inflation rate to W. be a pplied to this program. The CCI tracks the change -in price for a specific combination of con5truction labor., steel., concrete,, cement, and lumber using data from 20 cities, in the United States. The CCI is similar in concept to the wel 1-known Consu mer Pri ce I ndex, which tracks consu mer prices for a representative base of goods and services for urban consumers but is considered more reflective of the construction industry and construction labor rates. The averi;ge yea rly historical CC I between 1990 a nd 2022 were reviewed- Th � average annu � I percentage Increase of constru ction costs du ri rig this 32-year tim e period was 3.2%. If the tim e ra rage i s shortened to th e pa st 10 years.. the i ncre-a se was 3.4% pe r a nnu m. The sma I I i ncrease i-n the ann Ua I rate over the pa st 10 yea rs i s pri ma ri ly d riven by i ncreases of S. i n 202 1 a A 7.2% in 2022. Ki pl i nger's Economic Forecast esti mates that i ref lation I n 2023 w ill be 3.2% by year's end, indicating their keel ief that the rate of Jnf latlon is beginning to ease as compared to the last two years. Based on this information, an annual inflation factor of 3.2% was u5ed for etfm ati inflation cost impanin since m in 2023 ad beyond this QPC this I , f oreca st -15 consistent with the average over the past 32 years. I nflat-lon 15 d if ficu It to -acco ra.ely project into the future and historical trends are not necessarily -indicative of future inflation rates. Month -to - month or year-to-year changes -in inflation rates could be significantly more or less than the percentages assumed for this OPC. 6 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Mbge ofTequesta Undergirm. mding Progimm Or&r ofMagaitu& Cbncepbml Opinion of Probable Cbst Tequesta Base Program $78.3M $0 to $19.6M $11.5M to 514AM $.89.81M to S112.31M fiA&tiw,*e=te Items* Bermuda Terrace $43M $1.2M $5.9M Coral Cove Park $0.9m $0.31M $1.2M Dover Road / Garden Street $1.1m $0.3M $1.4M Moo Vista Drive $1.4M $0.4M $1-sm Riverside Drive bLytween Riverside Oa ks a nd Te4uesta Pi n es US-1 Corridor $6�om $1.5m $7,5M Grand Total $19.7M *Inflation impacts not included because tirrielline of work is not yet defined The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials,. equipment, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herel n are based an the informati on known to Engineer at the is t ime and represent only the En g ineer's Judgment as a design professional fa mi I I a r with the construction inn ustry. The En nee r can not and does not guarantee that proposals, bi-cls, or actu-Lil cDnstructpon costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. 7 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Opinion of tbbable Gbst Assumptions and limitations Genemi ■ The Ord er of Magnitude Opinion of Probable Cost �OPC) developedfor this feasibility assessment is based on a high-level cost analysis for large-scale planning and budgetary purposes based only on the information available at the time this feasibility assessment was conducted. The OPC contained in this feasibility assessment should not be considered applicable to a spec-ific smaller scal-e project area si nce I are variat ions i n cost may exist o n a sm a I I er.sca le. Over the life of the project, considerable effort is expected to be required from Village staff, including the Village Manager's office and the Department of Public Works. It is recommended the Village consider hiring a project ccordinator to assist the Village with the manag-ement and coordination of the project, plus act as a resident liaison. Costs associated with the project coordinator position, V1111age staff time., and use of Village - facilities and resources have not been included in this OPC. Costs rel ate d to obtain inn financi ng for th e pro rn are not included in t hi s OFIC. W e reccm mend the illa V I .fie establish a budget for Tina nciI al consultants, closing costs, and other related costs of obtaining project financing/funding. This OPC considers the undergrounding of electrical, cable, and telephone facilities only. Cellular facilities, new broadband network installations, planned infrastructure improvements, and/or other improvements are not considered in this OPC. The unit costs provided assume all cable, eler-trical, and telephone conduit will be installed in a joint trench or bore (with required separation) by a contractor who is d-I rectly contracted by the VI-11 age, 0 Detailed network designs for proposed electrical, cable, or telephone infrastructure have not been performed and therefore were not -aval-1 able at the time of this feasibi'lity assessment. This OPC is based an assumpt*n s a nd genera[izations re rd ifs g elements that -a typica I undergrou nd utility convers ion project within the. Vi I Inge of Te,q costa c.0 n reason ably be assumed to include. it is assumed the Village will enter into a right-of-way agreement with applicable utility providers for the i nstal I ation of new undergrou nd cabling a nd equ i pment within the right -of -way. It 1.5 assurned the Village will acqui re private easem eats to ire ple meat the program when cuff dent right-of-way is not avai lable to conta in the new u ndergrolund eq uipment. It is assumed easem enrtS will be donated by proper ty owners when required, a5 ha5 been the case on other man id,pal under grounding projects, Co,�ts related to any eminent domain processes, or compensation for easement spa ce, a re not ions idered i n the OPC. Easement acquisition assistance is estimated based on the level of support required for other similar projects with voluntary easement processes. Costs related to the abandoning of existing rear yard easements has not been considered or included in the OPC. This OPCassumes the Village will engage a contractor to install al I equip rye rat and materia Is except thos-e items and operations required to be performed by the utility providers_ We recommend th-e Village perform as much of the construction as possible, This provides the Village with more control over project costs and schedule. It has been our experience that costs are lower., the schedule is minimized, and the work is generally more efficiently coordinated when the municipality performs the majority of the work versus when work is performed independently by the various utility pro id ers. Even u ride r the scenario w here the municipal ity e leas that the uti I Ity 8 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT providers perform the work, there are still itc.m:s that need to be performed by the municipality, such a5 easement acquisition, -site restoratioll.. and rearrangement of custorner service entrances frown, overhead to underground. Work elements and operations re clulired to be performed by the uti I ity provider include, but are not limited to, underground system mak-e-ready poles and system energization assistance, cable television cable and equipment installation, telephone cable and equipment installation., and overhead infrastructure removal. Costs related to these utility provider activities have been included in this OPC. This OPC assumes a phased construction approach- Each phase of construct -Ion is expected to have an approximate duration of 24 to 30-months. Construction will occur continuously th roughout the phase,, assu rning year-round construct -Ion for the undergrou n ding progra m as the Vi I lage does not have -seasonal construction restrictions_ Roadwaysdisturbed by the u nderground i ng wi 11 require trench repair. M illi ng and re rfaci ng of the disturbed Pavement has been -I ncluded as a separate lino item in the 0PC_ Road way repal-ra are anticipated to be milled and resurfaced in accordance with iFDOT standards for trench repairs. Restoration of private property after service conversion and overhead infrastructure dernolition is included. Landscape screening of the equipment that shields thc! equipment from view from the street has been included in the OPC. Private property owners can screen the backs ide of the eq u ipment at their cost should they choose to do so. Provisions for the replacement of existing streetlights that are attached to utility pole-s to be removed have been -Included in this 0PC_ The QPC assumes that the Vill-age will enter into an a.greement with F PL to provide stanch rd I ighting to repel ace the existi ng lights. FP L does not assess capital costs for the sta ndard Fghti nti g instal la do but does Cha rge a Cost in Al d of Construction app (CIAC) for the associated conduit installation. Existing decorative street lighting that is already served with u ndergrou nd infra st ructure is assumed to rema I n I n service after completion of an underground'ing program. Costs re atoll to any municipal-ownO f 1 be optic 1 nf rastructure imp rove m E3- rats are not considered in this 0PC_ 0 Continge racy has bee n estimated at a rate of 25% which in our professional opinion is a ppropriate for this level of conceptual planning. 0 All construction projects carry 1-nherent risks for construction claims, litigation, or other such legal action against the Village for personal or property damages, This OPC does not include costs associated with contractor termination, re-mobillization, construction clairns, litigation, or other such legal action. a It can be expected that cost variations may occur throughout the life of the program based on ma rket conditionsl labor and rnateria I price fluctuatio ns, a nd other factors.. Ki m ley- H orn has no 9 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or ever the contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or market conditions. The OPC provided herein is based on the inf ormation known to Kim ley -Horn at this time a nd represents only Ili rnley-Horn"s udgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. Kirnley-Horn cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its 0PC_ The OPC includes a budget line item for public outreach/information activities. In consultation with Vi I lage staff, it is undle rstood that the majority of comrnun ications will be h andled interna Illy by Village staff to control costs. However, a budget has been assumed for costs associated with graphics preparation maillers event costs etc, that would be considered expenses beyond internal staff labor - Ming CmftiondCbnkr=h'on B&tho& It is assumed that new utility infrastructure related to the conversion process will be installed in public rights-of-waV and easements. It Is further assumed this infrastructure will be installed in a manner that minimizes relocation of existing utilities in these same locations. These potential impacts cannot be accurately qua ntifiedl at this time and are therefore not specifically listed in th Is QPCr The contingency line item is assumed to capture costs related to this work element. Conduit for electric and cable/telephone infrastructure 1-s typically installed using a combination of open -cut trenching and directional boring. Work on similar project-s has shown that directional bore is the preferred method of intol1all-on for la rge-scale progra ms. This OPC assu mes that most of the necessary condo it wi'll be 1 nstal led usi ng d i rectional bore. 1 n many locati ens through out the Vi I lager electric a I a rid cornm u n ications services origi rate from a rear property easement. To be compliant with current utility provider standards, these services will be converted to a front street location under this program. AI[owance5 for reps i.r/replacernent of service entrances on private p , roperty nme riot eting existing building codes should be -included in the program to mal-ntain the program schedule, These types of costs, whiJe expected to be a rare occu rrence.r are expected to be relm bu rsed to the program by the private property owner and therefore have not been included inn this 0PC_ If the Village decides. to fund these replacements internally, these work elements can be asp timed to be contai reed i n the contingency I i ne item. E6ctfical Cb=tmkations Ufty *kems Underground electrical and communication5 facilltie5 to be constructed under this program, are anticipated to be significantly different from their overhead counterparts based on the nature of underground system design and layout- However,, costs related to "betterment" or system. L L upgrace s are as umeu to oe The responsioilit y or The 01111-ty provide rs- This OPC Con S [ders costs related to a "'life -for- I Ike" conversion program - Electrical system costs may ultimately include a mix of standard switch cabinets and Vista switch cabinets, should the Village desire to incorporate Vista cabinets into the system. Use of VistL-: 0 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT switches would provide improved resiliency and storm surge protection si nCC! the Vista cabinets are, waterproof. This OPC ccn:side rs use of a mix of standard and vista switch cabinets. Ha rdened feeder ci rcuits were reviewed I n the field and qua ntif led sepa rattily 1 n order to develop representative costs for ha rdened vs- u nhardened aerila I I nf rastructu re Conve r.5-lon. The harde nod poles 1 n the V-1 llage a re relatively new a nd FPL wi I I req ul-re the Vi I lage pay fo r the depreciated value of the new hardened infrastructure. This results in a significantly -increased cost to convert recently hardened infrastructure to an underground location. "Like -for -Like" fi ber/coaxial systerns vve re considered i n this OPC for the u ndergroundi rig of ca ble TV faci I ities. "Like -for -Li Ise" cop per systems we re considered in this OPC for the Undergrou riding of telephone facilities, in past discussions with, AT&T on similar projects, there are typically legacy customers who have equi p merit that rely on copper system technology to operate. In order to u pg rade the 5ystern to f 1 bor., the upgraded 5ystem would need to be "overla id" on top of a new copper network in order to maintain this service. ThI5 essentially require5 two 5ystems to be installed si multa neously which drives up the project cost for th i s type of u pgrade. Si rice we a re assum ireg a "like -for -like" conversion program, the costs for installation of an overlay network are not included in this OPC. W This OPC only considers the minimum number and sin of conduits required to implement the overhead to underground utility conversion. The installation of spare conduits has not been included' in this C)PC. 1 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT The opinion of cost was prepared based on the u nderstood goals and objectives of the program, Including cony c--lrsion of most overhead utill ities to an underground location within the Village municipal limits. As a benefit to the Village, thi's assessment effort explored several cost reduction opportunities that could be considered by the Village. However., these opportunities may require securing third -party funding, coordinating projects with other pro gram5/agencie5, and/or revising the goals and objectives of the pro gra rn. Funding Options The Village may be able to offset some of the prograrn costs through various grant pro gram 5- The pro grarns that are most 7 applicable and able to fund significant portions of an FEMA underground in program are the Federa I Emergency Management Agency Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRI ) program and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HIVIGPI). The stated goal of the programs Is to support hazard mitigation projects in local communities to reduce the risks faced from disasters and natural haza rds. A local match of 25% is requi red, tau t the progra ms have up to a ma xi m u m a rd of $50 rni Ilion for construction projects in the case of the BRIO program. These grants can be applied for on a phase -by - phase basis 10 maximize the benefits, and to a[low the construction to be completed within the specified grant time period, so long as the federal government still offers the funding program. It should be noted that these grants a re extremely com petitive as appl ications are subm fitted from across the country. If the Vi I Inge were awarded grants this woo Id u ItimateIV result I n a lower net cost rea I ized by the Village for the under rounding program. A sumirazirV of all of the funding opportunities identified during this feasibility assessment, including grants, loans,. and appropriations, are identified in the tol I owing table. 2 of 556 Ap IF CL 4-P 75 U) m 0 R I W L 'o 0 rip 3 0 0 u 10 c w c 0 m 0 DO a a 2 - 2 .0 m -6� 43) M -- W (D LL Zft x 0 m LU 4- 4-0 LU > -C 0 -�A > u 0 C) LL N 0 0 m CL w o Z 6- CL 12L M a) _0 -J= co :3 a) m 4-0 Q > w I I- 0 0 L) > u 5 CL N a) CA (D LrIJ 6- f)) m 0 — 6. CL 4-0 > c Lo CL 0 C3 C4 r 0 LI-0 I,-- o LL CO c- m , < 0 E 4-0 m Li -L' Q z 6- Q) a) N -0 IM QD > (D d) !I LL F3L- 4c CL m LL LU (n OL -x a. CL Eu 0 z m LL w 60 co ci� clil) LU cn N L LLJ > LL >1 C t C F -5 3� 4D -u 0 co IMP 170 W LL LO CD CD >1 >1 C 4-k w 0) .0 C) 21 < u0 1< — r- F: LL E a) LU E LU > 6- U-1 UA F 0 E LL — -- I U 2 < Fz rz wLJ LU LU W LL Q) U- E C 4-0 cz EE ow E m 0 (D z Ch z Z) 0 C3 C4 CC or- z .j 1� a- CL Z 4-A $U tv 6- = E N 0 4-0 m • 0 -C LL -I'd N M m Lu a N m 0 co 4-0 II —] M D > 0 ,� �, cn� C ru 0 J 0 CL CD� E > 0 -0 m La E LL > c M m C: (D4-0 C) (D L) -,t 44 > 3-. 460 E -FZ > Q) (N V) _r_ CL 0 0 UO IL) -W 0 M CD 4-1 > 0 > z m 0 0 r m ■ C Z, Lp 0 rE! E E 0 m In 0 CL > I> (D o 4-1 4w L) F000, 0 w d- m 0 C: -1�- Li-0 ap CL a c m 2 0 7co z (D C� CD 0 U (D 0 0 1-- 0 0 0 L CL n. 0 -6-0 =1 "Lj 00 CL —CD —0 On m CL -j a. LL tiir U) 4-0 4-d 0 CL E LO II ■ 3 cr 0 CL 0 4-A > z a) C) 0 LD Q C 21 < 0 (D c E M LU 0 > rF LL C) LU > LL 0 0- (D cU LL CL IZ uj U- 0 U-U- 4-4 • CD = Cu 0 0 E > E 0 U-M, Ma 4 M E 0 z z cl z 0 0 CL CCL CC 0 LU z z F3 Z) z m LL j w LU Z5 4�1 4-d 4L L) a (D (D 0 14- CL .2 0 (D L) >1 E >--a F= E -2 E 0 CL m > LU C) < C) En 4- C) L+- 0 m 0 >M� C) Co L) 4- 0 C) Z -C Em0--o CL 0 r- 4 L) a L) 6- Q) o N Q) r L) FJ :3 m o L) 62 3-. -0 (D —CL (D U) !:1 > L) C) 0 0 CL m -U -0 LU m (D 0 LU 0-0 co C\l W.0 (Y) C C\1 4h 0 3- to CD LL C%l OL- "gr C16_j (D C CL (N C) CD C) C) Ln >% c Ce) 4-A 0 (D 166-- > (D E C) < ZZ E UIJ CD - -.:- w k.L cv 0 0 0 U.) w 0 Ln C) > 0 W 73 10 6L > L) ID > in J.- I > V) a cp c (D A > 0 U) C, F- L) Y) -4n ul M ru r- C: C 0 0 4 a- cu 0 0 r3 L- 6. 0 0 0 (D CD >" 0 0 cu CL m C;) o 0 -0 OD 0 r m 0 0 ra M C-. r C CL m < 0 OL CL 2 LL 00 00 E Cl UZ) L.L a- n 0 CN 0 V) 0 a CN a) CD Z L) CD Ln LO CD E 6- w ui boo." U) (D z Ch z D 0 C3 C4 CC z .j 5)420- E a3 K 0 6- o C 0 0 lb.0 o u m w q- M C3 0 -0 U c T V o E M DL ID L- m -a CL E 0 Q 5 0 a Q) ra 0 0 u C 0 Li 0 06 I- crj a b-. a CL Uj db.0 2 Mi E r- (v D (D CL.2 Q < 6- o m 0) m v C -0 4-A Z 0 ICL u 0 cel LID — CM r 16— LLI LU a) i 16- a3 CD W m U M 0 -j"o CD LLJ -6- QD ID Cv E co M 0) Q (P 0 05 86 0 M M CD E J6-0 q) o E -Vo 73 U LL 0 LO m 4-1 (D Q j-.O tn 8 ID C: -0 L) 0 v w ZZ — Z F- >1 6. r Ch U) AD T CD M Ln 56- m Li aj ll� 7, CL a) .2 61 to C) LU E li E u3 U3 < -0 C: >' 73 ta L U) o- (5 EL ra al in a- m L�r z LL cL N b.0 CL Z3 03 LL 0 OL -Lt Z 16_ T—C) • C) Ln (D cu 0 Lo 2 E w -P,- C%j ti E2 LLJ C) m E (z C13 m > vu TN.. < 0 ., LL (L CL cc a) UL c 0 z .j %W Er C) >6- 4- 4-0 LU W uj L co (D a) M 00 < 4-M co = >1 -0 W L.L CL .0 a) =1 U) (D 0 2 a) W 0-.-.I a) J (.)G(A, 35 E -Co 4-0m a) -.6-0C Z; m uu (n U) V) c Q CL C 0 (D 1-ffl IV ■LL z 0 _0 -*-d ci >% z r- co > uj 0 C) 0 on ?; c < o CL w 0 w >% t :3 a) F CD D C) uo L < a) 0 UU c 0 < < <t aD a) z X :3 . UL �-- L CL (Yi C: ej LO LU Z LU z z ILL. ILL" C) C) z z 0 4-A ry, 4-1 c 0 LL C CL ;p cr im (L 0 Ix >i qm 4-1 cr CL 0 < I= E AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Pavement MUmg and Ik�surfecmg Cost Sharing IL is kriowri that additional capital improvements are pi-cipo%Pd th ro lL gh on.it the, Village over the expected dUrat-on of th-P imdergroundire g program Including roaclvjiy, storm).kc-riter, sidewalk, water, and sewer projects. These p roje cts are anticipated to incorporate milling and resurfacing of their work area. For areas where these projects and the 1-irider groundirig program, will be In the same Iuc�j-.Iuri, the cost of the required milling and resurfacing could be shared between the various emitles performing the improvements. 1-his program also offers the opportunity for the Vill;ipotnt-ik .-.iciv;intA:gpnfVnlHrep nriringfor rnilling d r-PUJ-fac-rig assocliAed with large-scale paving programs- Postponing milling and resurfacing until r-rl LA I tople pha. es of under grourid ing, and potentially other capital improvements, have been completed wou Id a Ile WL the Village to bid and a rd pavi ng for a la rger area tha n if it were performed after each phase of the undergroundi ng progra m. Trenches and bore pits would be repa i red af te r condo it 'I nsta I lation with 'th milliIng and resurfaci ing I to occur later under a separate contract adm i niI stered by the Vil Ingo. &ems des The opinion of cost could be reduced if the amount of overhead utilities to be converted to an I underground location was reduced. This could be accomplished in a variety of ways. • Lateral infrastructure could be converted underground with the hardened feeder 1 nf rastructu re largely rem aining i n its curr-ent aerial I oca do n • Certain areas of the Village -could be excluded from the undergroan dirig ,program. For example, the reside ntia I come mum ities could be converted with Correrci al a roar rema i ning aerial. • FPL could continue wfilth their Storm Secure Program and convert variou5 laterals underground over -a long period t-I rine. U nder th is opt -Ion, the Vi I I -age wool Id not have any control over whore and when FPL would perform their improvements, or if all the laterals would ever be completely converted underground. The Village could coordinate with this program �nd convert the colon mu n ications infrastructure which woo Id otherwise be left i n an aeria I configuration. FPL has previously conducted a conversion in the Tecicosta Country Club community under the Storm S-ecure Program and the communications Infrastructure remains aerial on poles that have been topped by FPL (see ph cto on following page)- • Various combinations of the above concepts 8 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Whi le the a bcve concepts could sign if icantIV reduce program costs, they do not accomplish the original vision of the Village to convert all overhead utilitie.S to an underground location. There are also other ramifications that need to be considered when reducing the scope of the program - The reliability, safety, and aesthetic benefits of a pa rtial ly converted system would be less than the benefits of a totally converted system. This may also complicate the assessment methodology that will be used to determine the financial impact to the individual property owners in the Village. Should the Village of Tequesta ded-de to continue pur5uing a municipal overhead to underground conversion program., our recommendation would be to prepare -a master plan for the pro grarn. The master pl-an would build upon the data collection and findings in this feasibility -assessment as well as provide additional information and implementation recommendations such as. Further coordination with overhead utility providers to develop/refine recommended phasing and sequencing for the program 0 Devel opment of a proposed pha5i rig and sequencing plan that defines geographic lbounda ries for each phase of the program and the order in which they Should be constructed 0 Development of a program schedule that outil-nes the start, finish, and durations of the various phases of the program 0 Identifies other infrastructure programs, how their timelines. coincide with the undlergrounding program, and refines program apInsons. of cost to account for potential cost sharing between programs of Improvement W Develops guidelines and a plan for the mitigation of traffic impacts during construction Develop a more detailed opinion of probable Cost Provides a rilsk assessment for the program Devel ops recomm endations for project delivery a nd prccurem ent methods, and Provides recommendations regarding public outreach /informatloin for the program in order to educat-e and build consensus Once a master plan has been developed, funding and financing options can be discussed. Funding opt -ions can include special assessment, bonding, commercial loans, grants_, etc. Generally, municipalities first engage a municipal financial consultant to develop an assessment methodology. The methodology assigns value to the specific benefits that are received by each property in the rnunicipaJity from the prop osed undergrou nding progra m. Based on the Opinion of Probable Cost contained i n the master plan, 9 of 556 AgendaV`q�nL�iE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT an estimate of hcw much each property owner would be required to individually contribute to fund the pro m ca n then be estim ated based cry the meth odologV. These amounts ca n be expressed as a tota I a!M-01.Arat per property., or at, ainn ortized piyrnents over a specified payback period, It is recommended that a public information program be conducted to educate property owners about the benefits to be gained through an undergrounding program. Information should also be provided to property owners regarding how the how municipal conversion programs alre implemented and Brat they can expects as far as Impacts to thei r comm unit y and i ndivid ua I propert'es, This can be done through a series of public information sessions, website information, publishing past studies and reports, newsletters, social media campaigns, and the like. The specific contributions that are required from each property owner will also need to be a part of this information -al campaign. Other municipal'itifes have developed website tools that allow a property owner to type in their add ress and see the specific potential assessment related to their property. Public meetings and tools such -as those described above allow elected, officials and key decision -makers to gain an understanding of how supportive the community is rega rdi.ng the approval to move forward vvith the con -version program prior to ma ki rig dec isions. If the community is supportive and the ded-5.ion is made to move forward, decisions mu�t be made regarding f u nding. This may req ui re that the Vi Hap engage other -consultants, -such as bond counsel a nd municipal financial advisors, to provide guidance on municipal securities such as the issuance of bonds. Bond issuance may also require a ref erend u m of the comm unity so adva nce pla n ning Is a must. once any necessary referendums have been conducted and the results support the continuance of the program, funding can be secured, and the Villageseng'Ineering design consult8nt and utility owners can be engaged to begin the design and easement acquisition process. Once easements are acquired and design is completed, construct -ion can begin. This process will repeat on a phase -by -phase basis until program completion. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this brief feasibility assessment to the Village -of Tecluesta a A look forward to assisti ng you with progressing this pro m f urth-er as you may desi re. 0 of 556