Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Documentation_Workshop_Tab 03_9/5/2023
Agenda Item #3. Workshop STAFF MEMO Meeting: Workshop - Sep 05 2023 Staff Contact: Jeremy Allen, Village Manager Department: Manager Discussion on Undergrounding Master Plan At the October 13, 2022 Regular Council meeting the Village Council approved a Work Authorization with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to perform a Feasibility Assessment for undergrounding of utilities throughout the Village of Tequesta.. The Assessment that was presented and accepted by Council at the April 13, 2023 regular Village Council meeting was utilized to evaluate anticipated program elements and cost for undergrounding utilities. In February, 2023 the Village of Tequesta entered into a professional services agreement with Kimley- Horn to apply for Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Community Planning Technical Assistance Grant to fund the Undergrounding Master Plan. The Village budgeted with anticipation of receiving the grant and associated revenues. In August the Village was notified that we were not successful in being awarded the grant. Following the Feasibility Assessment the Master Planning, Assessment Methodology, Detailed Design, and Construction Documents are the outstanding task to consider by Council. The Master Planning project is estimated at $100,000. 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. BUDGET AMOUNT 100,000 AMOUNT AVAILABLE NA EXPENDITURE AMOUNT: 100,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Expected Revenue From IS THIS A PIGGYBACK: Investments ❑ Yes ❑x N/A DID YOU OBTAIN 3 QUOTES? ❑ Yes ❑x N/A Page 22 of 71 Agenda Item #3. COMMENTS/EXPLANATION ON SELECTIONNA Undergrounding Feasibility Assessment VOT Work Authorization Village -wide Undergrounding Master Planning Page 23 of 71 Agenda Item #3. Regular Council STAFF MEMO 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. 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. BUDGET INFORMATION: 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 24 of 71 Agenda Item #3. Staff recommends approval of the Village -Wide Undergrounding Feasibility Assessment. TeguestaFeasibilityAssessment-040423 Final Page 25 of 71 ir r THE VILLAGE OF UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT m moo ..-40im 90 Opk Kimley>))Horn E—r.c.:Marm E—mrie.red-lmr AgendaTLGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Introduction Data Collection Design Criteria Program Phasing and Duration Easement Needs Order of Magnitude Opinion of Probable Casa Program Funding and Cast Reduction Opportunities Next Steps AgendaTLGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Over the past two decades rnuItip le hurricaneshaue impacted South Florida causing widespread electrical and communications disruptions. In 2006, the Florida Public Service Commission voted to amend the Florida Administrative Code to require investor -owned utilities to file comprehensive storm hardening plans. These plans included storm preparedness initiatives such as storm hardening. Storm hardening is the upgrading of facilities, and maintenance practices, so they are better able to withstand extreme weather, Florida Power & Light (FPL), the electrical service provider for the Village of Tequesta, has implemented storm hardening measures in many municipalities as storm preparedness initiatives were rolled out through their service area, based on the substantial costs and impacts to the electrical grid caused by past hurricanes, FPL 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 within the Village. However, the Village Council has expressed interest in burying overhead power lines as a recommended infrastructure project and has approved this Feasibility Assessment to gain more information about such a project so further discussion and decisions can be made regarding the program. The conversion of overhead utilities to an underground location'r 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! Based on a report entitled Outof Sight, Outof Mind, An tlpdutedStudy ors the Undergroundrng of Overhead AowerLines by the Edison Electric institute (2012), an underground utility system is generally more reliable than an overhead utility system because it is less susceptible to impacts from weather events, exposure to wildlife, and contact with vegetation. The design of underground utility systems also creates reliability benefits. For example, a typical neighborhood street in Tequesta is served by an overhead radial line connected to a feeder circuit that usually dead ends without connecting to another feeder circuit, With this type of design, if there is a fault on the radial line all customers connected to the line will be out of service until a repair can be made. In an underground system, the line servingthe street will be looped between two feeder connection points with an open point in the middle, generally at a transformer. If a fault occurs, it will only affect a portion of the looped system. Utility crews responding to the problem can isolate the problem area, restoring, service to as much of the loop as possible while keeping the problem area de -energized. AgendaT-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Safety., An underground utility system is generally safer than an overhead utility system because the electric and communication cables and equipment are less accessible to accidental contact by the public. For example, during windstorm events, overhead facilities may be blown down creating impacts to property and exposing the public to a potential risk of electric shock. Additionally, routine maintenance trimming of Landscaping may cause accidental contact with overhead lines resulting In risk of electric shock. Aesthetics: Tequesta maintains a high standard of visual aesthetics throughout the Tillage. The Tillage Council endeavors to protect this visual image through the review process for new construction and renovation projects. Undergrounding provides 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 utilities. In 2022, the Village Council took the first step in '4 the undergreunding process and authorized Kimley-Horn to prepare this Feasibility Assessment to guide the Tillage Council in decision -making around a potential municipal-wilde undergrounding program. This Feasibility Assessment will provide guidance on priorities such as cast, 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 collected from utility owners and reviewed. Planned capital projects throughout the Village were also discussed. Each of these elements affects how the program could be executed. The results of the data collection process are presented in the following sections. Zam4 and Imd Use The Village consists of residential, commercial, light industrial, public, and conservation land uses. A zoning map is presented on the folio wing page. It is important to understand the relationship that the zoning districts have with the execution of the program. The needs and priorities of the residential community are different than those found in the commercial community. It is important the design considers these differences so specific requirements are clearly communicated to the construction team, An example would be the daily timing of impacts to private property. In general, the residential property owner will likely desire impacts to their property (such as the brief service disruption that occurs when swapping the electric and communication services from overhead to underground) be timed during the middle of the day when they are otherwise away. Conversely, the commercial property owner will likely desire that service disruptions occur after hours to avoid business impacts. No Text AgendaT-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Ewtmg Overhead Infrastructure and Pimmed C al Projects It is important to understand the existing overhead infrastructure that will be ultimately be converted underground and any existing underground infrastructure that will need to be avoided during the irnplementation of the program. It is also important to identify other significant capital projects planned forthe Village that will occur during the undergrounding program so that work can be coordinated to the extent practical. Kimley-Horn coordinated with the stakeholders listed below to obtain readily available information regarding the existing overhead infrastructure within or near Village limits, as well as information on any planned capital improvements. Descriptions of the data collected from each entity and how it impacts the undergrounding program fallow. Wage of'kqueska The Village does not have any overhead facilities but did provide atlas -level data of the water and storm sewer system for review, Information regarding capital improvements was also provided and indicates that road, sidewalk, and water system improvements are planned over the next 5 years. r If the Village were to implement an undergrounding program, there is an opportunity to construct the Village's planned capital projects in coordination with the undergrounding program. This will allow efficiencies to be realized in constructing the capital) projects at the same time as undergrounding. Some of the benefits of performing projects concurrently include: ■ Increased schedule coordination ■ Reduction of long-term traffic impacts ■ Costing savings resulting from shared restoration coasts This may require that the capital project timing be replanned in order to correlate with the undergrounding activities, however. The same concept may apply to the Loxahatehee Fiver Environmental Control District and any planned capital programs to replace sanitary sewer infrastructure in the Village. Fbrxim Pbwer & h& FPL provided atlas -level data of the electrical system in the Village. Such maps are not included in this assessment report to protect the confidentiality/ security of the Information. Instead, an existing overhead utility lines map was generated that shows the aggregate location of all overhead electric and communication lines FF'L within the Village limits. This map can be found at the endof this section. AgendaT-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Most of the Village is provided electrical and communication service through a network of overhead wires mounted on wooden or concrete poles. While there are some areas of the Village already underground, there are approximately 22 pole -miles of overhead infrastructure in the Village. A pole -mile is defined as the linear distance in miles along a set of utility poles, regardless of how many wires, cables, or pieces of equipment are attached to those poles. This estimate is rased pri marily on: • Information conveyed by the utility providers • Maps that were obtained from the utility providers • Field observations of the existing facilities The majority of the poles observed support both electrical and communications infrastructure. However, there are a smaller number of poles that support only electric, or only communications, infrastructure. 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 of the Village distribution grid comprised of feeder lines, primary lines, secondary lines, and individual customer services. The grid is comprised of multiple service areas based on 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 hour electricity is delivered to individual homes and businesses, below is a brief overview of the functions of the various components of the existing electrical system within the Village: • Electrical power generated at FP:L's power plants travels through transmission lines to the substations that bracket the municipality • Feeder lines carry power distributed by the substations to the various service areas across the Village • Primary lines branch off the feeder lines to provide power to overhead transformers that reduce the voltage to a level that is required by the customer • Secondary/service lines carry lower - voltage power from 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 Tequesta Country Club along Fairview West, Fairview East, Yacht Club Place and Palmetto Way. Communications facilities in these 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 AgendaT-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT the Village have been hardened with new, taIlerand stronger concrete poles. The following corridors were noted to have hardened infrastructure: • Tequesta Drive (between Country Club Drive and Norfolk Avenue) + Riverside Drive • Pole line along the southern municipal boundary (between Riverside Drive and L151) • Seabrook Road • County Line Road • Us1 • N Old Dixie Highway (between Bridge Road and County Line Road) • Beach Road At the time of this report, hardening of the aerial infrastructure was underway along the US1 corridor in Tequesta. 14111111111W., AT&T T&TAT&T provided atlas -level data of the telephone/data system within the Village. Maps of AT&T's system are not included to protect the ' confidentiality of the information, but the existing overhead utility lines map includes such facilities. To better understand howtelephone service is delivered to individual homes .and businesses, here is a brief overview of the functions of the various components of the existing communications system within the Village: • Communications service enters the Village through backbone lines that branch off to serve a network of service area interface cabinets .and controlled environmental vaults • Trunk lines provide service to distinct service areas • Radial lines branch off the trunk lines to provide service to overhead terminals and ground - mounted pedestals • Service drops connect the terminals to the communication service paint on the home or business 041 ? Cast Comcast provided atlas -level data of the television/data system COAACAS T within the Village. Maps of Comcust's system are not included to I protect the confidentiality of the information, but the existing overhead utility lines map includes such facilities. To better understand howtelevision service is delivered to individual homes and businesses, here is a brief overview of the functions of the various components of the existing communications system within the Village: + 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 drops connect the taps to the communication service point on the home or business Agenda`12-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Other Fberl[brnmunicutions Utifity Providers Palm leach County Traffic Signal Multiple Traffic Signals No, Localized Traffic Operations Control Yes and Crosswalk Signals infrastructure at throughout the Village signal areas Martin County Traffic Traffic Count Yes Country Club Drive at No, Buried Operations Information Martin County Line Resurgence Fiber Optic Infrastructure Group Communications Yes Railroad Right of Way No, Buried (RIG) CenturyLink 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 infrastructure T-Mobile / Sprint Fiber OpticYes Communications Railroad Right of Way No, Buried Yes, Aerial Old Dixie Highway and Facilities are Verixon Fiber is Yes the US1 in the southern shown. Buried Communications ca portion of the Village Facilities are not shown, Additionally, the Village of Tecluesta is served by its own Utility Department for potable water service, the Loxahatchee Environmental Control District for sanitary sewer service, and Florida Public Utilities and TECO for natural gas service. These utilities provided Kimley-Horn with Atlas level information abouttheir underground network of infrastructure. However, these facilities are not shown on our GIs maps contained in this report. In general, these facilities will be .avoided to the greatest extent practical in considering an overhead to underground conversion program, ?� :: .. .: 1 AgendaTLGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Through correspondence and meetings with the Village, and past experience with FPL, AT&T, Comcast, and other stakeholders on similar projects, Kimley-Morn has assembled general guidelines for design criteria that was used to develop our order of magnitude cast opinlon for an undergrounding program in the Village. These guidelines are not intended to be all inclusive, orthe only criteria to be followed during 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 conduit and equipment and do not govern the detailed electrical or communications network designs that will 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 program. A summary of the criteria follows below, General The following codes and standards, as applicable, shall govern the design MANUAL OF UNIFORM MINIMUM STANDARM of the improvements: FOR DE91GN,CONSTRUCTION A140 MAINTENANCE FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS * Village of Tequesta Cade of ordinances gGommonly known as the "Flrrida Greembaok") * Florida Department of Transportation Florida Greenbook * Palm Beach County Design Standards Manual * Florida Department of Transportation design Manual �_ * Florida Department of Transportation Standard Plans for Road Construction Stale of Florida * Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Department ofTranspolatlon Road and Bridge Construction • Village of Tequesta Water Utilities Standards and Specifications • Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District Standards and Specifications • Florida Building Code • National Electrical Code • National Electrical Safety{ Code * FPL installation details Wage ofTequesta The Village is responsible for the operation and maintenance of various types of infrastructure within the municipality. The design criteria presented on the following pages was assumed to govern improvements specifically related to the underground ng program. Any impacts or improvements to other infrastructure are assumed to be governed by the design criteria established for those individual improvements by the Village of Tequesta. AgendaTLGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Equipmemt Plaoment • Equipment shall be placed to meet the lateral offset requirements contained in the FOOT Florida Greenbook or Design Manual, as applicable depending on right-of-way ownership Equipment placement shall meet the sight distance requirements contained in the FDOT Florida Greenbcok or Design Manual, as applicable depending on right-of-way ownership • The above criteria are also applicable to any landscaping planted around the equipment ResUmflim • Storm sewer, pavement, curb, ,and sidewalk restoration shall meet -the requirements ofthe Village ofTiequesta, FDOT Florida Greenbook, the FDOT Design Standards Manual, orthe Standard Plans for Road Construction and the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, as applicable depending on right-of-way ownership • Water and sanitary sewer restoration shall meet the requirements of the Standards and Specifications of the Village of Tequesta or Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District, as applicable depending on utility ownership Landscaping impacted by improvements shall be restored to a condition equal to or better than what existed prior to commencement of the work Feet 101 ing The undergrounding project will impact a significant number of streetlights within the Village. The impacted streetlights consist of those currently mounted to utility poles. When these pales are removed, the .streetlights will be taken down with them; therefore, these impacted streetlights will need to be replaced. Some areas of the Village have no existing streetlights or the spacing of the impacted lights is not regular. This means that the lighting levels within a particular area are either non-existent, may he less than a desired illumination level, or may not he uniform. At this time, the Village has requested that only existing streetlights be considered 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 with Village staff to determine if there is a desire to install any additional street lighting concurrently with the undergrounding 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 Existing utility Pole with attached Streetfight AgendaT-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT lighting. For the standard lighting options, there is minima cost for the installation; therefore, the Village would be required to enter into an FPL Lighting Agreement requiring the Village to pay a monthly maintenance fee and electrical service charge to FPL. A prernium lighting package is also available from FPL with more decorative lights, but these add an initial capital cost and increase the monthly maintenancefee. Florida Power &I#A The layout and design of overhead electric infrastructure is different in nature than underground electric infrastructure. The Village's current overhead system can be generally described as a series of main overhead feeder lines with radial distribution lines connected to the feeder lines with fused switches. The feeder lines are interconnected to provide redundancy, but generally the radial distribution lines are not interconnected. Conversely, an underground system will have interconnected feeder lines and distribution lines. This enhances reliability of the system as it provides multiple feed sources as apposed to a radial system that provides only one electric feed' source. in general, there is very little choice in the type of equipment that is installed when performing an underground conversion project. All the equipment and materials installed are provided by FPL, so they are consistent with their electrical distribution standards. This is done to maintain system consistency and cost efficiency in bath installation and maintenance. That being the case, there are two aspects of the design where the municipality can make a decision based on equipment preference. Two types of switch cabinets can be provided by FPL based on preference or circumstance: the standard 'T F switch cabinet or the "Vista" switch cabinet. The standard PME switch cabinet is the cabinet that is deployed most often in the FPLelectrical distribution systern. The alternative to a standard PM switch is a Vista switch cabinet, When compared to a standard PIVIE switch cabinet, the Vista switch cabinet has a slightly smaller footprint, is shorter, and only requires 8! of clearance in front of the cabinet and 3' behind the cabinet, rather than 8' in front of and 8' behind the cabinet like the standard switch. This offers some unique advantages when the equipment is required to be placed in tight spaces or when there is an aesthetic requirement that dictates the smaller cabinet. The Vista cabinet is also hermetically sealed to prevent water intrusion. A significant drawback of the Vista switch cabinet is that it costs approximately $60,000 more than a standard switch cabinet. Due to space constraints thatmayexist In the built environment, some Vista cabinets 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 Village is the consistent flooding of low-lying areas. When Standard Switch AgendaT-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT transformers are flooded, FPL cannot service them until the water recedes. FPL now offers the choice of the standard 6" height concrete transformer pad, two pads stacked W 12", 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 taller pads may be warranted in law -lying areas. This feasibility study assumes that the Village will elect theoption for the "Customer to Perform All the Work." This allows the Village fargreater control over costs, schedule and realization of construction efficiencies in bath cost and schedule during implementation of the program. In this manner, FPL will perform the electrical network design for the program, 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 program. FPL 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 Distribution System Standards, latest edition. All electrical design decisions will ultimately be made and/or approved by FPL. + In general, overhead electrical infrastructure located in rear easements will be relocated 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 tc the transformers and conduit via private drives, these overhead lines may be undergrounded within existing easements and the transformers may remain at the rear of the buildings. • Electrical equipment shall be located so it can be accessed easily by a line truck. • To the extent practical, standard switch cabinets are to be used. Vista style switch cabinets can be used as circumstances may require or as requested by the Village as previously noted. The base opinion of cost considers a mix of standard and vista switch cabinets. • At least one capacitor bank will be required within the service area of each feeder grid. The capacitor bank must be located within 1()(Y of a switch cabinet. • 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'x20, easements depending on the load. FPL prefers 24'x24' easements for switch cabinets and capacitor banks. Underground feeder splice boxes require a 7'x22' easement. Underground hand hole easements can vary between 5'x5' and 5'x20' depending on the size of the handhole and configuration of the undergrounding wiring. Actual easement dimensions andconfigurations may vary depending on the specific situation, field conditions, and types of equipment to be installed. Easements that have collocated communications equipment are larger than those sizes quoted above. Easements must be located adjacent to and accessible frorn the public right-of- way. • Transformers will be located :based on electrical loading requirements. For example, a home with a large electrical service may need a single dedicated transformer. Conversely, homes with smaller electrical services may be able to share a single transformer. Agenda`112-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT ■ Transformers should be located on one side of the street to the extent practical. Transformers should be the "low profile" style to the extent practical. In certain situations, such as three phase services and lame services requiring service greater than 75kVA,, a "regular" style transformer shall be used. + Concrete transformer pads shall be 6" in height unless higher pads are otherwise requested by the Village or required by circumstances as previously noted. * Electrical equipment requires 3' of clearance on the sides and rear of the equipment and S feet in the front of the equipment for access and maintenance. Standard switch cabinets and capacitors require 8' of clearance in the front and rear of the cabinet and 3' on the sides. * Existing hand holes connected to existing electrical services to buiidingslfacilities may be reused if they are located near the front street. Conductors may need to be replaced depending on the load and new service length. Existing hand holes located at the rear of the property generally will not be allowed to be reused if the service is being converted from the rear to the front of the lot. This is for safety, maintenance, and to prevent unauthorized connections. + New conduit will be installed between the transformer and the facility service entrance or existing hand hole, as applicable, to contain the service or secondary service cable. + Facility service entrances shall meet current National Electrical Code standards for connection to the new underground system. ■ 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 generally in the range of $1,000 to $7,500 depending on the size 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 provided by FPL and shall be owned and maintained by FPL at the conclusion 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 Tillage's Consulting Engineer developing: supplemental conduit plans to aid the Village's contractor in installing the conduit for the prograrn. AT&T Will require the following general guidelines be followed related to the design of the improvements. * Main underground trunk lines and equipment shall remain in service (including existing service area interfaces and controlled environmental vaults). AgendaT-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT ■ Distribution of service will be converted underground through connection to the trunk line at existing trunk line manhole locations. • AT&T prefers major equipment easements to be 10'x10' for their future fiber equipment need's.. + Equipment may be in the right-of-way if sufficient lateral offset requirements 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 FPi equipment, AT&T prrefers a TxS' easement. + Pedestals require i foot of clearance around all sides for access and maintenance. • Pull boxes will be required at regular! nterva Is to facilitate cable pulling and slack cable storage. AT&T prefers 24"x3£" and 30"x48" pull boxes. Pull boxes are to be located outside of the roadway surface. When required, pull boxes can be placed in the paved surface and, in this ease, will be required to be H-24 load rated. • Conduit and pull boxes are to be National Electrical Code compliant for communications service and conduit shall be gray in color. ■ Conduit 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 Village's contractor. - ilr A T& T I n fras tructure Comcast will perform the communications network design for the program with the Village's Consulting Engineer developing supplemental conduit plans to aid the Village's contractor in installing the conduit for the program. Comcast will require the following general guidelines be followed related to the design of the improvements. ■ Main underground fiber optic trunk lines and power supply equipment can be reused if practical. Reuse of power supplies shall be evaluated during the design phase since a power supply will be required to serve both the new network and the existing network during the cut -over phase. This may overload a power supply if it is not sufficient to serve bath networks simultaneously. One fiber node can accommodate a maximum of 256 connections. Fiber node service areasshould be designed with less than 256 connections to provide room for future growth. Each fiber node location is supported by three pieces of equipment that serve as the Fiber Distribution Hub (FDH). For a hybrid fiber/coaxial system, the LCP wcauld not be used. o Power supply cabinet Agenda `11212"AGE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT c 'virtual hub none housing (VHub) Local convergence point (LCP) + Comcast prefers that the power supply, VHub, and LCP be in a common 10'x1.0' easement. The equipment can also be in the public right-of-way if the required lateral offsets are met. The power supply can be separated from the VHub and LCP by a maximum of 800'. However, separating the equipment increases cost due to the additional conduit required to connect all three pieces of equipment. r The power supply cabinet requires a 120V, single-phase metered service from rPL. * Multiple VHubs and LCPs can be served by a single power supply located in 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 FPL equipment, Comcast prefers a 5'x5' easement. Pedestals require 1' of clearance around all sides for access and maintenance. • Cables containing greater than 96 fiber strands will require 24"x36" vaults. Cables containing less than 96 strands can be accommodated in 17 00" vaults. Higher fiber count cables will be found generally closer to node locations. Fiber 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 National Electrical Code compliant for communications service and conduit shall be orange in color. • Conduit is required for coaxial service cable to the home. A coaxial cable service pedestal can serve up to eight homes, but+Comcast prefers to design for approximately four homes_ Coaxial cable service lengths should be kept under 150' in length. • Equipment, vaults/pedestals, and cabling will be provided and installed by Comcast. Conduit shall be furnished and installed bythe Village's contractor. AgendaTLGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Other Ugly ProvWm Frith Bdsting Oveffie ad Riff astrud= The other utility providers having existing overhead infrastructure within the Village will be responsible for their communications network designs for the program. The supplemental conduit plans developed bytheVillage'sConsulting Engineertoaidthe Village'scontractor in insta'llingtheconduitforthe program will include these other providers. General guidelines related to the design of the improvements are assumed to be substantially similar to Comcast's fiber installation requirements for the purposes of this feasibility assessment. Develapmernt of a detailed phasing map along with the related sequencing of an undergroun ding program within the Village is beyond the scope of this feasibility assessment. This level of effort is generally included during the master planning phase of a program. However, in order to develop an order of magnitude cost opinion for the program, an approximate number of phases must be estimated so that a general time duration for the program can be developed. The time duration of the program is important so that the impacts of inflation throughout the program duration can be included in the cost opinion, As described previously in this feasibility assessment, there are approximately 22 pole line miles of aerial infrastructure in the Village of Tequesta. Based on our experience with similar programs, we expect that the Village would be divided into 5 or b phases. These phases could be further sub -divided into sub - phases that would allow work to be conducted in two areas simultaneously. Phases generally take 1 to 2 years to design followed by 18 to 30 months to construct. The schedules of each individual phase can overlap with each to a degree, but generally a new phase will not start any sooner than 1 year after the previous phase started. This holds true for both design 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 finalizing the network designs with the individual utility owners. The construction process is mostly impacted by a lengthy conduit installation process, the switching procedure to energize the new underground system which is control led by FPL, and the removal of the overhead system which is generally considered low prioritywork by the utility owners. Low priority work can cause a lag i n the schedule as the utility owners will redirect crews who perform the removal work to address outages elsewhere in the overall distribution system. The potential need for easements was evaluated during the development of this feasibility assessment. The need for easements is generally driven by the availability of public right of way throughout the Village 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 be placed outside of the code required roadside clear zones Sufficient roadside shoulder area within the right of way that allows equipment to be placed outside of the code required clear sight lines (applicable to equipment that is tallerthan 30" ) AgendaT-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT s Sufficient roadside shoulder area within the right of way that is free from underground utilities below 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 equipment, such as switches and capacitors. Towards the eastern side of the Village, the roadside shoulder space is narrower, and sidewalks tend to reduce available space even further making it technically infeasible to use the road shoulder for any equipment placement. This is also true in the commercial areas of the Villages. We anticipate a higher need for easements in these areas as result. Appro$oh The following elements were considered when developing the order of magnitude opinionof cast (GPC) for the program: Use of recent cast iinformation from similar projects; Recent bid prices for overhead utility underground conversion projects currently underway or already completed in similar, local, coastal communities were used for the development of unit prices for this planning -level OPC, Use of comprehensive construction costs: Final bid prices for similar projects in the area were used to develop unitcosts that were applied to the program. This allows for inclusion of many smaller scale costs that may otherwise be overlooked during the planning process. * Use of a consistent unit cost application methodology: Since it is not feasible to perform detailed design for the entire program at this time, bid prices from similar projects were used to create unit prices for two project area types, residential and commercial. These unit prices were then scaled based on the linear footage of overhead to underground conversion required in each type of area throughout the Village, Unit Cost 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 commercial areas in the Village were considered. With these unit costs established, Kimley-Horn then prepared quantity estimates for bath 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-family residential area where service lines would be converted from the near to the front street. These unit costs were also applied in areas where the overhead power lines are already in a front street location because the proposed conversion work would be substantially similar to a rear to front conversion, AgendaT-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT 2. Typical Commercial Area/Roadway Installation — Unit 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 is necessary to convert commercial areas from an existing overhead system, Commercial areas generally have a higher load demand which requires more equipment and larger service wires than are found in residential areas, Unit costs that were developed for these representative project areas include the following Design and Construction work elements • Construction general conditions (project management, mobilization, maintenance of traffic, bonds, survey, etc.) FPL, AT&T, and Comcast conduit, cable and equipment installation • Other Utility Owner conduit, cable and equipment installation + Miscellaneous Conversion Costs (modifications the built environment required for conversion, utility relocations, etc.) Pavement restoration • Site restoration including landscaping for equipment screening + Direct casts from FPL, AT&T, Comcast, and other utility owners for their labor, equipment, and materials related to both installation and demolition activities • Soft costs related to program management, engineering design, permitting, surveying, easement acquisition, and construction phase services • Soft costs related to public outreach/information/communications ! Soft costs related to development of an assessment methodology and legal services The unit casts for each type of project area were then applied on a Village -wide basis to the quantity of infrastructure in need of conversion that was identified during the data collection process. The unit prices are categorized into line items in our order of magnitude cost opinion. Quantity EAha3tin To develop quantities for the undergrounding program, the existing overhead infrastructure, roads, and other significant attributes were assessed. The follow%ng quantities were developed; ■ Existing overhead infrastructure to be converted underground + Roadway and private property areas anticipated to be impacted by conduit installation • General Requirements and Construction Management • Direct Costs Assessed by the Utility Owners • Easements anticipated to be required for the conversion Streetlights expected to be replaced as utility poles are removed • Engineering, Permitting and Survey Costs • Construction Phase Assistance * master Planning • Grant Administration Services 0 Public Outreach AgendaT-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT 9peci& Prom Ama lachisivns and Ewlusions The Village Council previously recognized that the unique shape of the Village's municipal boundaries may create situations where it would be advantageous for the 'pillage to convert overhead utilities to an underground location in areas of unincorporated Palm Beach County, Martin County, and/or Jupiter. For this reason, Kimley-Horn conducted an evaluation of these areas around the perimeter of the Village 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 within 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 feasibility assessment. Areasthat have been recommended for exclusion in the Village's program are excluded from the Lase opinion of cast that was developed for this feasibility assessment. However, a separate cost has been provided for most of these areas in the event the Village would rather these areas be included. Reovmam&d Areas ofi]ninvmpa mtod Patin Beach County/ Martin C bunty I Jupiter to Include The following areas are recommended to be included in the Village's program. We have included these areas in the base cost opinion for the program. • WingofRussell Streets, Karst of Seabrook Road — There are several homes at the east ends of these streets that are within the Village of Tequesta. We recommend this area be included in the program because the conversion will benefit Tequesta residents directly while also benefiting Palm Beach County residents on those same streets. Wingo streetlSauth Side of Robert Street, West of Seabrook Road— There are several homes at the west ends of these streets that are within the Village of Tequesta, We recommend this area be included in the program because the conversion will benefit Tequesta residents directly while also benefiting Palm Beach County residents on those same streets, Reoammended Areas ofinnoorpomted Palm %ach CbuntyI Martin Cbunty/ Jupiter to lliwbde The following areas are recommended to be excluded from the Village's program. We have developed individual cast opinions for these areas and provided as separate line items, unless otherwise noted below. * Bermuda Terrace — Bermuda Terrace is a significant residential community that is located in unincorporated Palm Beach County. The community is bounded on three sides by the Village and the east side by the North Fork of the Loxahatchee River. Both the electrical and communications infrastructure can be characterized as lateral feeds that serve only Bermuda Terrace. There are no major electrical feeders or communication trunklines passing through this community 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 pillage's cost. * Rio Vista Drive— Rio Vista Drive south of Bay Harbor Road is located in unincorporated Palm Beach County. The community is bounded on three sides by the laxahatchee River and the north :side by the VillHgL-- Both the electrical and communications infrastructure can be characterized as lateral feeds that serve only the homes within the area. There are no major electrical feeders or communication trunklines passing through this community 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 Lime Road — The aerial infrastructure along County line Read is located in Martin County at the northern boundary of the pillage. The poles hosting the electrical lines and equipment in AgendaT-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT this area have already been hardened offering the Village a greater degree of electrical reliability already. The communities 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 benefits would be far greater to residents in Martin and Palm Beach County than for Village residents. The lines along County Read are therefore recommended to remain aerial. A separate cost opinion was not prepared for the conversion of the lines along County Line Road. • Pole Line North of Dover Rood and West of Garden Street—'4i1fe are recommending that this particular pole line remain aerial. The homes on the north side of Dover Road will be refed from a new underground system in the overall undergrounding program, but the pole line that currently serves these homes also serves the community along Nicole Circle, which is located in unincorporated Palm Beach County. Additionally, this pale line does not host any major electrical feeders or communication trunklines that serve larger areas of the Tillage. The multi -family homes to the east along Carden Street are fed from this pale line but their services are already underground. We recommend this pole line be excluded from the program because the benefits would be far greater to residents in Palm Beach County than for Village residents. This pale line is therefore recommended to remain aerial. l c=nmen&d .'leas ofthe Villilap of Tequesta to HwUft The following areas are recommended to be excluded from the Village's program, despite being located within the municipal limits of Tequesta; r Coral Cave Park — This area of Tequesta is located on South Beach Road near the southern boundary of the Town of Jupiter Island. The Park is isolated between the Town of Jupiter Island and unincorporated Palm 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 Tequesta residents. We recommend this pule line be excluded from the program for this reason. This pale line is therefore recommended to remain aerial. • The US-1 Corridor — The US-1 corridor is home to many of the commercial businesses in the Village. The corridor is also undergoing hardening at the time of this writing. The recent hardening of the infrastructure will cause its undergrounding costs to be significantly higher than areas that have not been recently hardened. This is because PPL will assess the Village an amount equal to the depreciated value of the hardened assets during a conversion project. Because the infrastructure is brand new, the Village would need to reimburse FPL for nearly its full value. Because this corridor is primarily commercial and will have received the resiliency benefits that hardening offers, we are recommending that the Village consider having the entirety of the aerial lines in the US1 corridor remain aerial. Aerial laterals to the east and west are still recommended for conversion so Tequesta businesses along the corridor can benefit from underground connections back to the hardened poles. + riverside Drive between Riverside teaks and Tequesta Pines — There is a very short pole -line segment of Riverside Drive between the Riverside Oaks and Tequesta Pines communities that is currently aerial. Roth of these communities already have underground infrastructure and it is only the pale -line on Riverside Drive that is still aerial, We recommend that this segment remain aerial because it is our opinion that the benefits do not outweigh the costs for conversion of such AgendaTLGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT a short segment of aerial lines. We recornmend this pale line be excluded from the program for this reason. Aerial transmission lines exist within the Village along North Old Dixie Highway. This feasibility assessment assumes that these facilities will remain aerial after the conversion program is completed. gimley-Horn has had previous discussions recently with FPL regarding the relocation of transmission lines to an underground location on a similar project in Palm Beach County. The cost information provided by FPL for that similar project would yield a cast in the range of $23 to $25 million if applied to the lines along North Old D[xie Highway in Tequesta. In consultation with Tillage 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 be applied to this program. The CCI tracks the change in price for a specific combination of construction labor, steel, concrete, cement, and lumber using data from 20 cities in the United States. The CCI Is similar in concept to the well-known Consumer Price Index, which tracks consumer 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 average yearly historical CCI between 1990 and 2022 were reviewed. The average annual percentage increase of construction costs during this 32-year time period was 3.2%. If the time range is shortened to the past 10 years, the increase was 3.4% per annum. The small increase in the annual rate over the past 10 years is primarily driven by increases of 5.8% in 2021 and 7.2%6 in 2022. Kiplinger's Economic Forecast estimates that inflation in 2023 will be 3.2% by year's end, indicating their belief that the rate of inflation is beginning to ease as compared to the last two years. Based on this information, an annual inflation factor of 3.2% was used for estimating inflation cost impacts in 2023 and beyond in this OPC since this forecast is consistent with the average over the past 32 years. Inflation is difficult to accurately 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. AgendaTLGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Village of'Tequeste Undergrowmding Program Order ofl"Na,gokude CbneephW C miam. o0robable Cbst Tequesta Base Program Additive Altte Items* $78.3M $0 to $19.6M $11.5M to $14.4M $89.8M to $112.3M Bermuda Terrace $4.7M $1.2M $5.9M Coral Cove Park $0.9m $0.31M $1.2M Dover Road j Garden Street $1.1m $0.3M $1.4M Rio Vista Drive $1.41M $OAM $1.8m Riverside Drive between Riverside Oaks and Tequesta Pines $0,7M $O.ZM $0,91VI U5.1 Corridor $6.0M $1.5m $7.5M Grand Total $18.7M Inflation impacts not included because timeline 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 herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable casts. AgendaTLGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Opinion ofProbabk Cbst Assumptions and Iimt.aticm General ■ The Order of Magnitude Opinion of Probable Cost (0PC) developed for this feasibility assessment is based on a high-level cast 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 specific smaller scale project area since large variations in cost may exist on a smaller scale. 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 coordinator to assist the Village with the management and coordination of the project, plus act as a resident liaison. Costs associated with the project Coordinator position, Village staff time, and use of Village facilities and resources have not been included in this OPC, f Costs related to obtaining financing for the program are not included in this OPC. We recom mend the Village establish a budget for financial 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, electrical, and telephone conduit will be installed in a joint trench or bore (with required separation) by a contractor who is directly contracted by the Village. • Detailed network designs for proposed electrical, cable, or telephone infrastructure have not been performed and therefore were not available at the time of this feasibility assessment. This OPC is based on assumptions and generalizations regarding elements that a typical underground utility conversion project within the Vi I lage of Tequesta can reasonably be assumed to include. + It is assumed the Village will enter into a right-of-way agreement with applicable utility providers for the installation of new underground cabling and equipment within the right-of-way. • It is assumed the Village will acquire private easements to implement the program when sufficient right-of-way is not available to contain the new underground equipment_ It is assumed easements will be donated by property owners when required, as has been the case on other municipal undergrounding projects. Casts related to any eminent domain processes, or compensation for easement space, are not considered in 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 OPC assumes the Village will engage a contractor to install all equipment and materials except those items and operations required to be performed by the utility providers. VUe recommend the 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 providers. Even under the scenario where the municipality elects that the utility AgendaTLGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT providers perform the work, there are still items that need to be performed by the municipality, such as easement acquisition, site restoration, and rearrangement of customer service entrances from overhead to underground, Work elements and operations required to be performed bythe utility provider include, but are not limited to, underground system make-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 construction is expected to have an approximate duration of 24 to 30-months. Construction will occur continuously throughout the phase, assuming year-round construction for the undergrounding program as the Village does not have seasonal construction restrictions. * Roadways disturbed by the undergrounding will require trench repair. Milling and resurfacing of the disturbed pavement has been included as a separate line item in the OPC. Roadway repairs are anticipated to be milled and resurfaced in accordance with FDOT standards for trench repairs. * Restoration of private property after service conversion and overhead infrastructure demolition is included. * Landscape screening of the equipment that shields the equipment from view from the street has been included in the CIPC. Private property owners can screen the backside of the equipment at their cost should they choose to do so. Provisions for the replacement of existing streetlights that are attached to utility poles to be removed have been included in this OPC. The OPC assumes that the Village will enter into an agreement with FPLto provide standard lighting to replace the existing lights. FPL does not assess capital costs for the standard lighting installation but does charge a Cost in Aid of Construction (CIAC) for the associated conduit installation. Existing decorative street lighting that is already served with underground infrastructure is assumed to remain in service after completion of an undergrounding program. • Costs related to any municipal -owned fiber optic infrastructure improvements are not considered in this OPC. * Contingency has been estimated at a rate of 25% which in our professional opinion is appropriate for this level of conceptual planning. * All construction projects carry inherent 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 -mobilization, construction claims, litigation, or other such legal action. * It can be expected that cost variations may occur throughout the life of the program based on market conditions, labor and material price fluctuations, and other factors. Klmley-Horn has no AgendaT-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or over the contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or market conditions. The OPC provided herein is based on the information known to Kimley-Horn at this time and represents only Kimley-Horn's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. Kimley-Horn cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its OPC. • The OPC includes a budget line item for public outreach/information activities. In consultation with Village staff, it is understood that the majority of communications will be handled internally by Village staff to control costs. However, a budget has been assumed for costs associated with graphics preparation, mailers, event costs, etc. that would be considered expenses beyond internal staff labor. EAsting C'OwlitimWOmst uawn blethods • It is assumed that new utility infrastructure related to the conversion process will be installed in public rights -of -way and easements. It is further assumed this infrastructure will he installed in a manner that minimizes relocation of existing utilities in these same locations. These potential impacts cannot be accurately quantified at this time and are therefore not specifically listed in this OPC. The contingency line item is assumed to capture costs related to this work element. • Conduit for electric and cableAelephone infrastructure is typically installed using a combination of open -cut trenching and directional boring. Work on similar projects has shown that directional bore is the preferred method of installation for large-scale programs. This CIPC assumes that most of the necessary conduit will be installed using directional bare. r In many locations throughout the Village, electrical and communications. services originate from a rear property easement. To be compliant with current utility provider standards, these services wiII be converted to a front street location under this program. Allowances for repair/replacement of service entrances on private property not meeting existing building codes should be included in the program to maintain the program schedule. These types of costs, while expected to be a rare occurrence, are expected to be reimbursed to the program by the private property owner and therefore have not been included in this OPC. If the Village decides to fund these replacements internally, these work elements can be assumed to be contained in the contingency line item. F6ctriW and. Cb=unicafl r s UtRy Mama Underground electrical and communications facilities 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, casts related to "betterment" or system upgrades are assumed to be the responsibility of the utility providers_ This (CPC considers costs related to a "like-for-Iike" conversion program. Electrical system casts 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 Vista Agenda `11212"AGE OF TEQUESTA UNDERGROUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT switches would provide improved resiliency and storm surge protection since the Vista cabinets are waterproof. This OPC considers use of a mix of standard and vista switch cabinets. + Hardened feeder circuits were reviewed in the field and quantified separately in order to develop representative casts for hardened vs. unhardened aerial infrastructure conversion. The hardened pales in the Village are relatively new and FPL will require the Village pay far the depreciated value of the new hardened infrastructure. This results in a significantly increased cast to convert recently hardened infrastructure to an underground location.. + "Like -far -Like" fiber/coaxial systems were considered in this OPC for the undergrounding of cable TV facilities. • "Like-fer-Like's copper systems were considered in this OPC for the undergrounding of telephone facilities. In past discussions with AT&T on similar projects, there are typically legacy customers who have equipment that rely on copper system technology to operate. In order to upgrade the system to fiber, the upgraded system would need to be "Overlaid" on top of a new copper network in order to maintain this service. This essentially requires two systems to be installed simultaneously which drives up the project cost for this type of upgrade. Since we are assuming a "like -for -like" conversion program, the costs for installation of an overlay network are not included in this 013C. • This OPC only considers the minimum number and size of conduits required to implement the overhead to underground utility conversion, The installation of spare conduits has not been included in this OPC. Agenda`12-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Theo pinion of cost was prepared based on the understood goals and objectives of the program, including conversion of most overhead utilities to an underground location within the Village municipal limits. Asa benefit to the Village, this assessment effort explored several cast reduction opportunities that could be considered by the Village. However, these opportunities may require securing third -party funding, coordinating projects with other programs/agencies, and/or revising the goals and objectives of the program. Funftg CPdws The Village may be able to offset Borne of the program casts through various grant programs. The programs that are most FEMAapplicable and able to fund significant portions of an y°r undergr©unding program are the Federal Emergency Management Agency Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIO) program and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The stated goal of the programs is to support hazard mitigation projects in local communities to reduce the risks faced from disasters and natural hazards. A local match of 25% is required, but the programs have up to a maximum award of $50 million for construction projects in the case of the BRIC program. These grants can be applied for on a phase -by - phase basis to maximize the benefits, and to allow 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 are extremely competitive as applications are submitted from across the country. If the Village were awarded grants this would ultimately result in a lower net cost realized by the pillage for the undergrounding program. A summary of all of the funding opportunities identified during this feasibility assessment, including grants, loans, and appropriations, are identified in the following table. Agenda RAO It #3. - •� _Z.c O cc 0) o R o _ w e j R m C = O F'j N v w NCD- (0 L (9 > N O L N W R 2 w a)0) .x N C O! -C L ++ OL d 01 � E 4) C C O Q O G 3 L Y 9m Y y 0 N .-. N Ol _ -2 Q (II } m N ` � a c y N U) (B c a A c c m o 3 .m = N Z> W � m m o r a LL C` O p ` c o °' m o v u o o - p LL E a m m° c cG O- NCU 3 a o ayi m 9= ca d O C LL N N O 5 i O- C}C EU ig° E c a Eo° y cE - Coi (n C o o O C i0 V _ �` c a a O c y, V R 0) C C C R 2 N C= C 2 N — p 4 N '^ VJ E C Q. R E o o L O +� Co L +' C C p ti « N 2 N S] C U O O N O O C m O V 2 O y L N j 3 O Q R N o o OI 'C j y C N N 2` C O _(n .0 _ m Q ,H CU y 2 a�i Q = -a E: m o m m o 2 Z °o = i.LL D �� C C C) C O a,c -"j y az Q� yav�D m i N O it=�� (� < m � E Q O 01' U N 2 O d m N 9 C c vi R N L U US J fA O N N c y N c C> a a n is f0 Q D) C O Q m o `��w to (0 m Z °'H m a •cm °RQ '"m- nm LL1 NC cu iJ 'O a> LLNcO c a) a E E: "o clw O COE ca c m o �4, c oa d m LL Uw LL LO p �� �� S c E y r- = ya E °' E `^'ia E o c Qco O -O '� O Q co U9 m 3 m EW � U O'� > y C (B CO « > U R C O O L O C y d m "O Q U m U N N .N mN � m�ccC R = z JatR] y O Q O L23o U pQ V m NLj ` B'dUCm �oN�RR N 2 co aQ) 2 n t ca cL Oo O co D a ELL v d LU .mA Emyio � �Q •� CL yQi j.LLr2JCyScn •2`cR fa, rn NOQ1 y� N>a .cNm R OO ONN .iK� _N W Um C yU a-° O amm w m n w 0 L C O N N « « 'O E L N C E W Q E E U p f0 fM Mc_ O coW Q "O LL N d c 3 O @ - > W L LL O N N p-0 LO U W u) O E c � m N M LL � U A2 co LL a o❑ Q C mn C W U m M C LL L O_ C N —0 Q O N N •rn C m m !n O O C) O U E C N Q N -0 (O C)0)C p LII ay o O -0 Ccc U > C L � g E L m O ?� N O C U N cA O O C c v Q ° o c y rn ¢ ° o N O � C Ln . aci d LL== E g `° cTi aci LL== E g v, 4. N O E a= o o,dw w m O E �.�.0 a)w w m Q E U N E'—•� a� � m � E —! •� m m � C 2 W V p �� o' w m� 0 LIJ O = � O d R N d R LU N� O Q L y Q Q U LL LL � - LL LL E 00 a w O o f y y j N 'a .�R = y L CO " N a` m R R RU O 3wU = O CB * LL N x m� x a W O) a R Page 55 of 71 Agenda It #3 Z z p z a 0 M 0w a C3 zz z >- LL J H � w W Q W ma`s C Q N m N a) d a m C 0 d c c` 0 Nm y C � LL C-o a E EE>m -O o o m C OC O : d N O O c m - O m U N TL N O m a) N O N m O N N N N a)0 J a) a E ((pp N OI C O 7 m N m i C 'C T C LL C N N O 7 (a S E d m C U m d in Q 5 o m m z G) a >x E - ID 20 N C E E m m a) N E m O p rnQ �_ N O _ U y c m a- m > y o N Q C N 9— = m w m (' .O E CC0 LL ,� N m e N 0 Q N O -O O .6 d o E 0 m m y J L C E N U O O N O O- @ •c E C O �o 'O C)'C Q . m Q Tom-• Vl `7 O OI U a m M Y a) 0 O w N m o. (o LL a F N - N y O m U `• N rp Ul T U > U N m C O m W W N E E (D ((a a N m m O. ✓1 C 4) O (0 .E m m E 7 O V a) OI '� Co E ( C(pp C F W «O N O) m O N O N 3 'a t f9 0)0 (n m U U N C m U C N N-2 m L > d a m C C N = C O A O` O CL �- U N p '] i O 2 n fa N w m .0. , CoE>- C L C1 T C ca mm 3 c�U a' z L N OI (`0 Tm L a=0- Q m o aaa) C ir ca mmrn 0 (-LL LLw'm" O to N Vl N m Q Vl CD O7 m a 0) N O O m m 7 W O CL t z C N Ua2n5.Em0 a �oQC�m LLLL� u m� c o a > 0 _ "S m 3 c> c o c o > a m m m a°E�°°a n o E TinE O L P V C O -- W � `y 0 N m Of r N N m N V lr:9 � ✓� LLy> c m O E c� o °E m o y `L a N E 0 C� °i o m �' m w V! `O v " N c e QO Or C 5 o CL mu �� R E m y w 9 N N m i N W N O .- O V m CO m ai3n smLLNC dO mA E -0LL m00a E Eo OE N 0 y> Go W JO O C m .O O> m LLtN m p o oo O V 9 >E m C F- m E E c c° o r '> ti d y 0 ~n E d y y -�° O > a)Z H N O m C m 'y m m V m O d 7 0 V 0 «• MEO c E N m C m cmi w 'm > - U rn E € c a > m a cH > O C Q m aCL f%J m N E m Z .y+ A O O O .V. U ,.L.. m N LL O M 3 N C C m m m O 3 0 y W a C LL C E a R; .o m 0 •a •� m m n. O O r2 O N -0 r c QI C N O c m m 3� O C Z W U E Y.2 C N G v V O a� y C N ° iq F U mo sE o ia (0 c O N a'o 0 - N E o. D N OU a) CV Co N 0 m cl N C.co ❑ F- M � � T Q O O E Q o_ O Z > > O � � Z a T C @ 0 00 ❑ U a/ O > o v co n nau> u� C m O T T U �cv _ r U W ❑_ a) C 2) Q D LL O G E CLr E c m c d E ❑ coi = w E >21 0 m ❑ m� o m rnQ ❑ E c LL W m " O a O m w g LL lL N LL r � E u 0 G 0 O y 0 0 O Uc fA :Er > N H Ha E O1 > >rno c G I m _ U o o U. _ U c y io G m O G m in o N E O O1 0 a m Page 56 of 71 Agenda It #3 2 z ❑ r Z O M Q ry It W N ❑ Z Z Z } U LL J Q F- W 7 uj W F N t ay E v 3 c g N c o r Q Q m >. °• m •O1 0° «°� E N $ _Q > >T. 9 C 0• m m O V O L O N j. O W a U ° md (DNN p0 a5om UTC ad�y' vvC 2ma OU L j p NOO 0CmpDG m 0 mO Cm vNGm =GmN Om� mN c �0)U• ° E mn < ° $a OR N m C m m m C N 27 $tmOmc0 !=CmN Oy O E' p�N2 D O mO UEG.m_ m Y C Lu'8g" ->> m m E 0 Lm i+ N > U E m'?"' QU�- �Ma «8 m L ,E N N2 d 8 O N N C K ` - 'O m >� 8 p� Q C O r) -O C N m U m [V A m Y U y. C C_ V S F G E p N rN Fm a 42 0 C y fi .0 C= C m N C N C d Q O O >. m m ZI T C N O a d V 'mO C m ^y p10 CL E ' v7c -�ir0NCm CU ma NO =o C oN LEO qtoco aW£C �nN L=mmCp 0mm', �fNEmO DcmMMUmm cpdNm EF 'ZUfy>0 -'E2mOayOCGmm c'� a.by_ �-c ocmcO_ diDmG = °ymc mArn�$ 3 OrnO l O7°mcQc >L�Cj mm U m0i _DCT tyENm E mzR 0> Cm p USmp NC=oEmNn LtC.. z«-' NdNm°3 i o m 9 U`W aEmmE m E E f ) ID 0 VU S �L�mpyc _p �U 7 -m�>. dEm cmp mmm>` S�mm mmm4) O m > R O� tcmgCC C p pF = a u> Cn0vc�Eo �c CdyyON �•cOUOOCC.Qa v'�= mO aALCooUr' rmd'),O-y EEmof aE u m m (.Irnf m WQ 3N o, 0E m 44'D s 8om m G m F- N .C.. C T m 9 00 pU1 G1 O lO wm 3 A°O. _^ mmN 6Ci Nm 'e EQm O E `m mp� ° NlN0 mN C O UO am E dml m ` cb m C C0 >, �E L.. mt c d d C N m 3 m p NSE mL o.mm°Nt ma yaa•'- Em o p cm9- cm : Z`cm�0 m L �j C O •_ > ��p m c�U m �m O' a.. =m Q ZUpaoe � E 0mm v,� % `N W cm CO y L� p O �N� y V U1 W L Q I �6 O❑N Wm md O O C m T LO C 3 N CW amC cOOm c E EO m O) L U ° UaO mm 0CL>aO C m Q N 9 n 9 U m a m A C U y' CO y m '� y .T. c c � o c 4 E `) a .. a> m or£ g m E `oo ._ > d 3 0 m m m E m m _.a > m - m -.o m mdma v nm c n i 3 E g' m £ c V �' m c U �` a 0 m'H p; am p o my ° E m c rn c � -� N '3 T V m a m 'rn y c E mma. o m maE0H m @ 8 U m p.8 N OamE'mx O unam ` Ca�TNm m cC cQa n— i 7 ° ° o p >Eoao W �mf%0 wEo 0 > m =16 �..'cmcm^a`o.. yN 41 SC E Ca Nc_ O m m aW oo ,a� �O 00E5T Enwm o¢ ❑dNm rn�C i7E c mcm o > N L C O E co L G O E O C. co c N 12 M U 7B8 g W c N M ° w8 m LL ._ O m m N X C aN N C O_N - N'0 ON Z C y N.0ON Z C y U � U e e LO > C N M = O N y G� m E `o °' = m c 3 LO E a m Q D1 y N> T f9 L O fA .� `o `o N CM N pf (v W a W N ❑ Q1 ❑ U N m N C O N 7J C� N U U CL H E 0 U) F m Page 57 of 71 Agenda It #3 X K Q Z z Z d 0 Q.' M 0w a C3 Z Z 7 Z } 7 LL J H � m W Q W H o N� 0 r C p O e mnEm E Ed a -m L mO Sa @@ T vu60E v o wwmo .c-c. m %S a a Eo � md E �cm cmum S'a uyiw i°_oEmy6o Dv`mc� �ENrn O'v y E E 3 L v@ 00 0 c c N c m N 8 E m m E m m c u m c_ m m m E u r w V m cmi Q�c mnym r mm c my 3$m _n O. @s.�-u E'ay c rn m c `o LU m c V V C C t gw >0-I 7 m a � a j N m E'w d aoan@ .0 m@@ `am j O N o m W T m o@ N L C O @ c@ N on3m O H W C N f6 L p G m 0' OI C N 9 O. L C E m m ��T cN eE c d0`.�' E @ mvy m odc°a d@" C Xm C 8 m 8>yyy� c 8 L° 8 c N N o f ��>pp` ao E E =1 u O- y y C EC V c O C y E c o u oo'y o„ {0 N r C m O N m .p$cym °'0�'o�BEtNNom c o c m y 0 gym. U E m m$5o L y y t v a`r9 b y` m >, m mE o °i «0 m@ T« E� 0 u« a c o° 3 m �p o @ T N $ m` m 'CZ m @ a U O. m -� "' G N y� m m U C C m }N00 c@ S N A F C y@> m 7 y O yy m `O H@ O @ -0 c@ I. m v0mm 0 i'N-pN` Em%NcS 0� a0 @aCw3 .y0 m@m. mnNccL 3 �aom��c m wcmDr ai «my 4c m E c m E� A ° °~ti aE oE o uv em fIL ,ncm>m O oa vE'm5 8 c 2c.y @muonm ve�d 0a:2 Q-o �m T O« a y o c m N o 6 c$ m E U m y '@ a m MC `m 0 0 N N a E O m m m c .0 m W n m N @ N N w `o -i9Em E�Oc�m«dcomE°�m m�9« HE N rL C N C O V C S Oy U m UN O E O@ m 0 Z T 0 N m C O m N L t m n@ O m O 0 U m E O 0@ m - C .N C L N OI Q O m a @ .ti c@ E O 5 Q. (n > m O U S @S C.a d C O 12 Um U(0 OmO c L N Ecm,@ E o @U O r.. U a`a`cd >m @@ dmy m y O G L O n 2- 0 > CRC2O8 O O oTnN m U t g mac @ ac aE E -m ya E' p@eo Eot@ 'c mcm°O c-0Qm m T'c Z " Lc 1 Q>mo t5aE _n� E E Ma O md rnyTa0, c N 3.; O Z Co C > 5JD.N O c 'L N �d CV-Un V @ W o, =CC r E vNa O. 0poU V m .5pE c m G O '- `v@ 0 E Cp=c m E O cm c G LL E Em l -0 C O 0 10 ZZ 8 v o-@ o0. �E ory aE m =umm- :0 .0 Z > W O a) CM �Np E O � In w wm GJZ'CU.. . O. LM as d m .H m. @ W@ Occ �mNN o_Qa Q= -m O _2S °L moH3tmEoUCN¢ u@3;c_mu W o f Q QQ O 'O Q O: in .Nd�ac y0 vi a�mc@i cmidaciaEvrna aAO co w5 Zmli� ahi 3riv (D L6 W 0 Q O £ Z c G O = c N ON UUU 0. LL n m � N y N Q ry O O m O N m _ Z N w O � r U e c O m c a m 01 O �.la m o Q d c � o c 0'0 0 o m C T 76 C EC d U) 0LL1 u a7 a) C C c> E N � m d C a Q o cc a c OV a LL '�; > a 0 ni ~ o C7 o U- c R 5 Page 58 of 71 Agenda It # k � z 2 0 0R2 0 w z z k ( § � q § jib \ )§� E E /\ [)§ ®` $f7 �() E2 j\� \, co ¥ cr i7f# )�f < < o { 0 a 2 �rL 0 ` ) o L) ® i m ) { t - \ ` \ \\« \ \\ \{\ j\ k �� • §§c) \ fE \ J - ® ( \k2 �Efa $ ��� �) f�\. \ - ] bm¥] ) 3£\t / {/)E 0E �E\2 - � §kk ƒ \/\\ \/kf § - w0\E m ��o� w± 22§r %& z�/; {Gk{kA k z Ces2 f§ k }o�\§\k�L \ }\ /L \� / a E2�E of 0$]<7<�k«/< z��w�w;a4Ew o ze 322e &E LLI z z \ j -12 z z j) fs / _ // 0/ /L a Cf -cr |ate §2 u Page 5972 AgendaT-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Pavement MEing and RDmr5king Cost 9wing It is known that additional capital improvements are proposed throughout the Village over the expected duration of the undergrounding program including roadway, stormwater, sidewalk, water, and sewer projects. These projects are anticipated to incorporate milling and resurfacing of their work area. For areas where these projects and the undergrounding program will be in the same location, the cast of the required milling and resurfacing could be shared between the various entities performing the improvements. This program also offers the opportunity for the Village to take advantage of volume pricing for milling and resurfacing associated with large-scale paving programs. Postponing milling and resurfacing until multiple phases of undergrounding, and potentially other capital improvements, have been completed would allow the Village to bid and award paving for a Larger area than if it were performed after each. phase of the undergrounding program. Trenches and bore pits would be repaired after conduit installation with milling and resurfacing to occur later under a separate contract administered by the Village. Memtwe Prog= Goalg and Objeotms The opinion of cost could be reduced if the amount of overhead utilities to be converted to an underground location was reduced. This could be accomplished in a variety of ways. ■ lateral infrastructure could be converted underground with the hardened feeder infrastructure largely remaining in its current aerial location ■ Certain areas of the Village could be excluded from the undergreunding program. For example, the residential communities could be converted with commercial areas remaining aerial. ■ FPL could continue with their Storm Secure Program and convert various laterals underground overa long period time, Under th is option, the Village would not have any control over where 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 and convert the communications infrastructure which would otherwise be left in an aerial configuration. FPL has previously conducted a conversion in the Tequesta Country Club community under the Storm Secure Program and the communications infrastructure remains aerial on poles that have been topped by FPL (see photo, on following page). ■ Various combinations of the above concepts AgendaTLGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT +While the above concepts could significantly reduce program costs, they do not accomplish the original vision of the Village to convert all overhead utilities 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 partially 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 decide to continue pursuing a municipal overhead to underground conversion program, our recommendation would be to prepare a master plan for the program. The master plan would build upon the data collection and findings in this feasibility assessment as well as provide aUtional information and implementation recommendations such as: • Further coordination with overhead utility providers to develop/refine recommended phasing and sequencing for the program • Development of a proposed phasing and sequencing plan that defines geographic boundaries for each phase of the program and the order in which they should be constructed * Development of a program schedule that outlines the start, finish, and durations of the various phases of the program * Identifies ether infrastructure programs, how their timelines coincide with the undergrounding program, and refines program opinions of cost to account for potential cast sharing between programs of improvement * Develops guidelines and a plan for the mitigation of traffic impacts during construction * Develop a more detailed opinion of probable cost • Provides a. risk assessment for the program * Develops recommendations for project delivery and procurement methods; and * Provides recommendations regarding public outreach/information for the program in order to educate and build consensus Once a master plan has been developed, funding and financing options can be discussed. Funding options 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 municipality from the proposed undergrounding program. Based on the Opinion of Probable Cost contained in the master plan, AgendaT-LGE OF TECUESTA UNDERGRGUNDING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT an estimate of how much each property owner would be required to individually contribute to fund the program can then be estimated based on the methodology. These amounts can be expressed as a total amount per property, or as amortized payments over a specified payback period. It is recommended that a public information program be conducted to educate property owners about the benefits to he gained through an undergrounding program. Information should also be provided to property owners regarding how the how municipal conversion programs are implemented and what they can expects as far as impacts to their community and individual properties, 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 informational campaign. Other municipalities have developed website toolsthat allow a property owner to type in their address 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 regarding the approval to move forward with the conversion program prior to making decisions. If the community is supportive and the decision is made to move forward, decisions must be made regarding funding. This may require that the Village engage other consultants, such as band counsel and municipal financial advisors, to provide guidance on municipal securities such as the issuance of bonds. Bond issuance may also require a referendum of the community so advance planning 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 Village's engineering design consultant and utility owners can be engaged to begin the design and easement acquisition process. Once easements are acquired .and design is completed, construction can begin. This process will repeat on a phase -by -phase basis until program corn pletlon. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this brief feasibility assessment to the Village of Tequesta and look forward to assisting you with progressing this program further as you may desire. Agenda Item #3. VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA ENGINEERING SERVICES WORK AUTHORIZATION VILLAGE -WIDE UNDERGROUNDING MASTER PLANNING This Work Authorization authorizes Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to perform work set forth herein and is issued pursuant to The Professional Engineering Services Agreement, between the Village of Tequesta ("Client" or "Village") and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ("Kimley-Horn" or "Consultant"), dated September 10, 2020 ("Agreement"). All terms and conditions of said Agreement are hereby incorporated and made part of this Work Authorization. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The Village of Tequesta wishes to build upon the recently completed Undergrounding Feasibility Study by developing a Master Plan for the implementation of a program that relocates existing overhead utilities (electric, telephone, and cable) to an underground location within the Village's boundaries, an approximately 2.26 square mile area in northeastern Palm Beach County. The objectives of the Master Planning process are: • Development of Design Criteria • Identification of Specific Capital Programs that will be concurrent with the Program • Development of Conceptual Phasing and Sequencing • Development of a Conceptual Opinion of Schedule • Refinement of the Opinion of Probable Cost • Performance of a Risk Assessment • Recommendations for Public Outreach Our detailed scope of services is based upon this understanding. SCOPE OF SERVICES Kimley-Horn will provide the services specifically set forth below. Task 1 — Data Collection and Base Mapping Kimley-Horn will use data previously collected from the following stakeholders regarding the existing utility infrastructure within or near the Village to develop the master plan: • Village of Tequesta • Town of Jupiter Island 1 Page 63 of 71 Agenda Item #3. • Florida Department of Transportation • Florida Power & Light • AT&T • Comcast • Crown Castle • Florida Public Utilities • Century Link (Lumen) • Loxahatchee River District • Martin County Traffic • Palm Beach County Traffic • Resurgence Infrastructure Group • TECO Gas • T-Mobile/Sprint • Verizon Geographic Information System (GIS) shape files will be requested and used where available. Where GIS data is not available, Kimley-Horn will request atlas drawings or similar schematic overall system drawings for the purposes of creating GIS shape files to be used during the planning process. Kimley-Horn will perform field reviews to confirm the existence of major utility elements as contained in the records. Kimley-Horn will also request available information on the location and duration of significant infrastructure construction projects planned within the right-of-way by these stakeholders that may occur within the undergrounding construction period. This is anticipated to include work performed by the Village of Tequesta (AC pipe replacement) and Loxahatchee River District (sanitary sewer work). Identification of concurrent programs may allow for shared restoration costs between programs. Kimley-Horn will compile the data collected to create GIS base maps showing the approximate locations of existing major overhead infrastructure throughout the Village as well as planned significant infrastructure construction projects by the Village, or other stakeholders. These maps will also serve as the basis of the phasing and sequencing maps that will be developed as part of subsequent tasks in this scope of services. Task 2 — Master Planning Kimley-Horn will hold utility provider meetings with FPL, ATT, Comcast, and Verizon to review design criteria for the proposed underground infrastructure, including proposed areas for FPL street lighting replacement. Using the existing utility records, planned construction projects proposed within the Village, and the information gathered in these meetings, Kimley-Horn will make recommendations regarding the limits of the proposed phases of construction that will be contained in the program and develop a conceptual phasing map using the GIS maps developed during the Feasibility Assessment and further refined in Task 1. Detailed design elements, such as the specific locations of transformers or the exact location of proposed conduit within a particular roadway, will not be performed at this time. 2 Page 64 of 71 Agenda Item #3. Kimley-Horn will develop a conceptual opinion of schedule for the program and a recommended a year -by -year sequence of construction for each phase. The proposed timing of planned construction projects, desired program duration, potential cost implications, and financial pacing of the undergrounding program will be considered. The sequencing will be incorporated onto a GIS map for graphical representation. Kimley-Horn will develop a conceptual opinion of probable construction cost for each phase of the program. Costs will be provided in net present value with projections for inflation based on the year the phase is planned to start. Costs will be based on historical data for similar projects. The Consultant 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 will be based on the information known to Consultant at this time and represent only the Consultant's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Consultant cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Kimley-Horn will provide an assessment of the risks to the program, specifically focused on the schedule and budget, and will provide strategies to mitigate those risks. Kimley-Horn will develop a master plan document that will contain the results of the program planning process. This will document the planning process for record keeping purposes and serve as a guide for the implementation of the program over its anticipated life cycle. We anticipate that the document will contain the following information: • Summary of the data collection process • GIS base maps of the existing aerial infrastructure and planned projects within the Village • Presentation of the design criteria to be used throughout the program • Conceptual phasing and sequencing maps • Conceptual opinion of schedule • Conceptual opinion of probable construction cost • Risk assessment • Public outreach recommendations for the program • Matrix of potential third -party grant funding sources (prepared during the Feasibility Assessment) A draft of the document will be provided for Village review and comment. We will respond to one round of staff comments on the document prior to finalizing it. Up to five (5) hard copies of the document will be provided to the Village. We intend on delivering the elements described above separately for the Village to review and comment on in advance of delivering a comprehensive document. Meetings for the purposes of developing the document and presenting it to the Village Council are included in a subsequent task of this proposal. 3 Page 65 of 71 Agenda Item #3. Task 3 — Meetings As described in the previous tasks, Kimley-Horn will attend the following meetings: • Stakeholder meetings [see Task 1] (up to two (2) meetings) • Utility provider meetings [see Task 2] (up to two (2) meetings) • Design team meetings [see Task 2] (up to two (2) meetings) • Village council meetings/workshops [see Task 21 (up to two (2) meetings) ADDITIONAL SERVICES Any services not specifically provided for in the above scope, as well as any changes in the scope requested by the Village, will be considered additional services to this Work Authorization and will be performed based on subsequent Work Authorizations approved prior to performance of the additional services. Additional Services we can provide include, but are not limited to, the following: • Public Outreach (public information meetings, development of public presentation materials for community meetings) • Website Development/Hosting • Design/Permitting/Construction Phase Services • Easement Acquisition Services • Grant Application Assistance INFORMATION AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE VILLAGE Kimley-Horn assumes that all information provided by the Village can be relied upon in the performance of professional services. The following information shall be provided to Kimley-Horn and/or the following services will be performed by the Village. • Record Information for Village -owned utilities • Public Outreach Activities SCHEDULE For items described in the above Scope of Services, Kimley-Horn will complete the work set forth herein in accordance with a mutually agreed upon schedule after receipt of an executed Work Authorization and Purchase Order, exclusive of delays beyond the control of the Consultant. 4 Page 66 of 71 Agenda Item #3. COMPENSATION Kimley-Horn will perform the services described in the Scope of Services on a lump sum basis for the amount of Ninety -Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ten Dollars ($99,910) in accordance with the hourly rates established in the Professional Engineering Services Agreement between the Village and Kimley-Horn. Accepted by: Village of Tequesta Jeremy Allen, Village Manager Date: 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Kevin Schanen, Sr. V.P. / Principal Date: 8/31 /23 Page 67 of 71