Master Plan: Village of Key Biscayne (Undergrounding of Utilities Village-Wide) by Browning Day

www.kbunderground.com

MasterPlan VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Undergrounding of Utilities

Village-Wide

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Executive Summary.................................................................1 Chapter 2 – Introduction and Project Goals...............................................9 Chapter 3 – Existing Utility System Overview.............................................15 Chapter 4 – Data Collection.......................................................................21 Chapter 5 – Design Criteria and Conceptual Design Description...............35 Chapter 6 – Phasing and Sequencing........................................................51 Chapter 7 – Project Delivery Methods........................................................63 Chapter 8 – Risk Assessment....................................................................77 Chapter 9 – Transportation Management Plan...........................................87 Chapter 10 – Public Outreach Program......................................................105 Chapter 11 – Overall Program Opinion of Schedule....................................109 Chapter 12 – Overall Program Opinion of Probable Construction Cost.......115

iii

Key Biscayne

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Chapter 1 EXECU T IV E SU M M A R Y In 2006 the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) voted to amend the Florida Administrative Code to require investor owned utilities (IOU) to file comprehensive storm hardening plans. These plans included storm preparedness initiatives including the hardening of existing transmission structures. Storm hardening is the upgrading of electrical facilities, as well as maintenance practices, so they are better able to withstand extreme weather. Storm hardening of overhead utilities includes:

replacement of wood poles with concrete or steel poles addition of guy wires for pole support addition of poles to decrease the span between poles Florida Power & Light (FPL) has implemented these measures in many municipalities as these 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 of poles supporting feeder infrastructure to increase their resiliency during future storm events. The Village decided that FPL’s storm hardening program would have a negative impact on the Village’s aesthetics. Considering those impacts along with the reliability and safety benefits, the Village decided that a conversion of the overhead utilities to an underground location, also known as undergrounding, should be pursued. The conversion from overhead to underground facilities will improve the safety, reliability, and aesthetics of the electric and communications infrastructure serving the Village. In the Spring of 2017, Village Council took the first step in the undergrounding process and approved to move forward with a publicly advertised RFQ, which would initiate the process of finding a consultant

to prepare a Master Plan to map out the underground conversion to its completion. This master plan will provide a guide for the design and implementation of the undergrounding program. It also provides guidance on how to balance and manage priorities, such as cost, project duration, traffic impacts, and other capital improvement needs during this ambitious project. This master plan summarizes the following activities and recommendations:

Data Collection Design Criteria and Conceptual Design Description Phasing and Sequencing Plan Project Delivery Methods Risk Assessment Traffic Management Plan Public Outreach Program Opinion of Schedule Opinion of Probable Cost

Data Collection The Village of Key Biscayne is provided with electric service through redundant subaqueous crossings of transmission lines below Biscayne Bay from the mainland to Key Biscayne’s substation. Communication services are routed from the main land over the Rickenbacker Causeway and then underground along Crandon Boulevard to the Village where they are then converted to aerial lines mounted to wood or concrete poles shared

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

with electrical lines. There are approximately 16 pole-miles of overhead infrastructure and 12 miles of underground infrastructure within the Village limits. Much of the overhead utility infrastructure is located in rear yard easements between street blocks within the single-family residential areas on the west side of Crandon Boulevard and multi-family areas on the east side of Crandon Boulevard. Underground infrastructure is often located within the public right-of-way of the Village. The master plan considers the various aspects that make the Village unique, such as zoning and land use designations, traffic, general topography and soils, types of underground infrastructure that exist, and plans for other future infrastructure improvements. Future infrastructure improvements include projects planned by the Village of Key Biscayne, Miami Dade County Water and Sewer, Miami Dade Traffic, and Hotwire Communications. Each of these considerations play a role in how the overall program will be executed.

the Village can be replaced with Village owned custom lighting or with FPL owned and maintained light poles and fixtures provided under FPL’s street lighting program, included in their LT-1 Tariff.

Phasing and Sequencing Plan Development The master plan provides a recommended phasing and sequencing plan for the implementation of the undergrounding program. This plan provides overall guidance of timing and sequence, but adjustments may be needed in the future to account for changes in technology, various utility and stakeholder requirements, and changes with other work programs within the Village during the implementation of the undergrounding program. Timing and sequencing should be reviewed at the time of design for each phase so any necessary adjustments can be made.

Design Criteria and Conceptual Design Description Development

Project Delivery Method Recommendation The Village’s undergrounding program is a very large and complex infrastructure program that will be implemented in a phased manner over the next four to six years. It may include not just the undergrounding scope of work, but also roadway and stormwater improvements, water main replacement, and landscaping upgrades. In developing recommendations for project delivery methods for each of phases, the risks to schedule, level of service expectations, and cost must be carefully considered. The more improvements you include in the program the higher the risk. If any single-phase falters in any of those three areas of risk, the remaining phases of the program will be detrimentally affected. For this reason, the project delivery method must balance those risks while yielding the highest probability of project success.

Through a series of meetings with the Village, FPL, AT&T, Comcast, and other stakeholder utilities, Kimley-Horn assembled general guidelines for design criteria for the undergrounding program. These criteria are intended as guidance for the design of the physical location and placement of conduit and equipment so that consistency in design and construction can be realized over the life of the program. They do not govern the detailed electrical or communications network design that will be performed by FPL, AT&T, and Comcast. Network design by the utility owners will be performed based on their then-current design standards. Utility owners and stakeholders participated in workshops to review design requirements for the proposed underground infrastructure, define significant equipment needs to implement the program, and determine their approximate locations. The Village is currently implementing a street light program to install new light poles and fixtures. The undergrounding project will impact a significant number of street lights within the Village that are currently mounted to FPLowned utility poles that will ultimately be removed. Street lighting throughout

The program is proposed to contain four phases. In an effort to accelerate the implementation schedule each phase may contain separate subphases or work areas. Each phase is anticipated to have a construction duration of 18 to 24 months. A new phase will begin construction in each year between 2020 and 2024. This allows for adjacent phases to overlap in their duration, which in turn accelerates the implementation schedule. In general, phase 1 through 3 work will begin at the south end of the Village and progress north while phase 4 will return to the south to convert Mashta Island and finish up the west side of the Village. This plan also provides recommendations related to the timing of major infrastructure projects performed by the Village and outside entities in an effort to minimize community impacts and take advantage of potential cost saving efficiencies.

Although the delivery method that ultimately gets chosen may depend largely on how much work the Village would like to accomplish as part of the program, this master plan recommends that the Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR ) method of project delivery be used because, in our opinion, it yields the highest probability of success for delivering the various phases of the Village’s Undergrounding Program. Example of hardened utility poles

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Risk Assessment Risks are involved with any project, and a project of this magnitude is no exception. These risks can impact the project schedule and/or the project costs. By identifying these risks ahead of time, steps can be taken to mitigate them. An assessment of known risks to budget and schedule, both in terms of the design phase and construction phase, was made in order to identify these risks and take steps to mitigate them.

Undergrounding Task Force (UUTF), utility owners, Village residents, and the media. The program will engage and communicate with the community through presentations, print and electronic media, public meetings, and through a Speakers Bureau.

Direct email, telephone, and/or direct mailings Neighborhood meetings Individual meetings with residents/business owners As a lesson learned on prior projects it is recommended that direct mailings be made to inform residents and business owners that the contractor will be placing equipment within the right-of-way adjacent to their properties. This enables the project team to get ahead of and coordinate with property owners who may have questions or concerns regarding the equipment that will be located adjacent to their homes. This minimizes the impact to the community as they will know exactly what to expect regardless of whether or not they granted an easement.

Traffic Management Plan Development A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) was developed to coordinate traffic impacts related to both the undergrounding program and other known significant infrastructure projects to minimize impacts to the residents and businesses. Based on the recommended phasing and the sequencing plan, Kimley-Horn assessed the potential traffic impacts from construction of each phase of the project. The TMP sets forth overall guiding principles, identified in Chapter 9, for use by the Village and affected contractors during the implementation of the undergrounding program. The TMP may evolve over time, but its current role is to assist in the development of the construction phasing plans, traffic control plans, and project specification documents, and to facilitate discussions between the Village, designers, utility owners, contractors, and other key stakeholders related to traffic impacts. It is a tool to better coordinate construction traffic impacts as specific permits are applied for by the construction community. Graphical TMP maps for each phase of the undergrounding program, along with general traffic control guidelines for the program, were developed and are contained in this master plan.

Public Outreach Program Recommendations The undergrounding project in the Village of Key Biscayne will incorporate a Public Outreach Program to ensure that the community is informed on the process, the benefits, and costs. The Community Outreach Program is a critical part of the public education and transparency efforts. It will create a link between the engineering team, Village staff, elected leaders, the

situations include communicating information related to specific design and construction activities that specifically affect the individual resident or business owner. The following methods should be employed to communicate with individuals during the design and construction phases:

Information and communications to the community should be made through a variety of mediums and be performed in a manner that is most suitable for the intended audience. For broad based messaging and project updates, the following methods should be employed:

Project website Project Facebook page/Twitter postings Use of the social app, Nextdoor, to connect neighbors and the community

Newsletters or postcards (electronic and printed direct mailers) Email blasts Public meetings (including live Tele-Town Hall meetings) Media releases Communications hotline (telephone)

For messaging related to communicating how the project and individual phases may impact a particular resident or business owner, the communication should be tailored to the specific situation. These

Consistent messaging should occur throughout the duration of the program to keep the community informed about the various stages of the process, the progress that is being made, and the goals and milestones that are being achieved. To that end, a brand logo and tag line has been developed so that residents can immediately identify communications related to this project.

Opinion of Schedule Based on the Phasing and Sequencing Plan, an opinion of schedule was developed to better understand how each individual phase of the program would interact with each other during the implementation process. Schedule considerations were developed through discussions with the Village, area contractors with expertise in undergrounding, our experience with recent undergrounding projects, and the utility owners. Construction activity durations are based on reasonable production rates from area contractors with undergrounding expertise. Combining these production rates with mass quantities for the project that were developed as a part of the opinion of cost development yielded significant activity durations that were then incorporated into the overall schedule. Utility design timeframes experienced on other projects currently underway were

also considered. Appropriate schedule contingencies were also applied to account for normal weather impacts, potential geological challenges (rock), and unforeseen conditions. The program schedule began in February 2018 with the development of this master plan. Subsequent to design of Phase 1, construction activities are expected to begin in the summer of 2020. Construction durations for each phase range from 18 to 24 months depending on the quantity of work to be performed and complexity of each Phase. To accelerate the work, the construction schedule for each phase overlaps the previous adjacent phase construction schedule by six months to one year. The overlap of the construction activities in each phase is subject to conduit installation being complete in the previous phase prior to allowing conduit installation activities to begin in the subsequent phase. This is done primarily to mitigate traffic impacts. There is an opportunity to compress the schedule further by splitting each phase up into two work areas, however, any further compression will be contingent on the utility company design schedules and easement acquisition timeframes. The final six months of the construction activity schedule for each phase is reserved for overhead infrastructure demolition. It is not expected that this will be a continuous construction activity. Experience with similar projects has shown that the coordination required with FPL, AT&T, and Comcast can be time consuming and they need to work sequentially rather than concurrently to remove facilities. Therefore, this activity requires a certain duration of time to be accomplished. Based on our opinion of schedule, all areas of the Village are anticipated to be converted underground by the end of 2025. Final pole removal is anticipated to be completed by the end of the first quarter in 2026. The schedule does contain time contingencies for normal weather impacts, rock conditions, and typical unforeseen conditions. It does not account for significant schedule impacts related to significant weather events that cause the utility owners to focus efforts on storm recovery rather than undergrounding. It also does not consider significant contractor issues related to litigation, bankruptcy, non-performance, and the like because these types of issues are impossible to predict.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Opinion of Probable Cost The master planning process included the development of a Conceptual Opinion of Probable Cost for the undergrounding program. The Village does not have an existing budget established for this project, therefore, there was a desire to evaluate and update the potential costs based on information obtained through the master planning process. A summary of total project costs, including contingency and inflation, is provided in the following table.

Village of Key Biscayne Overall Program Opinion of Probable Cost Summary August 2018 Item No.

Opinion of Probable Cost

Description

Overhead to Underground Conversion - FPL

$17,900,000

Utility Conversion Costs - ATT & Comcast

$9,200,000

Impacted Street Light Replacement (Village Custom)

$1,100,000

Restoration

$6,000,000

Construction Management

$3,800,000

Engineering/Permitting/Surveying

$2,000,000

Construction Administration

$1,800,000

Legal Fees/Easement Acquisition

Public Outreach

FPL Credit - 25% GAF Waiver

$500,000 $300,000 $(4,400,000)

Subtotal Undergrounding Project Costs

$38,200,000

10% Contingency

$3,800,000

Inflation

$4,800,000

Total Undergrounding Project Costs

$46,800,000

Project costs should be tracked throughout the life of the program so that the opinions of cost for subsequent phases can be updated as actual expenditures are realized. This may increase the accuracy of the budget forecasting for the balance of the program as cost projections would be based on realized Village of Key Biscayne project costs rather than similar representative projects. As shown in the summary table, the FPL Government Adjustment Factor (GAF) Waiver credit has been estimated. It is expected the Village will

enter into an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement with FPL for the conversion of Village-wide overhead facilities. In accordance with the FPL Tariff, this program qualifies for a GAF waiver credit of 25%. The GAF waiver credit amount has been estimated at 25% of the total estimated FPL CIAC (contribution-in-aid-of-construction) cost to install the underground system. Additionally, this past spring the FPL Tariff was revised to include additional discounts. Effective February 22, 2018, certain elements of the CIAC calculation can be excluded if the applicant intends to convert existing non-hardened feeder facilities to underground feeder facilities. The calculation would exclude the cost to remove the existing overhead feeder facilities and the net book value of those feeder facilities. In turn, however, the applicant does not get credit for the estimated salvage value of the existing overhead facilities to be removed. Revenue generated, or costs related to potential Village-owned broadband infrastructure improvements, are not considered in this opinion of cost. This is because the Village has not yet formally decided whether or not they will proceed with the installation of a broadband infrastructure network. The opinion of cost to construct a broadband network and the projected revenues vary widely across the various options that exist. While these improvements may be constructed concurrently with the undergrounding program, any costs related to this effort are not included in the undergrounding program because this is considered an investment into improving broadband service to the community and is not a “like-forlike” replacement of what already exists in an aerial configuration within the Village. Expected cost variations may occur throughout the life of the program based on market conditions, labor and material price fluctuations, and other factors. Kimley-Horn 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 Kimley-Horn at this time and represent 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 opinions of probable costs.

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Chapter 2 INT R O D U CT IO N A ND P R O J ECT G O A LS Introduction Over the past decade, multiple hurricanes have impacted the South Florida area and caused widespread power and communications systems disruptions. In September of 2017, Hurricane Irma made landfall in the Florida Keys as a Category 4 hurricane. Within the Village of Key Biscayne (Village) there were reports of many property owners either without power or communications service for days as utility crews repaired the damage. Similar to many other municipalities in South Florida, these severe weather events prompted the Village to investigate the feasibility of relocating the existing overhead utility infrastructure (electric, telephone, and cable) to an underground location, also referred to as “Undergrounding.” Over time, portions of the Village have seen conversions of overhead utilities to an underground location. Much of the overhead utilities for

the east side of the Village are already underground due to large scale redevelopment. Several small-scale neighborhood projects on the west side of the Village have undergrounded overhead utilities, including the Cape Florida neighborhood and more recently, the Harbor Point area including W. Matheson Drive and Bay Lane. While additional projects were discussed with FPL as far back as 2008, including Crandon Boulevard and Mashta Island, these projects were not pursued. Over the last decade, FPL has been required by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) to harden their electrical distribution infrastructure to increase system reliability in the wake of the hurricanes experienced in FPL’s service area. Hardened infrastructure generally consists of replacing existing utility poles with larger concrete poles that can withstand higher wind speeds. Converting overhead utilities underground is also considered an equivalent form of hardening. FPL’s hardening plan would only harden the main feeder lines in the Village, but not harden any of the lateral radial infrastructure. It is these laterals that serve most of the homes and business in the Village. Village Council agreed that hardened poles would have a negative impact on the Village’s aesthetics. Considering those impacts along with

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT GOALS

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

the reliability benefits, the Village Council decided that a conversion of the overhead utilities to an underground location should be pursued. In the fall of 2016 a feasibility study was prepared that discussed the conversion process in general terms and provided a conceptual schedule and opinion of cost. After the feasibility study was received, and through numerous public meetings and discussions, the process moved forward to begin a master planning process. An Underground Utility Task Force (UUTF) comprised of citizens of the Village was formed and began to provide guidance and recommendations to the Village Council on the underground utility conversion. In June of 2018, the Village Council approved a resolution to engage a financial consultant to begin working on an assessment methodology to figure out if that would be the best way to assess residents for these improvements. The assessment methodology report will identify several distinct, direct, and special benefits derived from an underground utility system consisting of improved safety, reliability, and aesthetics of these facilities within the Village. A brief description of each of these attributes follows:

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 with the public and the elements. For example, during windstorm events overhead facilities may be blown down, creating impacts to property and exposing the public to the risk of electric shock. Additionally, routine maintenance of landscaping may cause accidental contact with overhead powerlines causing a risk of electric shock. Reliability: Based on a report entitled Out of Sight, Out of Mind, An Updated Study on the Undergrounding of Overhead Power Lines 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. This is further supported by findings recently reported to the Public Service Commission by FPL. They found their underground systems outperformed their overhead systems in average interruption duration and average interruption frequency by 80%. The fundamental design concepts of underground utility systems also create reliability benefits. For example, a typical neighborhood street in Key Biscayne 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 it is repaired. In an underground system, the line serving the 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 outage can isolate the problem area, restoring service to as much of the loop as possible while keeping the impacted area de-energized.

BEFORE

AFTER

Aesthetics: The Village of Key Biscayne maintains a high standard of visual aesthetics throughout the community. The Zoning and Planning Division and the Village Council are charged with protecting this visual image through a thorough review process for any construction and renovation projects within the Village. The relocation of overhead utilities to an underground location provides an opportunity to enhance the visual aesthetics of the Village and allows greater flexibility for architectural and landscape architectural improvements in areas that were previously restricted by overhead utilities. In the Spring of 2018, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. was selected by the Village to serve as the Engineering Consultant for the undergrounding conversion program. The initial task was the development of an overall master plan to provide a guide for the implementation of the program.

Project Goals A driving force behind developing a master plan is to balance and manage potentially competing priorities such as cost, project duration, traffic impacts, other capital improvement needs, etc., for this ambitious project. The goals and objectives of the master planning process are as follows:

Collection of data related to existing utility infrastructure Example of Overhead Utilities in Key Biscayne

throughout the Village

West McIntyre Street between Glendridge Road and Woodcrest Road

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT GOALS

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Collection of data related to planned, major construction projects within the Village

Development of design criteria to be followed throughout the duration of the undergrounding program

projects to reduce traffic impacts during the implementation process

Development of a conceptual opinion of probable construction cost for the program

Development of an implementation plan for new underground facilities to serve as a guide for the future detailed design phases

Identification of infrastructure projects that could be constructed concurrently with the undergrounding program to take advantage of restoration cost sharing

Development of a sequencing and phasing plan that identifies both the phase area limits and a conceptual schedule of activities for each of those phases

Development of a traffic management plan that coordinates the undergrounding activities with other known significant construction

Coordination with key project stakeholders to develop the master plan

Assessment of the risks associated with the undergrounding program along with risk mitigation strategies

Performance of public outreach to inform the community about the undergrounding program The following sections of this master plan will describe each one of these goals in greater detail along with our recommendations for implementation of the program.

BEFORE

AFTER

A fountain view at Harbor Drive and W Mashta Drive

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Chapter 3 EXIST ING U T ILIT Y SY ST EM O V ER V IEW The Village of Key Biscayne is predominantly served with electric and communications services through a network of overhead wires mounted to wood or concrete poles. It is estimated there are approximately 16 pole-miles of overhead infrastructure within the Village limits. A pole-mile is defined as the linear distance in miles along a set of utility poles, regardless of how many wires, cables, or equipment are attached to those poles. This estimate is based primarily on:

The Village would like to abandon the rear easements in cases where no other utilities remain in the rear easement after the overhead to underground conversion. There is currently a combination of electric and communications in the rear easements. Not all of these are present in every easement on every pole.

information conveyed by FPL maps that were obtained from FPL, AT&T, and Comcast scaled measurements made from those maps field observations Based on our knowledge of the Village and our field observations, Kimley‑Horn is confident this is the most reliable estimate of total overhead infrastructure. The majority of poles observed in the Village support both electrical and communications infrastructure. There are a few poles that support only electrical infrastructure. The overhead utility infrastructure is often located in the right-of-way of the major Village roadways, in rear yard easements, and/or rear alleys between street blocks. The preference is to relocate these lines to the front street right-of-way for the following reasons:

The rear easement is not accessible by utility maintenance vehicles, which creates problems with wire and equipment installation and maintenance. Utility providers now require truck access to new equipment installations, so rear easement/alley installation will only be allowed if the equipment can be accessed by truck. Existing overhead transformers (left) and capacitor bank (right)

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES â&#x20AC;&#x201D; MASTER PLAN

3.0 EXISTING UTILITY SYSTEM OVERVIEW

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

3.2 Overhead Infrastructure – Florida Power & Light Electrical service is provided to the Village through a redundant subaqueous Biscayne Bay transmission line crossing from the mainland beneath the Rickenbacker Causeway Bridge and the Mangrove Preserve that feeds an existing FPL substation on the north side of the Village. This substation feeds the Village distribution grid comprised of feeder lines, radial primary taps, secondary services, and individual customer drops. As discussed in Section 3.1, there are approximately 16 pole-miles of overhead electrical infrastructure. The grid is fed by seven main distribution cables originating from the substation. These main distribution cables effectively break the island up into seven service areas based on the total load capacity of each cable. The service areas are all interconnected through a series of switches that provide isolation in the event there is a problem with any specific cable. To better understand how power is delivered to individual homes and businesses, the following is a brief overview of the various components of the existing electrical system within the Village. Electrical power enters the Village from the substation through one of the seven main feeder cables described above. These distribution feeders then branch off to subsequent distribution feeder wires within each of the seven distribution service areas. Each service area is interconnected with aerial switches that provide system isolation and redundancy so all the feeder wires essentially work together to provide power to the Village. Many of the Village’s feeder wires exist underground and head east on Ocean Lane Drive to feed the eastern neighborhoods and high-density resorts and condos. Two others, one overhead and one underground, feed the single-family neighborhood on the west side of the Village. Branching from these feeder wires are the primary distribution wires. These wires are generally those wires that are located in the rear yard easements. The primary wires are connected to the overhead transformers that reduce the voltage to a level that is required by the customer. Secondary service cables then run from the transformer to a service drop, where the wires run down the poles and transition to an underground service, or run aerially, to the meter location.

There are some areas of complete underground electrical infrastructure within the Village, including feeder and primary duct banks. In 1971, significant underground infrastructure was installed to feed the east side of the Village. The resort and condo buildings are fed via underground duct to vault rooms that house transformers and switches. In more recent years Cape Florida was undergrounded with old technology, including below grade transformer vaults. These vaults housed the old “can” style transformers. More recently, the Harbor Point area (including W. Matheson Drive and Bay Lane) was converted to underground. In some cases, service drops are buried underground from the primary pole line to the home, however, there are still a significant number of aerial service drops to both residential and commercial buildings within the Village. The following table provides general information related to approximate quantities that make up the FPL power grid within the Village: Table 3–1 — FPL Power System Information Number of Utility Poles

701

Approx Length of Overhead Wire

16 miles

Approx Length of Underground Wire

12 miles

Number of Overhead Transformers

343

Number of At-Grade Transformers

211

Number of Overhead Switches

Number of Capicator Banks

line then jogs west and turns south down the Fernwood Road corridor. From that corridor moving south it generally branches out to the east and the west to feed the various optical nodes. To better understand how cable television is delivered to individual homes and businesses, the following is a brief overview of the various components of the existing cable television and communications system that exists within the Village. Cable television and communications service enters the Village through the main fiber optic cable described above. This cable then branches off to subsequent fiber optic cables that serve individual fiber nodes providing service to many distinct service areas throughout the Village. The fiber optic cables that serve these nodes exists on the main north-south arterial road, such as Fernwood Road. The nodes provide a transition from fiber optic service to coaxial cable service. Branching from these nodes are the main coaxial distribution cables. The coaxial distribution cables are routed to numerous amplifiers, aerial taps and ground mounted pedestals that provide the individual coaxial services to the customers. The main coaxial distribution cables and individual service cables are generally those wires that are located in the rear yard easements although they are also co-located with the fiber optic cable on some of the overhead lines. The following table provides general approximate information related to Comcast’s network within the Village based on maps provided by Comcast and observations made by Kimley-Horn: Table 3–2 — Comcast Network Information

3.3 Overhead Infrastructure – Comcast

Length of Overhead Fiber Trunk Lines

9 miles

Length of Overhead Coaxial Trunk Lines

16 miles

Comcast provides the Village with cable television and communications service through overhead backbone fiber optic lines on the west side and a mix of overhead and underground fiber optic lines on the east side, which then transition to coaxial service lines to the buildings. Based on maps provided by Comcast, meetings with Comcast representatives, and observations made by Kimley-Horn, the network originates outside north of the Village municipal limits and is fed by one main fiber optic cable that runs south on Crandon Boulevard through Virginia Key to the Village. This

Length of Underground Fiber Trunk Lines

2 miles

Length of Underground Coaxial Trunk Lines

13 miles

Number of Fiber Nodes

Number of Power Supplies

3.4 Overhead Infrastructure – AT&T AT&T provides the Village with telephone and communications service through a mix of overhead and underground backbone copper trunk lines that then transition to service lines to the building. AT&T does not keep records of the total length of cable they have installed in the Village. The system is very mature and most of it was constructed in the early 1960’s. The network is fed by one main copper feed. Similar to Comcast, the one main feed is an underground duct bank that originates north of the Village’s northern municipal limits. Through a series of manholes, this underground duct continues south along Crandon Boulevard with a secondary route down Fernwood Road. These ducts then converge on AT&T’s main distribution building on Westwood Drive. It then heads west on Westwood to feed the southern portion of the Village. From this corridor moving south then west, lines generally branch out east and west and then north and south to feed the Village. To better understand how telephone service is delivered to individual homes and businesses, the following is a brief overview of the various components of the existing telephone and communications system that exists within the Village. Telephone and communications service enters the Village through one main copper cables described above. This cable then branches off to subsequent copper cables that serve a network of Service Area Interface (SAI) cabinets and Controlled Environment Vaults (CEV) that provide service to many distinct service areas throughout the Village. A significant portion of the main trunk line is already underground with radial splices occurring in manholes along the route. Many of the radials then transition to overhead locations to serve area customers. The copper cable main lines are routed to numerous aerial taps and ground mounted pedestals that serve as the tapping point for individual copper services to the customers.

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Chapter 4 DATA CO LLECT IO N To develop a master plan that considers the unique aspects of the Village, it is important to gather information related to zoning and land use designations, general topography and soils, and the types of underground infrastructure that exist, as well as the plans for future infrastructure improvements in place at the time of this master planning effort. Each of these categories plays a role in how the overall program will be executed. The results of this data collection process are presented in the following sections.

4.1

Zoning and Land Use

The Village consists of commercial, office, single-family residential, educational, recreational, multi-family residential, government, and vacant land uses. There are no industrial areas in the Village. The zoning map with the zoning designations for the Village are presented on the following pages. It is important to understand the relationship that the zoning districts have with the execution of the project. The needs and priorities of the commercial community are different than those found in the residential community. Therefore, the design must consider these differences so that 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 communications services from overhead to underground)

be timed during the middle of the day when they are traditionally away. Conversely, the commercial property owner will likely desire that service disruptions occur after hours to avoid business impacts.

4.2 Topography and Soils Information related to topography and soils was collected throughout the Village from available online sources including the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The existing topography and soils maps that were obtained are presented on the following pages after the Zoning Map. The soils map represents the general soil classes expected to be found in the Village. Soil classifications provide insight into drainage characteristics, expected distribution and extent, typical vegetation, and how coarse or fine the soil is in various locations. The primary purpose of gathering this information is to gain an understanding of the various soil types that could be encountered and how those soils may impact design and construction. For example, if a dense rock stratum exists in various locations around the Village, installation of underground utilities within this layer generally requires specialty excavation and boring equipment to achieve an acceptable rate of construction productivity. Having general knowledge of where the rock stratum may be encountered allows for proper planning related to number of construction crews and types of equipment required for the selected contractor to achieve the Village’s schedule objectives.

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES â&#x20AC;&#x201D; MASTER PLAN

4.0 DATA COLLECTION

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES â&#x20AC;&#x201D; MASTER PLAN

4.0 DATA COLLECTION

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

A review of the soils maps reveal that the Village of Key Biscayne is underlain by two distinct soil classifications:

Canaveral Sand Complex Urban Land Complex Urban Land Complex is not a soil type, but rather an area that is unable to be accurately classified into a soil type due to the amount of existing development. This leaves Canaveral Sand as the only distinct type of soil recorded in the Village. The Canaveral series is a deep, poorly- to moderately-drained soil with sand and shell fragments found throughout. The soil can be found along the coast on low dune like ridges (National Cooperative Soil Survey, 2014). On the island, the Canaveral series is found in a few pockets near the center of the Village. This soil depicts marine environments with sand and shell deposits found throughout. Major rock material is not identified in the Village and during conduit construction this is important for employing the proper machinery and methods. Because the classification of soils identified by NRCS maps for the Village is general in nature, we recommend that soil testing be conducted throughout the phase areas during design to better define the local soil characteristics.

4.3 Existing Utility Infrastructure and Future Infrastructure Planned Improvements To develop a master plan for this project, it is important to understand the existing utility infrastructure that will remain in service during the implementation process and remain after the completion of the program. It is also important to identify other significant construction projects that may occur during the implementation phase of the program so that work can practically be coordinated. If these projects are identified ahead of time, their impacts can be limited to the extent possible. Kimley-Horn coordinated with the stakeholders listed below to obtain readily available information regarding the existing utility infrastructure within or near Village limits:

Village of Key Biscayne Miami-Dade County Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department AmeriGas American Traffic Solutions Hotwire Communications Florida Power & Light (FPL) AT&T Comcast

A description of the type of data collected from each of these stakeholders, as well as how it impacts the undergrounding program, follows below.

4.3.1

Village of Key Biscayne

The Village of Key Biscayne provided atlas level data of their infrastructure to Kimley-Horn for review. The Village owns and maintains the following underground infrastructure that will need to remain after the completion of the program and remain in service during the implementation of the program:

Stormwater collection and transmission Electrical street lighting The consultant team coordinated with representatives from the Village of Key Biscayne Manager’s office, as well as Public Works regarding proposed infrastructure projects planned throughout the Island. The Village provided project information for its proposed Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Based on information provided, there are proposed projects throughout the Village. These projects can be generally categorized as the following types:

Drainage improvements Stormwater pump station improvements Street lighting improvements Roadway improvements Landscape improvements Recreational projects

4.0 DATA COLLECTION

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

The capital improvements projects (CIP) projects are funded through general funds incorporated into the annual budget. The recreational projects including field improvements and sports lighting will move forward independently of the Village’s proposed utility undergrounding plan. Street light improvements are ongoing but a large portion of the existing lighting will be affected by the undergrounding and will be incorporated into the undergrounding project. Roadway improvements include traffic calming measures and sidewalks may also be included in the undergrounding program. In recent years the Village hired a consultant to prepare a master plan for the implementation of the Village’s drainage improvements, which includes upgrades to stormwater pump stations and gravity drainage wells. Because the improvements proposed by this drainage master plan are widespread, Kimley-Horn has been asked to incorporate these improvements into the undergrounding master plan to realize efficiencies in constructing them at the same time. Some of the benefits of performing projects concurrently include:

increased scheduling coordination, reduction of long term traffic impacts, and cost savings resulting from shared restoration costs. The stormwater master plan breaks down improvements into two tiers. Tier 1 includes implementation of backflow preventers on stormwater outfalls to reduce the tidal effects on low lying areas. This portion of the stormwater master plan has been completed. Tier 2 is a much more extensive undertaking that includes a $24-million plan of improvements. Although the Village has setup a stormwater enterprise to pay for drainage improvements, the Village currently does not have the budget to incorporate all the improvements identified in this stormwater master plan. The Village has recently hired a financial consultant to identify and establish the necessary fees to pay for these improvements. To spread the cost of these improvements over the long term, the stormwater master plan establishes a 10-year phased completion schedule. Although this plan extends beyond the estimated timeframe of the underground conversion program, the Village may elect to accelerate these improvements to share costs and avoid extending impacts to the Village residents.

A map of the drainage basin areas anticipated to receive improvements has been created to graphically describe the improvement locations and anticipated construction years. This map can be seen on the following page.

4.3.3 Miami-Dade County Public Works Miami-Dade County’s consultant, High Tech Locating, provided atlas level data for underground street light and traffic signal systems present within the Village. Although Crandon Boulevard is listed as a state highway, the County manages and maintains street lights and traffic signals on Crandon Boulevard within the Village. The County also maintains school flashers on Harbor Drive for St. Agnes School. The County currently has no capital projects planned for Crandon Boulevard.

4.3.4 Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department provided atlas level GIS data for the water distribution and sanitary sewer systems within the Village. The County provides the Village with drinking water and sanitary sewer services under an inter-local agreement. Provided with the GIS data was information related to the material type of individual segments of the water main system. This will help identify opportunities to replace watermains that have exceeded their useful life during the implementation of the undergrounding program so work can be properly coordinated. The County does not currently have any organized program for the systematic replacement of these aged watermains, so replacement is expected to be performed on an opportunistic basis. The County has no plans for targeted long term watermain replacement that could be accelerated to be accomplished during the undergrounding program. However, Village staff expressed interest in replacing all existing asbestos cement (AC) water main pipe. Kimley‑Horn will identify these segments to be considered for inclusion in the undergrounding program. It is important to note that the County’s data included water mains that were identified as “unknown” material. During the design phase, in-field investigation will take place to ensure these water mains are appropriately categorized and included in the scope of improvements as necessary.

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES â&#x20AC;&#x201D; MASTER PLAN

4.0 DATA COLLECTION

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

4.3.5 AmeriGas

4.3.7 Hotwire Communications

4.3.9 AT&T

4.3.10 Comcast

AmeriGas is a private service provider of propane, also known as liquified petroleum gas (LP-gas). In a residential capacity, propane is used to fuel home appliances including furnaces, water heaters, air conditioners, outdoor grills, range tops, and backup generators among others. AmeriGas provided Kimley-Horn with a database of their customers within the Village. This information will not significantly influence the master plan, but will be useful during design and construction to avoid damaging underground tanks while trenching on private property to service points.

Hotwire provided Kimley-Horn with atlas level data of the cable television/ communications distribution system within the Village, as well as detailed record drawings and information related to their system. Hotwire’s existing infrastructure is entirely underground. They are also currently installing additional conduit within the Village to serve several new customers. Those record drawings are forthcoming. Maps of Hotwire’s existing network are not included in this master plan document to protect the confidentiality of this information.

AT&T provided Kimley-Horn with atlas level data of the telephone/ communications distribution system within the Village, as well as detailed record drawings and information related to their system. Much of the underground trunk line system will need to remain in service during the implementation of the program and will need to remain after completion of the program. Maps of AT&T’s existing network are not included in this master plan document to protect the confidentiality of this information.

Comcast provided Kimley-Horn with atlas level data of the cable television/ communications distribution system within the Village. Detailed record drawings and information related to their system was not available according to Comcast. Maps of Comcast’s existing network are not included in this master plan document to protect the confidentiality of this information.

4.3.6 American Traffic Solutions

4.3.8 Florida Power & Light

American Traffic Solutions (ATS) is a private service provider of smart transportation solutions. Within the Village ATS provides red light cameras along Crandon Boulevard at Harbor Drive, Key Colony, and W. McIntyre Street. ATS provided Kimley-Horn with record drawings and information related to their systems. This information will not significantly influence the master plan but will be critical during design and construction to avoid damaging their facilities.

FPL allowed Kimley-Horn to view atlas level data of the Village’s electrical distribution system. Because much of the east side of the Village is already underground, FPL was able to provide record drawings of that underground infrastructure. Maps of FPL’s existing electrical system are not included in this master plan document to protect the confidentiality of this information.

Existing Comcast aerial node

Existing Comcast aerial node power supply

Existing multifamily rear service FPL transformer in Key Biscayne

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Chapter 5 D ESIG N CR IT ER IA A ND CO NCEP T U A L D ESIG N D ESCR IP T IO N Through a series of meetings with the Village, FPL, AT&T, Comcast, and other stakeholder utilities, Kimley-Horn has assembled general guidelines for design criteria to be used throughout the implementation of the undergrounding program. These guidelines are not intended to be all inclusive, or the only criteria to be followed during the design and construction of the overhead to underground conversion improvements. They are intended as 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 design that will be performed by FPL, AT&T, and Comcast. This criterion is 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. The criteria are based on the assumption that all of the overhead utilities in the Village will be converted to an underground location. They do not contain any criteria for a hybrid system conversion that consists of partially overhead and partially underground distribution components. A summary of this criteria and conceptual design follows below.

5.1 General The following codes and standards, as applicable, shall govern the design of the improvements:

Village of Key Biscayne Code of Ordinances Standards Applicable to Public Right-of-Ways and Easements Within the Village of Key Biscayne

Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances

Florida Department of Transportation Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways (commonly known as the “Florida Greenbook”), latest edition

Florida Department of Transportation Design Standards Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, latest edition

Florida Building Code, latest edition National Electric Code (NEC), latest edition FPL Distribution System Standards, latest edition AT&T and Comcast System Standards, as applicable There are some unique characteristics to the Village that also influence the design criteria for the program. These are described in greater detail in the following section. Development of the Village began in the early 1800s, however, it wasn’t until the late 1940’s where we start seeing official plats recorded and right-of-way widths start to develop. Typical of development during this era is the prevalent use of narrow right-of-ways for public streets and utilities. This creates unique issues for the undergrounding program. Generally, it is desirable to install underground infrastructure on a roadside shoulder versus under pavement. This allows for a simplified installation at a lower cost than utilities installed under pavement. While some areas of the Village have wide right-of-way with plenty of shoulder area to work in, some areas of the Village are fully developed in that parallel parking, curb, and streetscape have been installed that effectively eliminates any swale or shoulder area. In areas that do have a small amount of roadside shoulder,

5.0 DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DESCRIPTION

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

this area in some cases has been completely claimed by the adjacent property owners with the installation of extensive landscaping, and other such improvements. While the Village could legally reclaim this right-ofway for their use, this is not considered an option as it would negatively alter the visual aesthetic and character of the Village, not to mention create tension between property owners and the Village. Therefore, installation of new utility facilities must be in the public right-of-way when feasible, under pavement, or in utility easement areas. Typical residential properties not located directly on either the ocean or Intracoastal Waterway generally have a 5-foot wide platted utility easement in the rear or side of their property. Mashta Island and Cape Florida have 6-foot-wide platted easements. This easement is generally adjacent to an identically sized easement on the neighboring property thereby creating an effectively 10-foot and 12-foot-wide easement It is within this easement where rear yard overhead utilities currently reside. Unfortunately, this rear yard easement cannot be used for the new underground electrical and communications facilities because the individual utility owners cannot properly access or maintain infrastructure installed in these locations. For these facilities to be converted underground, they must be relocated to a front street location in the right-of-way or in an easement accessible directly from the right-of-way. This does provide a benefit to the landowner with a 5 or 6-foot easement on the rear or side of their property. If that easement is no longer needed by any utilities after the conversion process is complete, it may be abandoned and the property owner will gain back that portion of land with no encumbrances that the easement once held.

5.2 Village of Key Biscayne As discussed in Section 4 of this master plan, the Village is responsible for the operation and maintenance of various types of infrastructure within the Village. The design criteria presented below shall govern improvements related specifically to undergrounding. Any impacts or improvements to other infrastructure shall be governed by the design criteria already established for those elements by the Village of Key Biscayne. A summary of recommended specific undergrounding design criteria as it relates to Village owned and operated infrastructure is summarized below.

5.2.1

Village Owned Conduit

Conduit to be installed for Village purposes should be HDPE or PVC suitable for installation by either Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) or open cut methods.

To achieve cost savings related to joint trenching, conduit routes for future communications should follow the routes of the conduit being installed as part of the undergrounding program to the greatest extent practical.

Place pullboxes at junctions and at intervals sufficient to allow pulling future cabling.

Locate pullboxes in the road right-of-way, but off the roadway travel surface to the greatest extent practical.

Pullboxes should be provided with electronic markers and/or have GPS data recorded for future locating purposes.

5.2.2 Village Street Lighting The undergrounding project will impact a significant number of street lights within the Village. The impacted street lights consist of those currently mounted to overhead utility poles. When these poles are removed, the street lights will be taken down with them. For this reason, these impacted street lights will need to be replaced. The Village is actively implementing a Village wide lighting program. New street lights have already been installed on Harbor Drive and W. Mashta Drive. Contracts are currently being finalized with a contractor for installation of new street lighting down Fernwood Road. The approved lighting fixtures within the west single-family neighborhood are a GE LED post top light identified as Avery Streetdreams. Other areas of the Village including the Crandon corridor, the multi-family neighborhood between Galen and E. Enid, and Sonesta Drive use different distinct lighting. As we move into a detailed design phase, specific types of lighting will be determined for each area. As shown on the impacted street lighting map on page 38, some areas have no existing street lights or the spacing of the impacted lights is not generally regular. This indicates the lighting levels within a particular area are non-existent, may be less than a desired illumination level, or may

Existing FPL-owned street lights

not be uniform. During the design of each project phase, we recommend discussions with the Village to determine if any additional street lighting is desired to be installed concurrently with the undergrounding project. It is estimated that 118 street lights will be impacted by this program and will need to be replaced. A map of their locations is found on the following page. Forty (40) street lights are currently being installed by the Village as part of their separate lighting program. It is also estimated that a minimum of 41 street lights would be required in the areas of the Village currently without lighting. A photometric plan would be required to confirm that quantity.

Existing Village-owned custom street light

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 lighting. For the standard lighting options, there is a capital cost of approximately $1,200 per pole for the installation, but the Village would be required to enter into an FPL Lighting Agreement that would require the Village to pay a monthly maintenance fee and electrical service charges to FPL. A significant drawback to the FPL standard lighting options is they do not have the same aesthetics as the Village standard lighting and would need approval to be installed anywhere in the Village. A premium lighting

5.0 DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DESCRIPTION

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

package is also available from FPL, but these increase the monthly fixture fees. The FPL premium lights are more decorative and are somewhat similar to the Village standard street lights, but would still require Village approval. Kimley-Horn was able to the review the Village’s current RFP submittal to perform an analysis of the costs related to the FPL premium lighting versus the Village owned lighting. Kimley-Horn found there is a $1,200 per pole initial capital costs to install the FPL premium lighting, as well as a monthly cost per pole that includes maintenance and energy usage and fixture, pole, and wire fees. Estimates received from FPL for poles and fixtures that resemble the Village’s custom poles are approximately $52 per pole per month. With an approximate installation cost for custom lights around $8,600 per pole (not including maintenance and energy costs), it would take almost 12 years of FPL monthly fees to reach the initial capital cost of the custom pole.

5.2.3 Equipment Placement Equipment shall be located to meet the clear zone requirements contained in the Florida Department of Transportation Design Manual, Chapter 215, and the Florida Greenbook, as applicable

Where no standard exists, Miami-Dade County and FDOT standard specifications shall be used to the greatest extent applicable.

Landscaping outside of easements and right-of-way impacted by any improvements shall be restored to an equal or better condition than existed prior to commencement of the work.

5.2.5 Village Policy Recommendations Easement acquisition will be required in every phase during the implementation of this program. This process can be challenging and time consuming. It is recommended that the Village as a matter of policy consider requiring the dedication of a front and/or side yard easement be dedicated for utility use on any property that wishes to obtain a building permit for a significant renovation or new build project. Access to such easements will help facilitate the program during future phases. For properties that are undergoing extensive upgrades or renovations, it is recommended that electric and communications conduits be installed to a front street location for future use by the undergrounding program to connect the home/business to the new underground infrastructure when it is installed. This will eliminate the need for trenching or boring from the front street to the meter location in the future.

Within urban curb or curb and gutter roadway corridors, equipment shall be placed according to the Florida Department of Transportation Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1, Chapter 4.2.4 – Lateral Offsets. Transportation Design for Livable Communities criteria shall be applied for applicable roadway corridors.

This criterion is applicable for both Village and County controlled right-of-way.

5.2.4 Right-of-Way Restoration Right-of-way restoration shall meet current Zoning and Land Development Regulations applicable to Public Right-of-Way and Easements within the Village of Key Biscayne for roadway pavements, drainage, curbing, and sidewalks.

Sanitary sewer restoration, where impacted, shall meet current Standards Applicable to Public Right-of-Way and Easements Within the Village of Key Biscayne.

5.3 Franchise Utilities Kimley-Horn held design workshops with FPL, AT&T, and Comcast staff for the purposes of reviewing design requirements for the proposed underground infrastructure. The following summaries describe the results of those design workshops. Because FPL, AT&T, and Comcast consider the locations of their significant electrical and communications infrastructure elements confidential, any maps or schematics that were developed as a result of this process are not contained within this master plan document.

5.3.1

Florida Power & Light

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 that are connected to

5.0 DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DESCRIPTION

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

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 opposed 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 of the equipment and materials that are installed are provided by FPL so they are consistent with their electrical distribution standards. This is done in an effort to maintain system consistency and cost efficiency in both installation and maintenance. That being the case, there are now two equipment aspects of the design where the municipality can make a preference decision. Two types of switch cabinets can be provided by FPL based on preference or circumstance; the standard “PME” switch cabinet or the “Vista” switch cabinet.

The standard PME switch cabinet is the cabinet that is deployed most commonly in the FPL electrical distribution system.

The Vista cabinet has a slightly smaller footprint, is shorter, and only requires eight feet of clearance on one side of the cabinet and 3 feet on the sides and rear rather than all sides like the standard switch. This offers some unique advantages when the equipment is required to be placed in tight spaces or 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. For this reason, our opinion of cost has separated the added cost of installing Vista cabinets so the Village can contemplate the level of investment that makes sense. In reality, due to space constraints, some Vista cabinets may be required regardless of the desire for resiliency.

Two types of concrete pads for transformers can also be provided by FPL based on preference. One of the major concerns of the Village is the consistent flooding of low lying areas. When transformers are flooded, FPL cannot service them until the water recedes. FPL now offers the choice of the standard 6" concrete transformer pad, two 6" pads stacked, or a 24" concrete pad, which will raise the transformer an additional 18" above grade. With concerns about sea level rise and potential for storm surge from hurricanes, the additional cost of concrete for the taller pads may be warranted in low lying areas. FPL will perform the electrical design for the program followed by Kimley‑Horn developing the supplemental conduit plans to aid the Village’s contractor in installing the conduit for the project. FPL has communicated the following general guidelines 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, such as the multifamily buildings on Galen, Sunrise, and E Enid Drives, where the buildings are served from existing transformers at the rear of the building. As long as FPL has access

FPL PME switch cabinet

FPL transformer clearance requirements

to the transformers and conduit via private drives, these overhead lines may be undergrounded within existing easements and transformers may remain at the rear of the buildings.

The Village is served by two overhead and five underground separate main feeders from the substation that serve specific areas of the Village based on electrical load and capacity of the main feeder. Main feeders will not be replaced or upgraded so service areas within the Village will remain the same.

All electrical equipment and materials to be owned and maintained by FPL at the conclusion of the project and shall be provided by FPL.

Contractors installing FPL infrastructure must be pre-approved by FPL.

Switch cabinets will be required at each of the two main overhead feeder landing points in the Village. Switch cabinets will also be required to separate underground distribution transformer loops. Forty-one overhead switches exist today. FPL has stated that number will be reduced. 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.

Existing three-phase pad-mounted transformer in Key Biscayne

At least one capacitor bank will be required within the service area of each feeder. This yields a total of seven The capacitor bank must be located within 100 feet of a switch cabinet.

FPL prefers 10'x10' easements for single phase transformers. Open Delta Bank Transformers require a 13'x10' easement. Threephase transformers require anywhere from 10'x10' to 20'x20' 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 handhole 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 and configurations may vary depending on the specific situation, field conditions, and types of equipment to be installed. Easements must be located adjacent to and accessed from the public right-of-way.

FPL Vista switch cabinet

5.0 DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DESCRIPTION

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Electrical equipment requires 3 feet of clear area on the sides and

5.3.2 AT&T

rear of the equipment and 8 feet in the front of the equipment for access and maintenance. Standard switch cabinets and capacitors require 8 feet of clearance on all sides of the cabinet.

AT&T provides communications service to the Village through a network of copper cables. Much of the trunk line already exists in an underground location to their distribution center on Westwood Drive. Distribution of service is accomplished to most homes and businesses through underground to overhead transitions at the overhead radial line locations. AT&T intends to continue service to the Village through a copper system. They indicated they have plans to upgrade to fiber service in the future but they are not prepared to make this conversion in conjunction with the undergrounding program.

Existing handholes connected to existing electrical services to the building/facility may be reused if they are located near the front street. Conductor may need to be replaced depending on the load. Existing handholes located at the rear of the property 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.

AT&T will perform the communications network design for the program with Kimley-Horn developing the supplemental conduit plans to aid the Village’s contractor in installing the conduit for the project. AT&T has communicated the following general guidelines related to the design of the improvements.

New conduit will be installed between the transformer and the facility service entrance or existing handhole, as applicable, to contain the service or secondary service cable.

Facility service entrances shall meet current NEC standards for connection to the new underground system.

Main underground trunklines and equipment shall remain in service

Overhead facility services will be converted to an underground

Screened FPL transformer

Electrical equipment shall be located so it can be accessed easily by truck.

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.

Transformers should be located on one side of the street to the extent practical.

Transformers shall be the “low profile” style to the extent practical. In certain situations, such as three phase services and large services requiring service greater than 75kVA, a “regular” style transformer shall be used.

Concrete transformer pads shall be 6" in height unless the 24" pads are otherwise requested by the Village or circumstances require their use.

(including existing SAIs and CEVs)

location. This may require replacement of the service entrance if the meter can cannot accommodate new underground conductors. Overhead weather heads will be abandoned in place. To plan for the improvements required to implement the underground conversion of electric utilities in the Village, Kimley-Horn met with FPL on numerous occasions to discuss proposed routing for new underground feeders, main feeder switches, and capacitors. The existing subaqueous transmission line under Biscayne Bay from the mainland to the substation will remain as is. The existing underground feeders leaving the substation into the Village will be reused and their respective service areas will remain generally the same based on electrical loading demands. To minimize the cost to transition back to the existing overhead system and minimize disruption to the residents, phase boundaries were determined at locations that would encompass the entirety of the adjacent right-of-way and only impact residents through one phase of construction. Additionally, phase lines were selected where existing poles are located or where temporary transition poles could be minimized and set to allow for clean transitions between phases.

The existing underground trunk line shall be reused. Distribution of service will be converted to underground through connection to the trunk line at existing trunk line manhole locations

Service pedestals will generally be installed in the public rightof-way or the same easement as the electrical equipment. These pedestals will then provide communications service to the individual facilities. For pedestals not sharing an easement with FPL equipment, AT&T prefers a 5'x5' easement. Existing AT&T cabinets and electrical service in Key Biscayne

AT&T prefers major equipment easements to be 10'x10' for their future fiber equipment needs

Upgrades will be built into the design that include new feeder ties and looping that will provide enhanced reliability to the Village. Kimley‑Horn’s recommendation to the Village is to allow these upgrades to be constructed, but at no additional cost to the Village since Key Biscayne should not subsidize system improvements desired by FPL. Costs related to upgrades should be clearly identified during the development of the Binding Cost Estimates for each phase so these costs can be credited along with the applicable Government Adjustment Factor (GAF) Waiver.

Equipment may be located in the right-of-way if sufficient clear zone requirements are met

Pedestals require one foot of clear distance around all sides for access and maintenance

Pullboxes will be required at regular intervals to facilitate cable pulling and slack cable storage. AT&T prefers 24"x36" and 30"x48" pullboxes. Pullboxes are to be located outside of the roadway surface. When required, pullboxes can be placed in the paved surface and in this case, will be required to be H-20 load rated.

5.0 DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DESCRIPTION

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

fiber network. To avoid an additional cost to convert “like for like” services plus FTTP services, AT&T will need to convince all its Legacy customers to discontinue their old services and upgrade to a newer technology. Additionally, AT&T sells its Legacy services to third party resellers who may be unwilling to part with their ongoing customer contracts. This issue also prevents pole removal since FPL would then top poles and AT&T would be responsible for removal at an additional cost to the program. AT&T engineers and planners are aware of these issues and are working internally to facilitate an FTTP upgrade. Until AT&T’s contractual issues are resolved, this master plan contemplates the implementation of a “like for like” overhead to underground conversion.

5.3.3 Comcast

Existing AT&T and Comcast pedestals in Key Biscayne

Conduit will be provided for service cable between the pedestal and the facility to be served.

Conduit and pullboxes are to be NEC compliant for communications service and conduit shall be gray in color.

Equipment and cabling will be provided and installed by AT&T. Conduit and pullboxes will be furnished and installed by the Village’s contractor. Initially, AT&T plans to design a like-for-like coaxial based network conversion. This being the case, they plan on reusing all of their existing ground level Service Area Interface (SAI) cabinets that are found throughout the Village. In the future, AT&T has reported that they are budgeting to install a fiber optic system overlay. To implement this upgraded system, AT&T will require new Fiber Distribution Cabinets (PFP) and easements throughout the Village. In a recent meeting, AT&T indicated they are open to the opportunity the underground project provides to install a Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) network. At the time of this master plan AT&T was not under contract by

the Village to prepare detailed design plans, therefore AT&T representatives could only speak in generalities about the infrastructure necessary for a “like for like” conversion or a FTTP conversion. In most cases, PFP cabinets will be located near existing SAI cabinets or near an existing controlled environment vault (CEV). It should be noted that many service pedestals, below-grade vaults, and handholes will be required for the overhead to underground conversion, but this equipment is not considered significant. Locations for all equipment elements will be determined during the detailed design for each phase. AT&T noted the copper system pedestals are different than the fiber system pedestals. Easements should provide space for both copper and fiber pedestals since the fiber pedestal will need to be installed and made operational prior to the removal of the copper pedestal during the future fiber overlay program. Although the Village has expressed a desire to upgrade to FTTP, and this may be the more cost-effective approach to an AT&T conversion, this upgrade does not come without its challenges. AT&T sells Legacy services to residents and businesses that presently have no equivalent for with a

Comcast provides communications service to the Village through a network of fiber optic and coaxial cables. The fiber optic trunk line exists in an aerial pole to pole location. Distribution to most homes and businesses is through overhead to underground transitions at the overhead radial line locations. Comcast has offered to upgrade their service to the Village through installation of a FTTP system. However, the cost of this upgrade would have to be borne by the Village. Therefore, this master plan contemplates installation of a “like for like” fiber optic/coaxial cable system similar to the current one, except all cabling would be underground.

Each fiber node location is supported by three pieces of equipment: 1. a power supply cabinet, 2. a Virtual Hub (VHub) Node Housing, 3. a Local Convergence Point (LCP) that serves as the Fiber Distribution Hub (FDH). For a hybrid fiber/ coaxial system, the LCP would not be used.

Comcast prefers that the power supply, VHub, and LCP are located in a common 10'x10' easement. This equipment can also be located in the public right-of-way as long as the required roadway clearances are met. The power supply can be separated from the LCP and VHub by a maximum of 800 feet. However, separating the equipment increases cost due to the additional conduit required to connect all three pieces of equipment.

The power supply cabinet requires a 120V, single phase metered service from FPL.

Comcast will be performing the communications network design for the program with Kimley-Horn developing the supplemental conduit plans to aid the Village’s contractor for installing the conduit necessary for the Comcast network. Comcast has provided the following general guidelines related to the design of the improvements.

Main underground fiber optic trunk lines and power source equipment can be reused if practical. Reuse of power sources shall be evaluated during the design phase since this will require a power source to serve both the new network and existing network during the cut over phase. This may overload the power source if sufficient power is not available to serve both networks simultaneously.

One fiber node can accommodate a maximum of 256 connections. Fiber node service areas should be designed with less than 256 connections to provide room for future growth.

Existing pad-mounted transformer with communications pedestals in the background

5.0 DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DESCRIPTION

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

service area is designed to serve up to a maximum of 256 individual connections. It should be noted that many service pedestals and below grade vaults and hand holes will be required for the overhead to underground conversion but this equipment is not considered significant. Locations for all equipment elements will be determined during the detailed design for each phase.

5.3.4 Wireless Technology – Smart Poles There were previous discussions at Village Underground Utility Task Force meetings regarding the opportunity to deploy “Smart Pole” technology in conjunction with the undergrounding project to bolster wireless service. These poles could also serve as low visual impact antenna for future 5G wireless technologies and/or Village wide WiFi service.

Existing underground AT&T communications manhole and pad mounted pedestal in Key Biscayne

Multiple VHubs and LCPs can be served by a single power supply

A fiber optic service pedestal or vault can serve up to four homes.

and located in a common easement. In locations with multiple VHubs, an easement larger than 10'x10' may be required.

Conduit is required from the pedestal to the service point at the home if a fiber optic system is installed.

Cables containing greater than 96 fiber strands will require 24"x36" vaults. Cables containing less than 96 strands can be accommodated in 17"x30" 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 of the roadway.

Service pedestals are not required in areas served with 24"x36" vaults. All service connections can be made directly from the vault.

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 as long as the required roadway clearances are met. These pedestals and vaults will then provide communications service to the individual facilities. For pedestals not sharing an easement with FPL equipment, Comcast prefers a 5'x5' easement.

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 feet in length.

Equipment may be located in the right-of-way if sufficient clear zone requirements are met (FDOT or AASHTO, as applicable).

Pedestals require one foot of clear distance around all sides for access and maintenance.

Pullboxes will be required at regular intervals to facilitate cable pulling and slack cable storage if long runs exist between service vaults/pedestals.

Conduit and pullboxes are to be NEC compliant for communications service and orange conduit shall be used.

Equipment, integrated pedestal vaults, and cabling will be provided and installed by Comcast. Conduit and pullboxes will be furnished and installed by the Village’s contractor.

Existing underground electrical pull boxes and communications pedestals in Key Biscayne

Initially, Comcast plans to design a “like-for-like” coaxial-based network conversion. Comcast indicated they would like to provision for future expansion and potentially offer a FTTP network. This would be an upgrade to the existing Fiber to the Node (FTTN) network currently in place. However, Comcast stated that the additional cost related to this upgrade would need to be borne by the Village. This being the case, this master plan contemplates that a “like for like” fiber/coaxial system (FTTN network) will be deployed for the undergrounding program. At the time of the Master Plan process, Comcast was not under contract by the Village to prepare detailed design plans, therefore Comcast representatives could only speak in generalities about the infrastructure necessary for a “like for like” conversion or a FTTP conversion. Comcast indicated it would be ideal for the phasing to start on the south end of the Village and work north. In that sequence, the existing node boundaries would be maintained to the greatest extent possible. Each fiber node

Kimley-Horn held a meeting with a representative from Hotwire Communications who was invited to address the UUTF regarding the deployment of a Fiber communications network and Smart Poles throughout the Village. However, any of the communications providers within the Village could assist with the implementation of this technology. To take full advantage of the Smart Pole technology a fiber communications backbone would be required. For the purposes of this master plan, the term “Smart Pole” will refer to a street light pole fitted with antennas for cellular and/or WiFi devices. Smart Poles have been deployed in many markets throughout the U.S. to develop a distributed antenna system (DAS) to improve cellular service. They have also been utilized to expand WiFi in public places and to enable coverage for municipal functions, supporting data needs of public safety, public works, transportation and information technology. DAS network antennas are generally installed at lower elevations than traditional antennas found on cell towers. DAS infrastructure is also generally lower power and intended to serve a smaller geographic area. They are popular in dense urban areas where traditional cell towers are unfeasible to develop. There are numerous DAS technologies and they are generally specific to the telecommunication provider. In general, the lower the antenna height the higher the density of poles required to cover a given area.

5.0 DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DESCRIPTION

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Kimley-Horn reviewed the Village’s Code of Ordinances related to Communication Towers and noted that towers are a permitted use on:

all Village-owned property GU; Government Use District and within the Village’s RM-30 High Density Multiple Family District HR; Hotel Resort District PUD; Planned Unit Development Districts, provided approval is granted by the Village Council. This excludes many of the residential zoning districts in Village where Smart Pole technology could be deployed. Kimley-Horn’s recommendation is the Village review the zoning code and consider modifications to regulations for a Smart Pole DAS/WiFi network deployment throughout the Village. This could include specific regulations for permitted locations, aesthetics, height restrictions, etc. This would provide better guidance to the cellular industry regarding how they could successfully deploy such a network within the Village. It may also support and expand opportunities for public-private partnerships (PPP) between the Village and providers interested in providing wired and wireless broadband services in the Village. Kimley-Horn further recommends that any costs related to deployment of a Smart Pole DAS network be borne completely by the cellular industry and/or broadband providers. It is also recommended the Village only install Smart Poles in conjunction with their street lighting program if a wireless industry partner identifies the exact location of where the poles should be installed along with the capital to perform such installation. The Village should not undertake Smart Pole installation without a wireless industry partner because the individual wireless carrier desired locations, equipment, and height requirements are highly variable and specific, and cannot be FPL feeder splice box reasonably predicted. Existing FPL aerial switch

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Chapter 6 PHA SING A ND SEQ U ENCING Through a series of meetings with the Village, FPL, AT&T, Comcast, and other stakeholder utilities, Kimley-Horn has developed a recommended phasing and sequencing plan for the implementation of the undergrounding program that incorporates many different factors specific to Key Biscayne. These recommendations are intended to serve as guidance during the design and construction of the overhead to underground conversion improvements. This is a lengthy implementation process, therefore these recommendations should be reviewed so adjustments can be made as may be required. These include accounting for changes in technology, various utility and stakeholder requirements, Village priorities, and changes with other capital projects that may influence the implementation of the undergrounding program in the future.

6.1

Phase Limit Development

To develop the phase limits for the project, several factors need to be considered. These factors included the following:

FPL tariff requirements Physical size of the individual phase Electric and communication utility system technical requirements Cost efficiency These factors and their influence on the development of the recommended phasing limits of the program are described in greater detail in this section.

6.1.1

FPL Tariff Requirements

The Florida Public Service Commission exercises regulatory authority over FPL to ensure that consumers receive their electric service in a

safe, reasonable, and reliable manner. Part of this regulatory authority includes the approval of the tariff that sets the rules and regulations FPL operates under in providing electrical service. The tariff document sets forth specific rules for the conversion of facilities from overhead to underground locations. When local governments apply to FPL to have overhead facilities converted to underground locations, they can qualify for a Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver (GAF Waiver) if the conversion project meets certain criteria. The GAF Waiver essentially provides for a 25% discount of the Contribution In Aid of Construction (CIAC) that is required to be paid to FPL by the local government applicant to perform the conversion. That amount is calculated using the formula defined in section 12.1 in the tariff. In the latest tariff revision effective February 22, 2018, certain elements of the CIAC calculation can be excluded if the applicant intends to convert existing nonhardened feeder facilities to underground feeder facilities. The calculation would exclude the cost to remove the existing overhead feeder facilities and the net book value of those feeder facilities. In turn, however, the applicant does not get credit for the estimated salvage value of the existing overhead facilities to be removed. Despite that, the revision typically results in a lower CIAC to be paid by the applicant. One criteria that is important to consider when developing an undergrounding phasing plan is that the conversion must include a minimum of three pole line miles or approximately 200 detached dwelling units within a contiguous or closely proximate geographic area to qualify for the GAF Waiver. If the conversion program is to be phased, these minimums may be met over, at most, three phases, and each phase must begin within one year from completion of the previous phase. The Village’s

6.0 PHASING AND SEQUENCING

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

undergrounding program of implementation as recommended in this master plan meets the criteria to qualify for the GAF Waiver.

Physical Size of the Individual Phase While the FPL tariff contains minimum project size requirements to be eligible for the GAF Waiver, the individual phase area should not be excessively large for several reasons:

Multiple phases also provide the opportunity for the Village to better control the flow of funds to both the utility companies and the contractor constructing the work. The utility companies require upfront payment of their construction costs. If the entire Village were to be designed and constructed at one time, significant costs would be incurred very early in the process for materials and equipment that may not be installed for several years.

The amount of work performed within a given time period needs to be manageable not only for the Village’s contractor, consultants, and staff, but also for the utility companies. There are operations that must be performed by FPL, AT&T, and Comcast so their scopes of work for both design and construction are feasible to complete within the given timeframe.

Sufficient time must be provided in between the construction start times of sequential phases to allow for design, permitting, contractor procurement, and easement acquisition activities. Design activities are performed by the Village and the utility companies as a joint effort for each phase. Breaking up the design into multiple phases allows the initial phases to go to construction earlier while the balance of the program phases can continue in design. This overlap of design and construction creates schedule compression to allow the overall program to be completed in an expedited manner.

Breaking the project up into multiple components provides for enhanced competition amongst the contracting community to perform the work.

Breaking up the total program cost into phases reduces the bonding capacity required for qualified contractors who may choose to pursue the individual projects. This allows the pool of bidders to remain high, which fosters competitive pricing.

Multiple phases reduce the risk a single contractor fails to execute the work of a single large phase. Contractor failure introduces risks to both project schedule and costs related to delays, re-work, remobilization activities, and potential litigation.

Community impacts due to the construction must be considered in selecting a project size. Each construction phase duration is anticipated to be 18 to 24 months. It has been our experience that durations longer than this can cause strain within the affected community due to traffic impacts, noise, and other construction-related impacts. We have found that confining activities in a relatively small area are desired and better tolerated by the community than large scale activities that impact a large geographic area.

6.1.2 Electric and Communication Utility System Technical Requirements There are also technical requirements that must be considered when setting the phase area limits for an undergrounding conversion program. For this program, Kimley-Horn held a workshop with FPL, AT&T, and Comcast to review technical issues and mutually agree upon specific phasing limits. For the most part, the utility companies were willing to accommodate the phasing as it is proposed. FPL and AT&T were relatively flexible with where the phase line limits were to be located. FPL’s recommendation was to ensure that three-phase service was provided in each of the phases to loop existing feeders. AT&T was concerned if we skip areas to minimize disruption, additional plans may be needed to bridge over an area to be constructed in a later phase. Comcast had the least flexibility because of the way their fiber optic nodes provide communications service to a very specific area. Changing an existing node boundary requires a significant amount of device programming that can both increase cost and create a higher level of customer disruption during the reprogramming process. To the greatest extent practical, Comcast recommended our phasing work proceed from the South end of the Village to the North end because that is how their fiber trunk line is currently routed. In any case, temporary facilities may be necessary for each of the utilities to implement the recommended phasing.

6.0 PHASING AND SEQUENCING

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

6.1.3

Cost Efficiency

As with any project of this magnitude, there is a high priority placed on cost control. Effective cost control begins during the planning process. From an electrical perspective, phase lines were set to allow the reuse of as much existing underground infrastructure as possible. For example:

Crandon Boulevard is a natural boundary because the east side and the west side are linked with underground facilities, therefore they can be reused and electric and communications cables can remain in service without the need for replacement in this program.

An underground link to Mashta Island and the mainland also exists, but FPL stated additional conduit will be required to implement an underground system.

The existing poles on either side of the bridge can also provide temporary transition points, as they do today.

Underground feeder lines in phases 2 and 3 can also be reused to serve proposed facilities for those areas without the need to replace them. To reduce the costs, we also took advantage of locating phase limits where the existing infrastructure lends itself to providing the fewest transition points throughout the Village. For example, phase lines are defined where north-south feeders are the only overhead lines that will require transition poles. By placing a phase limit at these locations, existing radial lines can remain intact in their entirety, minimizing the number of temporary transition poles and equipment that are required, thus reducing cost. Since these transition points are temporary, but necessary for the continued provision of power to the community, it is important the number of transitions be reduced to the minimum required. The phasing map prepared for this program includes locations of potential temporary transition poles.

6.2 Sequencing Recommendations While the limits of each individual phase were defined, the sequence in which they are to be constructed was also considered. This master plan’s sequencing recommendations for the undergrounding program, along with sequencing of additional planned projects (i.e., capital projects, watermain

replacement, etc.), are graphically depicted on the sequencing maps beginning on page 57 of this master plan. To develop the recommended sequence for the program, several factors needed to be considered. These factors included the following:

Major work programs Traffic impacts Cost efficiency Schedule efficiency The above factors and their influence on the development of the recommended sequencing of the program are described in greater detail below.

6.2.1

Major Work Programs

As discussed in the Data Collection section of this master plan, there are several major work programs either planned or will be underway during the undergrounding program. There is a need to coordinate these major work programs with the undergrounding program to minimize community impacts to the extent practical. Major work programs in addition to undergrounding consist of the following:

Village of Key Biscayne Capital Improvement Program Village of Key Biscayne Beach Renourishment Program Miami Dade Water and Sewer Department Watermain Replacement Village of Key Biscayne Capital Improvement Program There are several projects contained in the Village of Key Biscayne’s Capital Improvement Program or long-term master plans that must be considered. Many of these have not yet been funded, but the Village is interested in bundling them to be constructed within the undergrounding program. There is also a desire to construct capital projects that are funded from alternate sources with the undergrounding program to take advantage of the restoration cost sharing. This is an important consideration when determining which capital projects should be constructed concurrently with the individual undergrounding phases.

In general, capital projects that are expected to have significant roadway impacts should be constructed in conjunction with the undergrounding program to the greatest extent practical. However, a balance needs to be struck between maximizing projects within the undergrounding project schedule and overwhelming the community with construction impacts. Additionally, projects that are required due to public health, safety, and welfare needs should be implemented quickly and not necessarily delayed to coincide with a particular phase of undergrounding. Many of the Villages projects are non-bond funded projects, are relatively small in scope, and/or are located such that roadway impacts are minimal or have a brief schedule duration. Therefore, these projects are recommended to be constructed in accordance with their previously planned programming schedules. Some projects impacted by the undergrounding, such as landscape improvements, traffic calming, sidewalks, and street lighting should be delayed if possible to coincide with the undergrounding schedule. This will allow for additional restoration cost sharing benefits. There is also a recent stormwater master plan that identifies significant improvements but lacks funding at this time. Projects identified in this plan are to be funded by the Stormwater Enterprise Fund, however, that fund is inadequately funded. The Village recently engaged a financial consultant to develop new rates to begin to fund these projects over the long term. If financing permits, it would be extremely advantageous to perform these stormwater improvements during the undergrounding program, thus cost sharing restoration efforts. This would also decrease the impact to the residents in the long term. In our experience, most resident complaints come from people who live in areas impacted by undergrounding and capital projects at the same time. Provided the funding enables these improvements and the resident impact is managed properly, this master plan recommends that these infrastructure projects be constructed in conjunction with each undergrounding phase.

Village of Key Biscayne Beach Renourishment Program The Village conducts an ongoing Shore Protection program to protect the coastline. While there are several projects anticipated within this program that will occur during the span of the undergrounding project, we do not

anticipate much coordination will be required between the programs, since the beach renourishment project is not in areas undergrounding work will not be performed. Beach renourishment projects that involve truck hauls should be coordinated to reduce the impacts of additional traffic volume through the work zone.

Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department Watermain Replacement As discussed in the Data Collection section of this master plan, MiamiDade Water and Sewer Department (WASD) does not currently have a formalized program for watermain replacement within the Village. However, at the request of the Village, they are willing to entertain the opportunity to replace aged watermains during each phase of the undergrounding program. There is currently no budget available to perform this work, however, WASD will review the Village’s proposal of replacement and consider adding it to the budget for the next fiscal year. This master plan’s recommendation is to focus on the known watermains consisting of asbestos cement pipe as requested by the Village. There are other watermains identified by WASD as being made of an unknown material. Secondarily, we recommend review of those locations to determine the most cost-effective approach to their replacement. Because physical investigation will be required for these unknown watermains, timing of their replacement may not coincide with the undergrounding program. If the County does develop a program of watermain replacement during the course of the undergrounding project, additional cost sharing opportunities could be explored through deferral of milling and overlaying activities until both undergrounding and watermain work is completed.

6.2.2 Traffic Impacts The sequencing recommendations for this program are also influenced by the desire to reduce traffic impacts to the highest degree possible. A detailed discussion regarding an overall traffic management plan is discussed elsewhere in this master plan but on a grander scale, the beginning of a mitigation plan for traffic impacts begins with sequencing individual phases.

6.0 PHASING AND SEQUENCING

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Because of how the Village was originally developed and the configuration of the land mass and roadways, it would be easy to have two adjacent work areas undergoing heavy construction at the same time, impacting a large area of the Village at once. A good deal of consideration and strategy went into developing a sequence that avoided just that. To that end, Kimley-Horn recommends that heavy construction activities do not take place simultaneously in two adjacent phases. For example, as Phase 1 heavy construction ends, Phase 2 heavy construction can begin, and so on and so forth. Heavy construction refers to the installation of the conduit and equipment pads either by open trenching or directional drilling operations. While heavy construction activities are taking place in Phase 2, less impactful activities can take place in Phase 1 such as equipment installation and demolition of existing facilities. In this manner, a motorist can avoid roadways experiencing heavy underground construction and will never have to drive through two phases undergoing heavy construction activities at the same time.

by overlapping phases wherever possible while avoiding significant traffic impacts to the extent practical.

6.2.4 Schedule Considerations

6.2.3 Cost Efficiency

As discussed in the Physical Size of the Individual Phase section, individual phases were developed considering work that could reasonably be performed in an 18 to 24-month continuous period. To gain schedule efficiency, Kimley-Horn recommends work in adjacent phases overlap each other to avoid waiting until final completion of one phase before beginning work in a subsequent adjacent phase. This recommendation is discussed in further detail in the Overall Program Opinion of Schedule section of this master plan. In general, this would allow for service conversion work and overhead infrastructure demolition to occur in one phase, while heavy underground work would occur simultaneously in the adjacent phase. In no case do we recommend heavy underground work be performed simultaneously in adjacent phases. This avoids significant traffic impacts expected if these activities were allowed to occur simultaneously in adjacent phases.

In determining the sequence of the phases, cost efficiency was also a priority. At the completion of each phase, there will be a transition from the new underground system to the existing overhead system to maintain connectivity of the systems after the de-energized poles are removed. These transitions almost always require the installation of new temporary poles with electric and communication risers. Because these new poles are temporary and will be removed when their location phase is completed, it is important to minimize the number of transitions to the greatest extent possible.

Phases in the commercial areas of the Village are anticipated to be more technically challenging from a design and easement acquisition standpoint. This is due to the high electrical load demand, limited right-of-way availability, and urban landscape. Fortunately, the way the commercial property is situated in the Village, we were able to divide the commercially zoned areas into three different phases, effectively reducing the complexity in any one phase. This will allow adequate time for design and easement acquisition for these challenging parcels.

In order to do this, phases should be constructed sequentially so only one side of the phase area would require these transitions. The sequencing this master plan recommends accomplishes this by constructing phases generally starting from the south end of the Village moving towards the north. This will also minimize the amount of temporary facilities the communication utilities need and generally accommodates their preferred sequence of conversion. In addition, compressing the schedule as discussed in the following section will reduce costs due to inflation and project general conditions. The sooner the program is complete the less inflation factors into the overall budget. We recommend accomplishing this FPL capacitor bank

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES â&#x20AC;&#x201D; MASTER PLAN

6.0 PHASING AND SEQUENCING

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES â&#x20AC;&#x201D; MASTER PLAN

6.0 PHASING AND SEQUENCING

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Chapter 7 PR O JECT D ELIV ER Y M ET HO D S A project delivery method is a system utilized by owners and public agencies to manage how a project will advance from concept to construction. Project delivery refers to the method of assigning risks and responsibilities to an entity for design and construction services and is different from project management. Project delivery methods can be grouped into several basic categories consisting of Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Construction Management at Risk (CMAR), Design-Build (DB), and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), which is primarily used in the vertical construction industry. IPD is not commonly applied to the construction of public infrastructure, therefore this master plan will focus on DBB, CMAR, and DB while only providing a brief description of IPD.

7.1 Project Delivery Method Selection Factors There are several key factors the Village must consider when choosing a project delivery and contracting strategy to execute the undergrounding project. These factors are summarized as follows.

Design: The design must meet the needs and vision of the Village. For the undergrounding project, the design team is comprised of various entities, including the utility owners who will design and ultimately own their respective infrastructure portion of the project. These entities include: »» Village Design Team (conduit routing, Village owned and

maintained infrastructure, such as drainage improvements, and watermain improvements that will be ultimately owned and maintained by the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department);

»» Florida Power & Light (electrical infrastructure); »» AT&T (telephone and communications); »» Comcast (cable television and communications).

The Village has varying degrees of control over these entities. For example, the Village has a great degree of control over the Village design team due to the contractual relationship between these two entities. However, the Village has much less control over FPL, AT&T, and Comcast. These varying degrees of control create an element of risk that must be considered when developing an overall schedule for the project.

Scope: The various types of work in a specific phase may also play a role in delivery method recommendations. For example, if a construction phase requires a small number of trades, crews, and manpower to execute the scope of work, it is inherently easier to coordinate these activities between the various contractors. This type of project may be easier to execute through a traditional DBB process. On the other hand, when multiple trades and disciplines, multiple crews, and significant manpower are required to execute the work and significant coordination is required between involved parties to appropriately schedule the activities in order to maintain schedule and budget, CMAR or DB may be more effective project delivery methods. Ultimately, the design documents must provide an appropriate level of detail to properly communicate the project requirements to the construction team. This level of detail can vary based on the project delivery method selected.

7.0 PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Budget: The Village has not previously established an overall project budget and is considering issuing bonds to raise the necessary funds to execute the program. To establish budgetary costs and assess the risk of exceeding this budget, this master planning process will develop an opinion of probable cost for the program. This will assist the Village in properly planning to manage this risk.

Schedule: The Village places a high priority on schedule since they are in the sights of FPL’s storm hardening program. Expediting the execution of the undergrounding program is a high priority. Additionally, disruptions to traffic flow can be extreme causing the roadway level of service to decrease to unacceptable levels. The Village does not have a large seasonal influx of residents that would limit allowable construction times, so disruptive work in the road right-of-ways can be conducted throughout the year, allowing a more efficient construction schedule. With that in mind, the intent would be to be minimize disruption to the community as much as possible. Because the undergrounding program is a multi-year, multi-phase program, significant schedule delays in any one phase may create a domino effect and delay subsequent phases. This would not only extend the program but could also increase project costs due to inflation and increased general conditions and labor rates. Therefore, schedule will be given a high priority when considering project delivery methods.

Risk Assessment: There are inherent risks in any construction project. However, those risks can multiply when the size, budget, and duration of the project increases. It is important a risk assessment be performed during the planning phase of the project so risks can be appropriately understood and allocated amongst the parties involved. In general, risk should be allocated to the party with the best ability to exercise control over the risk. Each project delivery method assigns risk to the various parties differently. The Village will need to consider the level of risk it is willing to accept when selecting a project delivery method.

Staff: The Village’s level of expertise and experience with the various delivery methods also plays a role in recommending an appropriate project delivery method. The Village’s ability to manage the project construction in-house can also influence the selection of a project delivery method. For example, a CMAR or DB team can expand to meet the Village’s stafﬁng needs and may eliminate the need for the Village to hire additional staff to support the project. The CMAR/DB team can take much of the burden of construction management off the Village staff.

BEFORE

7.2 Overview of Project Delivery Methods The following provides descriptions and a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the various project delivery methods available to the Village for project execution.

7.2.1

AFTER

Design-Bid-Build (DBB)

Design-Bid-Build is the most common and widely used project delivery method in the United States. The process involves executing the project in three sequential phases: Design, Procurement (Bidding), and Construction. The designer prepares the construction plans and specifications for use in the procurement process. For the Village’s undergrounding project, the construction documents will consist of drawings and specifications prepared by Kimley-Horn, FPL, AT&T, and Comcast. The project is then advertised for public bidding and price proposals are obtained from interested members of the contracting community. The Village is familiar with this process and has standard contracting language developed to execute construction projects using this delivery method. The selection process is usually the lowest responsive and responsible bidder under this delivery method. The contractor who submits the lowest price, has demonstrated it meets the minimum qualifications set forth in the bid documents, and has properly prepared the bid proposal package per the instructions, will be awarded the project. The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the DBB project delivery method:

Advantages: This method is the most common approach for public owners having to comply with local, state or federal procurement statutes. The Village’s Procurement department already has standard contracts and guidelines in place to facilitate this method.

This method is well understood by the Village and has wellestablished and clearly defined roles for the parties involved.

This method can yield a low upfront cost to construct the project because much of the risk is assumed by the Village and design plans and specifications are well defined.

The Village has a great degree of control over the process due to their control over many elements of the design prior to selection of the contractor. However, the Village exerts less control over the designs prepared by FPL, AT&T, and Comcast or to changes to the design these entities may choose to make after the bidding process.

Disadvantages: The Village generally faces exposure to contractor change orders and claims over changes and unknown field conditions since the Village accepts liability for design in its contract with the contractor.

This approach can create a more adversarial relationship between the involved parties rather than a cooperative one. This can lead to higher costs and longer schedule durations than originally anticipated.

The process may have a longer duration when compared to other delivery methods since all design work must be completed prior to selection and award of a construction contract.

The absence of a contractor during the design process does not allow for the advantages a contractor may provide through assessment of scheduling and cost ramifications for various elements of the design.

If the Village uses a fixed price contracting method, the contractor may pursue a lowest-cost approach to completing the project and the Village may receive lower quality work than expected for the price, requiring increased oversight and quality review by the Village and design team. If the Village uses the unit price bidding and compensation method, the contractor may try to increase the scope to maximize revenue from the contract, costing the Village more than expected.

The absence of construction input into the project design may limit the opportunities for building in efficiencies that can reduce the cost and duration of the work. Important design decisions affecting both the types of materials specified and the means and methods of construction may be made without full consideration from a construction perspective.

Looking at the NW corner of 101 Key Biscayne Condo from Crandon Boulevard

7.0 PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

If the Village chooses to execute capital projects at the same time as the undergrounding program, procurement under this method could lead to some elements of the work being managed by a contractor who is inexperienced in that given discipline. For example, if drainage work needs to be completed only on one street in the project phase area, the undergrounding scope of work will far outweigh the drainage scope of work. This will potentially lead to an electrical contractor being forced to manage a drainage project. That would be highly unusual for the electrical contracting community. This lack of experience could lead to detrimental outcomes for both the drainage and undergrounding scopes of work.

This method can require additional Village staff for construction oversight, coordination, and communications.

For this project, technological and programmatic obsolescence could become a problem since this is a very large, long lasting project. This is mitigated somewhat by constructing the project in phases. However, changing technologies and the deployment of technology by FPL, AT&T, and/or Comcast during the construction process will put the Village at a disadvantage when negotiating these changes into the contract if, and/or when, they occur.

7.2.1.1 – DBB Contracting and Procurement Methods There are several types of contracting methods to be used under the DBB project delivery type. A very common approach is the lump sum, or fixed price bid. This is commonly used in the vertical construction industry or for any project where quantities are not easily measured. The Village is accustomed to this method, as well as the unit-price method, which is commonly employed in the horizontal construction industry. A complication that can arise in the administration of construction for undergrounding projects is the quantification of the extensive number of conduits of varying sizes that will be installed under the project. For this reason, the electrical undergrounding contracting industry is more accustomed to the fixed price, or lump sum bid, approach to procuring this type of work. This approach also shifts the responsibility for quantification to the contractor, which reduces the Village’s risk of quantity overruns (or under runs and the claim for lost profits) that may have occurred under a unit price approach for the same work. For this project, it would be important to procure the contractor once the utilities have released their designs and after the compiled utility plans have been prepared. Because this is a fixed price procurement method, prospective contractors would need fully developed and permitted design plans and specifications to bid from. The Village would be expected to have easements acquired and designs finalized to avoid change orders during construction.

BEFORE

AFTER

7.2.2 Construction Management at Risk (CMAR)

design costs since plans developed for a DBB procurement generally need to be more detailed than those used for a CMAR procurement process.

Construction Management at Risk (CMAR) is similar to DBB because the CMAR fulfills the role of general contractor during the construction phase. The “risk” in CMAR is the Construction Manager holds the trade contracts and takes on the risk of performing the construction while guaranteeing the completion of the project for a negotiated price. This price is usually determined when the design is between 50% and 90% complete. The CMAR is usually hired by the owner prior to the project design being completed. Typically, the CMAR performs most of the work through subcontractors procured through a competitive bidding process very similar to DBB. However, the CMAR’s fees are negotiated separately by the Village and those fees are a comparatively small portion of the overall construction cost. The central idea of CMAR is to gain the advantage of price competition in the subcontractor work packages combined with the qualiﬁcations-based selection of the General Contractor as the CMAR.

The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the CMAR project delivery method:

This delivery method is different from DBB in that the CMAR offers schedule, budget, and constructability advice during the project planning and design phases, as well as advisory professional management assistance to the Village prior to construction. With CMAR project delivery, the construction manager and contractor are a hybrid of the traditional DBB roles. Another way to look at this is the CMAR manages the construction of the project. This can be very beneficial for owners who have minimal in-house staff to manage the project and for projects with scopes of work covering multiple disciplines. Having pre-construction Construction Manager advisory services can identify advantageous changes to reduce project costs and/or allow construction of certain portions of the project to begin before the design is finalized. For example, the CMAR can bid out portions of the project with approved designs at any time, without having to wait for the entire design to be completed. The CMAR and owner can come to an agreement on a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) based on a partially completed design, which takes into account the cost to complete. Coming to an agreement early in the project on preferred materials, equipment, and project features can also be helpful in allowing the use of performance specifications or reduced specifications rather than standard specifications. This can reduce

Advantages: This project delivery method can arguably require the least number of owner employees because the CMAR can expand to meet the Village’s stafﬁng needs. The CMAR takes much of the burden of construction management off the Village staff and provides professional advisory management assistance during design. The CMAR may eliminate the need for the Village to hire additional staff to support the project.

Portions of the construction can be “fast-tracked” prior to fully completing the design.

The Village maintains a greater degree of control over the construction budget since it’s discussed throughout the project design. During construction, the Village would maintain the authority over whether monies from the construction contingency fund are expended.

CMAR project delivery gives the Village the opportunity to incorporate a contractor’s perspective and input into the planning and design phases of the project. Because the CMAR is involved in the design process, it is more difficult for them to make a claim related to the clarity of the plans or not fully understanding the scope of work. This is why CMAR generally results in lower cost growth (fewer change orders) than other methods.

The CMAR participates in value engineering and constructability reviews, which can lower costs and achieve schedule efficiency.

Companies that offer CMAR project delivery are generally concerned about their reputation since most CMAR’s are selected on a qualifications basis. They are significantly motivated to perform well to uphold their reputation.

The CMAR is far less likely to develop an adversarial relationship with the Village during the course of the project. This results in a construction team motivated to perform well for the Village, resolve

The roundabout at Westwood Drive and Harbor Drive

7.0 PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

issues quickly and cost effectively, and maintain a positive working relationship so they can continue working with the Village on future projects. In this manner, risk is better managed and claims/lawsuits are often fewer.

The CMAR process offers the Village “open book” transparency on how the construction price is developed. All of the subcontractor bid proposals, CMAR overhead, project management, profit, and contingencies are clearly identified, shared with the Village, and agreed upon before the work begins. This also allows the Village to know the full budget for the project, unlike the DBB method where budget issues may not be discovered until well into the construction process.

Because the CMAR is ultimately responsible for the schedule and budget, they generally will bid the work to qualified, bondable subcontractors who the CMAR has confidence will construct their scopes of work successfully.

Our experience with this delivery method has been positive, with projects being completed on-time or ahead of schedule and under the negotiated GMP. When the cost of the project is less than the GMP, the contingency funds, which can be held outside of the GMP contract, are returned to the Village.

Disadvantages: To provide the best value to the Village, the proper selection of the CMAR is critical. This is a “people” business and getting the right combination of skills and expertise is essential for project success.

Because the CMAR provides a GMP for the project, the CMAR is in an “at-risk” position during construction. Depending on what challenges are faced during construction, the contingencies developed during the GMP negotiation may not be sufficient to cover the costs of dealing with those challenges. Because the CMAR provided a GMP, they are responsible for overcoming the challenge regardless of the cost. This can put them in an adversarial role with the Village if this situation develops.

Despite the CMAR finding it very difficult to pursue change orders from plan ambiguities because they were involved in the design process, they may become very aggressive on change orders

due to changed conditions (increase in scope) or adverse weather impacts.

7.2.2.1 – CMAR Contracting and Procurement Methods CMAR is a two-step procurement process: 1) pre-construction services and then 2) construction services. A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to select the CMAR is the first part of the two-step process. The RFQ process follows the same rules as the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act (CCNA) process in the state of Florida. Based on the qualifications submitted, the Village narrows the pool of potential contractors to a short list. The Village can then either select from the short list or invite the short listed CMAR’s to make a presentation. The Village can then select the contractor based on who made the best presentation. Once the CMAR is selected, an initial agreement on a fixed fee for preconstruction services is negotiated. Pre-construction services can include the following:

Itemized breakdown of all direct costs, general conditions, CMAR management fees, overhead and profit, and the Owner’s contingency The GMP is presented to the Village in a comprehensive document and the individual components are reviewed by Village staff and the design team consultants. Comments are made to the CMAR and the price is adjusted until a final agreement is reached. Once the GMP is accepted, the second step in the two-step procurement process commences—the construction phase. The CMAR performs all the duties a general contractor would under a traditional DBB procurement. Additionally, the CMAR also performs the following services:

Conducts and arranges all meetings for the project, including agenda development and minutes distribution

Schedules and coordinates the work amongst the various trades, owner, design team, and stakeholders

Performance of quantity surveys

Tracks and provides a log of Contingency Use Directives (CUD)

Suggestions regarding constructability and methods

Provides executive monthly reports regarding the project progress

Value engineering

Participates in public outreach activities, including the role of

Suggestions regarding cost reductions Development of a detailed construction schedule Development of the final GMP after completion of the 90% construction documents that includes the subcontractor bidding process.

Participation in public outreach The GMP for the project will consist of the following elements:

Public advertisement for the subcontractor bids Prequalification of the subcontractors Analysis of all subcontractor bids to eliminate gaps and incomplete bids

A detailed construction schedule

“Project Liaison” if desired by the owner. To take advantage of the preconstruction services provided by the CMAR, it would be important to contract with a CMAR during the design phase so they have the opportunity to weigh in on the designs as they are released and inform the compiled utility plans to achieve the most efficient design and construction approach ahead of GMP development. Because this would be a qualifications based selection, design plans and specifications would not be needed until GMP development.

7.2.3 Design-Build (DB) The Design-Build (DB) delivery method has gained popularity and is sometimes seen by the industry as a solution to the limitations of the other project delivery methods. This delivery method is a service provided by a single entity that provides both the design and construction services. The main benefit is the DB provides a single responsible party for the design and construction of conventional projects. DB combines engineering and construction services under one contract, minimizing the disputes the

Village would normally handle. In DB, these become internal team disputes that may not involve the Village. Using the DB method, a preliminary scope of work and budgetary opinion of cost would be prepared by an independent consultant and the Village would then seek DB firms who would be responsible for the design and construction of the entire project. The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the DB project delivery method:

Advantages: DB can theoretically deliver a project in a shorter amount of time than a conventional DBB because there is only one selection process (DB team) instead of two (design team and contractor)

The Village will have one contract with a single entity for both design and construction that simplifies contract administration

Similar to CMAR, cost efficiencies can be realized because the contractor and designer work together throughout the entire project

Change orders typically only occur due to changes to the original scope that are initiated by the Village

Portions of the construction can be “fast-tracked” prior to fully completing the design

Disadvantages: For this project much of the schedule efficiency that DB can offer is hampered significantly by the design efforts and schedules of the utility owners. This is because the design-builder exercises little control over these entities so they pose a significant schedule risk to the design-builder in both the design and construction phases of the project. The enhanced level of risk may cause the designbuilder to charge a risk premium to cover the potential of assessed liquidated damages.

For this type of project, the easement acquisition process would be problematic under the DB delivery method. If the design-builder is responsible for obtaining easements, there is a schedule and cost risk due to property owners who are unwilling to grant an easement. If liquidated damages are included in the contract, a cost premium may be assessed by the design-builder to assume the schedule risk. Additionally, the design-builder may be less

7.0 PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

inclined to negotiate a change with a property owner who is willing to grant an easement, but not in the location preferred by the utility owner or in the location that offers the lowest cost to the project. This increase in the project cost would place negative pressure on the design-builder’s profit margin, which reduces their motivation to accommodate the property owner’s request.

The easement acquisition process presents a schedule risk a DB contractor may not be willing to assume under a fixed schedule duration.

The Village has significantly less control and involvement over a DB project than traditional DBB or CMAR.

To take full advantage of any shorter implementation benefits that DB offers, the Village must be highly responsive in its decision making.

The Village loses the benefit of the checks and balances that exist when contracting separately with independent design consultants and a general contractor or CMAR.

May be problematic when there is a requirement for multiple agency design approvals.

There is a risk that an adversarial relationship could develop if the quality of the project is not what was expected by the Village. Under this delivery method, the design team works directly for the contractor, who may not have the best interest of the Village in mind.

7.2.3.1 – DB Contracting and Procurement Methods There are several alternatives to contracting and procuring DB services. Contracting can be through a fixed price lump sum agreement similar to DBB or, like the CMAR delivery method, through a pre-construction fee and GMP development process. The procurement process is usually a two-step process. The first step is issuance of an RFQ and the submittal of qualifications by prospective DB teams. The owner would then establish a short list of the best qualified teams to then submit a cost and technical proposal to the owner. The cost and technical proposal usually contains any technical innovations developed by the DB team along with schedule and any other pertinent

details related to the design and construction process. In some cases, owners find it beneficial to produce “bridging documents” that are prepared by an independent consultant. The bridging documents provide detailed information related to the quality and function of the desired project. They can also contain any schedule or design constraints that may otherwise be unknown to a DB team. These documents can reduce the risk the owner does not receive what they initially anticipated at the onset of the project. Once the cost and technical proposals are received by the owner from the DB teams, a DB team can be selected based on a combination of pricing, approach, and qualifications. For this project, it would be important to select a DB team after each of the utilities has released their designs but ahead of the compiled utility plans to achieve the most efficient design and construction approach leading into GMP development. The Village may elect to provide performance specifications ahead of selection to provide the framework for the construction of the project. Because this would be a qualifications and pricing based selection, design plans from each of the utilities would be required ahead of GMP development.

7.2.4 Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is relatively new method specifically geared towards building construction and is being used more and more in conjunction with Building Information Modeling or BIM. This method was developed using ideas developed by Toyota and is designed to solve key construction issues such as a project schedule delays, cost overrun, and tensions among project team members. IPD is defined by the American Institute of Architects as “a project delivery approach that integrates people, systems, business structures and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication, and construction.”1 There are eight main sequential phases to the IPD method: 1. conceptualization phase [expanded programming] 2. criteria design phase [expanded schematic design] 3. detailed design phase [expanded design development] 4. implementation documents phase [construction documents] 5. agency review phase 6. buyout phase 7. construction phase 8. closeout phase 9. facilities management IPD requires collaboration between the primary parties to share the risk and responsibility for project delivery. In a contractual sense, the owner, contractor, and designer are joined in a multi-party agreement to create a team-based approach with the goal to maximize collaboration and efficiency. Compensation typically consists of three components: 1) reimbursement to cover costs, 2) incentive for achieving desired budgetary goals, and 3) rewards for accomplishing set project goals. There is very little industry experience with this method. Kimley-Horn is not aware of it being used in the public sector or on horizontal infrastructure projects. Kimley-Horn is also not aware of any contractors within the undergrounding industry that are experienced with this method

or advocating its use. Therefore, we have not considered it as a viable alternative for delivery of any phase of this program.

7.3 Delivery Methods Used by Local Municipalities In developing our recommendations, we also reviewed how other local municipalities delivered their overhead to underground utility conversion projects. The following table provides a summary. Municipality

Method

Town of Jupiter Island

DBB

Jupiter Inlet Colony

DBB

Town of Gulfstream

DBB

City of Hollywood

CMAR

City of Pompano Beach

CMAR

Lake Worth TOPB (Worth Ave)

DB CMAR

TOPB (Everglades Island)

DBB

TOPB (Nightingale/La Puerta)

DBB

TOPB (Lake Towers)

CMAR

City of Hallandale Beach

CMAR

City of Kissimmee

CMAR

City of Sunny Isles (Collins Corridor) Town of Palm Beach (Town-Wide, PH1-N,S) Town of Longboat Key

DBB CMAR DB

As shown in the table, a mix of Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build, and CM-at-Risk project delivery methods have been employed by various municipalities to deliver overhead to underground conversion projects.

7.4 Project Area Characteristics To start our analysis of project delivery, we first looked at what we learned during the development of the project phasing and sequencing plan. During that analysis it became apparent the project phases can be broken into groups based on total impacted area including:

alternating work zones to minimize those impacts,

1 “Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide” (PDF). American Institute of Architects 2007 version 1

7.0 PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

complexities based on the land use that is contained in each phase, and

priorities set by the Villages other Capital Improvement projects. The types of land uses in the Village generally consist of multi-family residential, mixed use commercial and residential, and single family residential. Understanding the level of complexity existing in any given phase can aid in the project delivery selection process. By grouping the land use classification, the diversity of major work elements contained in each phase, and the anticipated community impacts involved in working in any given phase area, this level of complexity can be more easily seen. Community impacts include a combination of factors such as impact to private property owners, traffic impacts, sufficient right-of-way to perform the construction operations (or lack thereof), impacts related to other infrastructure work beyond undergrounding to be performed, and the level of stakeholder coordination required to execute the work. The table below summarizes this information. Project Area

Land Use

Major Work Elements

Community Impacts

Phase 1

Mixed Use Commercial / Single and Multi-Family Residential

Undergrounding, Village Communications, Street Lighting, Stormwater

High

Phase 2

Mixed Use Commercial / Single and Multi-Family Residential

Undergrounding, Village Communications, Street Lighting, Stormwater, Watermain Replacement

Very High

Phase 3

Mixed Use Commercial / Single and Multi-Family Residential

Undergrounding, Village Communications, Street Lighting, Stormwater, Watermain Replacement

Very High

Phase 4

Single-Family Residential

Undergrounding, Village Communications, Street Lighting, Watermain Replacement

High

It is notable the major work elements described in the table are those anticipated to be constructed in conjunction with the undergrounding project by the contractor selected for each phase. Most projects are unfunded at this time and involve outside stakeholder participation.

7.5 Project Delivery Recommendations The Village’s undergrounding program is a very large and complex infrastructure program that will be implemented in a phased manner over four to six years. In developing recommendations for project delivery methods for each of those phases, the risks to cost, schedule, and level of service expectations must carefully be considered. Each key factor identified in the opening of this chapter must be reviewed for their risk impacts for each of the project delivery methods. If any single phase falters in any of those three risk areas, the remaining phases of the program will be detrimentally affected. For this reason, the project delivery method must balance those risks with cost, while yielding the highest probability of project success. It is our opinion the CMAR method of project delivery yields the highest probability of success for delivering the multiple phases of the Village’s Undergrounding Program. This is a method approved for use by the Village. The following sections reinforce this opinion based on the three areas of risk; cost, schedule, and level of service.

Cost The Village has placed a high priority on cost. It may be the deciding factor as to whether this project moves forward or not. We understand the question may arise whether using a CMAR will raise or lower the cost of the project. Having a very cost conscious group involved during the design process might lower the total cost of the project. However, by shifting the cost guarantee burden onto the CMAR, a case can be made that the actual savings may be less than promised if the CMAR is too conservative and risk-averse. There are studies that indicate a substantial savings in cost growth (fewer change orders) through use of CMAR, but no reliable information on comparative initial cost for similar infrastructure projects. This is mostly due to owners not building the exact same project twice under different delivery methods. While the cost savings potential exists, there is no guarantee it will cost more or less than any other delivery system. The CMAR project delivery method requires the least number of owner employees to manage the process because the CMAR can expand to meet the owner’s stafﬁng needs. While not reflected in the GMP, the

reduced owner personnel required to manage the efforts of the CMAR is a cost savings that needs to be considered.

program schedule. This can lead to increased costs due to labor/material price increases over time.

The CMAR process offers the Village “open book” transparency on how the construction price is developed. All of the subcontractor bid proposals, CMAR overhead, project management, profit, and contingencies are clearly identified, shared with the Village, and agreed upon before the work begins. This also allows the Village to know the full project budget, unlike the DBB method where budget issues may not be discovered until well into the construction process.

CMAR has the ability to fast-track certain activities. Working with the design team, elements of the project design can be completed early so construction of those elements can commence in an expedited manner. This can be advantageous for infrastructure elements such as water and drainage improvements that may need to be constructed in advance of the undergrounding infrastructure due to sequencing requirements.

As compared to other project delivery methods, the Village maintains a greater degree of control over the construction budget and use of any contingency funds. Change orders are inevitable in any underground infrastructure project. While upfront sub-surface investigation mitigates this risk, it cannot eliminate the risk. In a DBB project delivery, the owner and design professional work together to manage the rising project cost due to change orders on the project. In a CMAR project delivery, the owner and design professional work together to preserve the construction contingency, which ultimately lowers the final cost of the project. A cost advantage may be achievable through the Village’s direct purchase of materials, which can be streamlined through use of the CMAR procurement method. The CMAR can coordinate these efforts directly, retain responsibility for accepting delivery, storage and installation of these materials while achieving tax savings for the Village. Kimley-Horn’s history with this delivery method has been positive with projects being completed on-time or ahead of schedule and under the negotiated GMP. When the cost of the project is less than the GMP, the contingency funds are returned to the Village.

Schedule Schedule is very important to the Village due to pressure from FPL to covert overhead lines or risk FPL moving forward with their storm hardening efforts. Because this is a phased program, a substantial delay in one phase can impact the ability to begin construction in a subsequent phase. These delays can create a domino effect that can impact the overall

Additionally, schedule compression may allow flexibility when it comes to installing certain project components at certain times of the year, thus facilitating a successful project completion. For example, highly disruptive roadway impacts are more desirable in the summer months when traffic volumes are typically at their lowest. As part of a lessons learned approach, there are also technical reasons for performing certain construction tasks at certain times of the year. Feeder transitions from the overhead to the underground system at the phase boundaries are much more desirable in the winter time when electrical demand is low. Performing these transitions during the hotter months can drive up costs because the process becomes more complicated to execute. By obtaining constructability comments and perspectives from the CMAR during the design process, the Village can achieve schedule efficiencies that are not available under traditional DBB. Reducing the schedule duration will reduce the cost of the general conditions on the project.

Level of Service Although not identified by the UUTF as a high priority, a major criterion in choosing a project delivery method for this program is the delivery method’s ability to accommodate the needs of various stakeholders in a complex environment. The Village works very hard to protect the interests of the community. A high level of service and responsiveness to community needs, desires, and concerns is considered very important. The undergrounding program is fundamentally different than most Village projects in that the work is not confined to Village property or the public

7.0 PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

right-of-way. The Village’s contractor will be required to perform work on nearly every private property in the Village. It is imperative the Village’s contractor perform work on private property in a manner that minimizes the disturbance to that property to reduce the risk of property owner claims against the Village and project cost escalation. The ability to deliver the level of service to the community they expect best aligns with the CMAR method. Because the CMAR selection process has a qualifications component, their reputations are very important to them. They are highly motivated to do a good job for their client as they are typically desirous of winning the next project for the same client. Additionally, because the Village retains a great deal of control over the actions of the CMAR, when the need for change arises, as it often does with private individuals, it can easily be implemented by the CMAR. Since the CMAR is ultimately responsible for the schedule and the budget, they will generally bid the trade elements to subcontractors who are qualified and bondable, plus the CMAR has confidence will construct their scopes of work successfully. This enhances the quality of the work and reduces the risk that either the design professional or utility owner will reject the work. Work that is rejected and must be redone can pose a significant schedule risk in addition to quality concerns.

Another advantage of this method is that the CMAR is far less likely to develop an adversarial relationship with the Village during the course of the project. This results in a construction team that is motivated to perform well for the Village, resolve issues quickly and cost effectively, and maintain a positive working relationship so they can continue working with the Village on future projects. A lawsuit resulting from poor performance or claim on a project of this magnitude could have significant schedule and cost impacts.

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Chapter 8 R ISK A SSESSM ENT A project on the scale of the Village of Key Biscayne’s Overhead to Underground Utility Conversion will inherently involve risks. Risks for a project of this type generally are categorized in two ways: 1) risks to project budget and 2) risks to project schedule. Part of the intent of the master planning process is to identify risks to the project ahead of project design and construction to be prepared to mitigate those risks throughout the course of the project.

Schedule Risks

As part of the conversion process numerous new easements will be needed throughout the Village to place ground-mounted equipment for both electrical and communications networks. Each easement will require coordination with the impacted property owner and may also entail a difficult negotiation process, particularly in the case of seasonally absent owners or those unwilling to grant an easement. The Village could employ an eminent domain process to obtain easements required for the work, however, that process can be particularly lengthy and significantly impact both the cost and schedule.

Design and Preconstruction Phase

Bid Phase

The design of an overhead to underground conversion project involves parties who are not contractually obligated to the Village to meet a design schedule. AT&T, Comcast, and FPL will each need to produce detailed design documents of their underground communications and electrical networks that will be used by the Kimley-Horn design team to create the conduit plans and ultimately bid documents for construction of the project. Since these utility owners are not under contract with the Village, there will be limited control over their design schedules. In the event of a delay, there will be limited recourse for the Village. While it is anticipated each utility owner will be able to provide a schedule and will work to meet that schedule in conjunction with the rest of the design team, there is the potential for delays to occur beyond the control of the Village or Kimley‑Horn. For example, in the event of a major weather event, such as a hurricane, utility owners may allocate all resources to recovery efforts, including design team members, causing a delay to the project. Therefore, the need to incorporate these utility owners in the design process because of the proprietary nature of their networks is considered a negative schedule impact risk.

During the bid phase of the project the primary risk to schedule will be re-bidding the project if not enough qualified, competitive bids are received. This may be particularly true in a strong construction market with significant demand. There are several potential contributing factors, including ambiguities in the bid documents, perceived or actual risks, and limited numbers of local contractors qualified for the work. As a result, bids received may exceed the project budget, and in an effort to obtain more competitive bids, the project may be re-designed and/or re-bid, having a negative schedule impact.

Construction Phase During the Construction Phase of the project there are a number of factors that can contribute to project delays. The Village has varying degrees of control to mitigate these risks. The anticipated schedule risks during the construction phase include, but are not limited to:

8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Contractor’s staffing, use of subcontractors, and equipment reliability as these will impact the ability of the Contractor to meet the project schedule

Coordination with various utility owners required during the Construction Phase of the project who will perform certain portions of the work, as well as their execution schedule for such work. For example: »» AT&T and Comcast will not allow any crews other than their

own to install their cabling and equipment. »» During aerial cabling and utility pole removal, coordination

with various utility owners will be required. This work must be performed by the utility owners and cannot commence until all underground systems are installed and all services have been converted to underground.

Unforeseen conditions that can result in delays to the construction schedule as alternative designs are prepared to achieve project goals based upon the new information.

Service conversions from overhead to underground connections for electrical and communications can be delayed by unwilling and/ or absent owners. Particularly for the reasons and in the situations listed below: »» Communication service swaps can sometimes require attic

access and must be performed by the utility company. »» Property owners whose service entrance equipment does not

meet the National Electric Code (NEC) will need to have these service entrances replaced prior to conversion.

Weather conditions, including extended periods of rain, tropical storms, and hurricanes. Weather events can disrupt construction by reducing the production rate of construction crews and/or delaying certain portions of the work. Additionally, utility owners prioritize the provision and restoration of service to existing customers and will abandon a conversion project until recovery efforts are complete after a storm.

BEFORE

AFTER

S Mashta Drive looking northwest

Schedule Risk Mitigation Design and Preconstruction Phase As utility owners do not have the same contractual obligations to the Village as the design team, it is particularly important to develop methods to mitigate the risk they present to the overall project schedule. To mitigate this risk, it is recommended the Village initiate design of multiple, separate work areas at one time and overlap phase schedules so the impact of a delay in the design of a single phase on the overall project schedule is reduced. By having multiple phases with multiple work areas per phase, the portion of the Village in active construction at any given time is small relative to the project size, therefore reducing the perceived impact to the community at any given time while providing schedule control benefits to the Village. By overlapping the phases, the utilities can design future phases while construction work is active in a previous phase. This provides additional time not only to complete the design work, but to identify and procure equipment easements. This reduces the risk to the overall project schedule if the design of any single phase is delayed due to storm recovery efforts. Certain significant pieces of equipment required for completion of the project have limited flexibility where they can be located in the final design of the underground system. An example would be a switch cabinet that marks the limit of a service area boundary defined by electrical load demand. Since these pieces of equipment must be located in certain areas, a longer duration to acquire the easement may be necessary if property owner negotiations or an eminent domain process are needed. Identifying these locations early in the planning and design process provides extended periods of time to acquire required easements prior to each project area going into construction.

potential bidders and allows for lump sum bidding for various scopes of work. Lump sum bidding can be employed on infrastructure projects when the scope of work is clearly defined and the risk of quantity overruns is low. Unit price bidding is traditionally used on projects where quantities are likely to change because precise estimates cannot be made.

Construction Phase To mitigate the risk the chosen contractor fails to perform the work within the desired schedule, we recommend:

requiring bidders submit historical evidence with their bid proposal to demonstrate past success in meeting schedules on similar projects

requiring bidders submit references with their bid proposal the Village can contact to discuss schedule performance on past similar projects

engaging a Construction Manager who has the authority to remove and replace poor performing subcontractors and/or to bring in additional resources when threats to the project schedule are identified.

To mitigate the risk of unforeseen subsurface conditions impacting construction and to properly plan for the installation of the electric and communications infrastructure, we recommend record drawing research and soft dig utility locates be performed for known and identifiable utilities during the design phase. As a result, the risk of underground utility conflicts leading to schedule delays and construction claims is reduced. This also increases the clarity of the construction documents, which reduces risk to

8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Having the Village’s selected contractor perform most of the work is the best method to guarantee work is performed in a timely manner. Because the Village’s selected contractor has a strong and direct contractual obligation to meet an agreed-upon schedule, the risk of schedule impacts caused by the contractor are reduced. To reduce schedule risk posed by elements of construction that must be performed by the utility owners it is critical a detailed construction schedule clearly identify when the activities are required during the project and their duration. All dates and durations must be clearly communicated to the utility owners and the Village must obtain a commitment to those dates from the utility owners prior to the commencement of each phase. Coordination meetings should be held on a regular interval and should include the utility owners. At these meetings any schedule or sequence adjustments made should be discussed and coordinated. Experience has shown employing a well-qualified Construction Manager has been extremely beneficial in facilitating this process. Some level of unforeseen conditions can be expected with any project of this scale. When unforeseen conditions do arise, it is important the design team, construction team, utility owners, and Village work together on developing solutions as quickly as possible to avoid schedule impacts. The team’s focus should remain on development of a solution until the unforeseen condition is overcome to minimize or eliminate schedule impacts. During previous projects the service conversion process has presented challenges when absentee and/or unwilling property owners are encountered. To compound the challenges, communication companies consider their customer information to be confidential, which often makes it difficult for outside entities, including the construction team or owner, to contact absentee property owners and/or discussing concerns with unwilling property owners. Having a strong public outreach component that proactively reaches all property owners offers them an understanding of the project and how they will be individually affected is recommended. This will mitigate the risk delayed service conversions on the part of individual property owners cause delays to the overall project. Performing this outreach continuously and early also aids in identifying where problems may be encountered in the future so proactive actions can be taken.

When an owner’s service entrance does not meet the National Electric Code, it will need to be upgraded prior to service conversion process. To reduce the impact of delays caused by this condition the following process is recommended:

During the design phase a review of all meters shall be performed to determine where code issues may exist

The Village can then notify these property owners that their service entrances need to be upgraded in advance of the project along with instructions on how to initiate the work

If by the time construction begins the work has not been completed by the property owner, we recommend the construction contract include an allowance line item for the Village to perform this work on behalf of the property owner

Finally, the associated costs should be assessed against the property by the Village After service conversions are completed, the de-energized overhead wires and poles must be removed by the utility owners. This type of work is considered very low priority for the utility companies and they will demobilize from the project if they are needed to respond to another service repair or recovery effort elsewhere in the system, presenting a

schedule risk for the project. Experience has shown that pressure applied by municipal leadership on the utility companies can be effective in expediting this process. A diligent Construction Manager has also been effective in keeping the process moving forward. Weather conditions, particularly in South Florida, can present a schedule risk that is both difficult to anticipate and difficult to mitigate. Significant storm events will not only hamper the efforts of the Village’s contractor but utility owners will shift focus away from the conversion project and onto recovery efforts in the aftermath of a storm. Work by utility owners will not resume on the conversion project until their individual recovery efforts are complete, which can take varying amounts of time depending upon the magnitude of a storm event. Utility owners may also choose to use stockpiled materials intended for conversion projects in the recovery efforts and restock those materials only after recovery efforts are complete. To mitigate this risk, the Village could request FPL provide materials for an entire phase area at the onset of the phase’s construction. However, this would require the Village provide a location to store these materials in a secure environment. The storage location would need to consider some of the materials needed for this project will need to be stored to avoid exposure to the elements. For example, the underground conduit may not withstand prolonged exposure to ultraviolet rays and would need to be covered or stored indoors. The Village may wish to explore warehouse/ storage yard rental to evaluate whether it would be worth the associated costs to mitigate against the risk to schedule.

Budget Risks Design and Preconstruction Phases While cost overruns could potentially occur during the design phase, the risk is relatively small, particularly given the size of the project. The most likely scenario for design phase cost overruns would be a change or addition to the overall project scope by the Village. As previously discussed, the project will require the acquisition of numerous easements over the course of design and implementation. Each easement has the potential to add easement acquisition costs. These costs may come in the form of staff labor, consultant labor, legal fees,

and potentially agreements with property owners in the form of redesign, additional landscaping, etc. During a project of this magnitude it can be expected that some easements may need to be acquired through the eminent domain process. This process can be expensive and is difficult to quantify a budget for such expenses since the number of eminent domain processes that may be required over the life of the program cannot be accurately predicted.

Construction Phase As with project schedule, the construction phase is where most budget risks to the project are found. These risks include, but are not limited to:

Delays in the project schedule can lead to delay claims where the contractor seeks additional compensation, and when delays to the project are significant the impact of inflation can become significant relative to project budget.

Material costs can vary significantly over the length of a project of this scale. For example, an increase in oil prices can drive material and equipment costs up. The cost of petroleum based items such as asphalt, as well as HDPE and PVC conduits would increase along with fuel costs for the construction equipment with an increase in oil prices.

Local and national economic and construction market conditions can also influence project costs. When demand is high and potential bidders are busy, labor and material prices are likely to be higher than when the industry is slow and there is increased competition to drive prices down.

Unforeseen sub-surface conditions including unknown/unmarked utilities, unsuitable soils, contaminated soils, and/or rock conditions can all add cost to the construction of the project.

During the course of the project there may be the need to implement specific landscaping requirements or specialized pavement and driveway restoration due to unavoidable impacts to existing elements or as a means to secure a required easement or other private property impact. These special considerations can add cost to the project.

8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

The addition of any previously unbudgeted costs for replacements or improvements necessitated by the undergrounding program. For example, the replacement of existing street lighting that is currently installed on overhead utility poles.

Utility owners will also encounter some of the same budget risks, and to the extent increased labor and material costs can be passed along to the Village, it is expected they will do so.

Budget Risk Mitigation Design and Preconstruction Phase During the preconstruction phase, one of the larger budget risks is tied to the easement acquisition process. Property owners unwilling to dedicate an easement for necessary equipment on their property may necessitate the Village commence with eminent domain proceedings to complete the project. This process can be expensive and time consuming. To mitigate this risk, adequate time should be allowed within the project schedule to discuss and alleviate concerns with impacted property owners. Another mitigation measure is to exercise flexibility in the size, shape, and location of easements obtained for equipment to aid the negotiation process. Where possible, equipment should be located in the right-of-way to avoid the need to procure an easement altogether. Where the equipment must be placed within private property due to design and space constraints, it is helpful that the person(s) discussing proposed easement locations with property owners understand the flexibility available to the design team for relocating equipment to facilitate quick negotiations during the preconstruction phase. During the design phase the construction documents should undergo a value engineering process to identify potential reductions to construction costs. The Kimley-Horn design team includes team members with experience in the power and communications distribution industry who can review not only the supplementary conduit plans being produced by Kimley-Horn, but also the network designs produced by FPL, AT&T, and Comcast. The intent of these reviews is to provide assurances the network designs do not contain unnecessary upgrades, are efficient, and are a “like for like” overhead to underground conversion design.

Construction Phase Project schedule delays generally correlate with budget impacts, therefore quickly resolving any delays and closely managing schedule are a good mitigating measure for budget control on the project. There are several ways to mitigate increases in material costs that may be experienced during the project. Schedule control is important, since material prices can fluctuate over time but generally will increase due to inflation. This project offers a unique opportunity for the Village to direct purchase materials in large quantities to achieve both volume pricing and tax advantages. For example, conduit and HDPE piping can be purchased directly by the Village using their tax-exempt status to save the sales tax. The contractor can receive bids for these materials from suppliers with purchase orders being issued directly by the Village. This allows the contractor to remain responsible for the coordination and delivery of these materials, therefore reducing the risk of the Village becoming responsible for maintaining an adequate flow of materials to the contractor. As previously discussed, market conditions can influence project costs both positively and negatively. While the Village cannot control market conditions, action can be taken to encourage competition among potential bidders for each of the bid packages, providing incremental benefits to the project cost. One approach is to hold an industry forum with members of

the contracting community to generate interest in bidding the packages as they are advertised. If the Village were to pursue a Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) procurement method, it is recommended the Construction Manager(s) be procured on a competitive basis. Encouraging competition among interested parties provides a measure of mitigation against rising construction costs in a growing market. It is recommended that geotechnical explorations, record drawing research, and subsurface utility locating be performed during the design phase. This will reduce the risk of unforeseen subsurface conditions being encountered during the construction phase, for example: unknown/unmarked utilities, unsuitable soils, contaminated soils, and/or rock conditions. Unforeseen subsurface conditions cannot be completely eliminated, but this initial investment will eliminate the majority of conflicts that otherwise would have arisen had this exploration and research not been performed. Since encountering unforeseen subsurface conditions is inevitable on any urban underground infrastructure project, it is imperative the design team, construction team, and Village stay focused on a solution for any given conflict until the problem is resolved. When the project team is able to quickly determine a solution in a non-adversarial manner, costs due to the conflict are generally minimized. Specialized drilling equipment can be employed to limit surface disruption, which can minimize the risk of increasing restoration costs due to specific landscaping requirements or specialized pavement and driveway restoration costs. While horizontal directional drilling is generally a costlier installation method than open cut trenching, the savings in specialized restoration costs can sometime make it a more cost-effective approach to complete the project. Entry and exit pits for each segment of installation are still required, meaning excavation is not completely eliminated, but it is significantly reduced and can be planned in a way that avoids the areas with the costliest restoration requirements. Pits will also need to be excavated in locations where conduits make sweeps or connect to above grade equipment. Horizontal directional drilling is most useful when installing conduits in a long straight line. Horizontal directional drilling presents a risk of hydrofracture (“Frac-Out”) occurring. Hydrofracture causes areas above the drilling location to depress along the drilling line along with the release of drilling fluids to

8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

the surface. Certain soil conditions and shallow drilling depths increase the likelihood of hydrofracture. By planning conduit routing properly and using deliberate decision making regarding when it is appropriate to employ horizontal directional drilling, the risk of increased restoration costs can be mitigated.

fixtures and poles would be acceptable for use as an alternative to the lighting that is currently being installed under the Village’s lighting program. If the Village desires to pursue FPL standard lighting, it is recommended this determination be made prior to beginning final design of the undergrounding project.

Another method that can be used to reduce restoration costs, specifically paving costs, is to share those costs with other infrastructure projects in a given area. For this project, it is known the Village has separately budgeted infrastructure projects that could be programmed into the undergrounding project. Additionally, the Village has requested a number of aged Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department water mains be replaced throughout the project areas. Our recommendation is to allow these Village infrastructure projects and those otherwise desired by the Village to share in the roadway restoration costs. This provides a benefit to both the Village and the other entities in that no single agency is responsible for the amount of roadway repaving they would be required to perform if they performed their project on a stand-alone basis.

To mitigate the risk that increasing labor and material costs are passed on to the Village from the utility owners, we recommend two review activities occur during the design phase of each portion of the project. First, the design team should work with each utility owner during the design process to value engineer their network designs so the final design is an efficient and cost effective “like for like” system, so the Village does not become responsible for the costs of upgrading utility owner assets. Secondly, a review of the costs presented by the utility owners to the Village and design team should be performed to determine if it is reasonable, accurate, and provide a level of assurance that it does not contain costs for network upgrades or betterment, but rather only those costs to provide a “like for like” system.

Another cost saving measure related to paving that can mitigate risks to the project budget is the deferral of milling and resurfacing until after a number of phase areas have been completed. In this manner, miles of streets can be bundled into a milling and paving bid package that will gain the interest of the larger highway paving contractors and allow the Village to achieve volume pricing that only large paving projects can provide. During the project the Village may encounter improvements that are necessitated by the undergrounding program, such as replacement of street lighting currently installed on utility poles. The primary way to mitigate these costs is to review Village plans for infrastructure improvements and existing conditions within work areas to determine those elements most likely to be impacted by the undergrounding and determine planning level costs for each element. For impacted street lights not included in any separate Village replacement program, there exists an option to engage FPL to replace these street lights under their street lighting program. Within FPL’s line of standard lighting, the Village would be responsible for a nominal Cost in Aid of Construction (CIAC) of approximately $1,200 per pole, as well as operating costs. However, the standard line of FPL lighting is limited in selection and the Village would need to decide what

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Chapter 9 T R A NSP O R TAT IO N M A NA G EM ENT P LA N A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) has been developed to coordinate traffic impacts related to both the undergrounding program and other known significant infrastructure projects for each phase/year of the construction to minimize impacts to the residents and businesses. Based on the proposed undergrounding project phases and other known infrastructure projects (by the Village and others), Kimley-Horn has assessed the traffic impacts from construction for each phase of the project. The following section describes the methodology utilized to develop the TMP, as well as overall guiding principles (general guidelines) for use by the Village and affected contractors during the implementation of the undergrounding program. The TMP is a specific set of strategies to manage the work zone impacts of a project. Its use may evolve over time, but its current role is to assist in the development of the design of construction phasing plans, traffic control plans, and project specification documents, and to facilitate discussions between the Village, designers, utility owners, contractors, and other key stakeholders related to traffic impacts. It should also be used by the Village as a tool during the maintenance of traffic (MOT) permitting process to better coordinate construction traffic impacts as specific permits are applied for by the construction community. Graphics and/or boards of the proposed TMP strategies are recommended for use during the public outreach process. An overall TMP, as well as general traffic control guidelines for the program, were also developed. The TMP strategies follow standard MOT guidelines, schematic in nature, and are displayed on GIS maps in this section.

STAKEHOLDER — COMMUNICATION CONTACTS Further communication with the following stakeholders is recommended as the TMP evolves throughout the implementation of the program:

¾¾ Village of Key Biscayne Police Department ¾¾ Village of Key Biscayne Fire Department ¾¾ Village of Key Biscayne Public Works Department ¾¾ Village Manager’s office ¾¾ Undergrounding Utilities Task Force ¾¾ Village Council ¾¾ Utility companies (FPL, AT&T, Comcast, Hotwire) ¾¾ Outside utility providers: Miami-Dade County Water and

Sewer Department, Miami-Dade Public Works, AmeriGas, and American Traffic Solutions

¾¾ Various Key Biscayne Homeowners Associations ¾¾ Commercial businesses: (i.e. commercial district businesses, hotels, country clubs, etc.)

9.1

Roadway Network

The roadway network within the Village is described below. The main north-south thoroughfare is Crandon Boulevard that connects the Village with the mainland through the Rickenbacker Causeway to the north and ends at the Bill Bags Cape Florida State Park entrance.

9.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

West of Crandon Boulevard, Harbor Drive circulates as the westernmost north-south thoroughfare connecting to Mashta Drive on the south. Mashta Drive is southernmost east-west thoroughfare and the only entrance to Mashta Island. From Harbor Drive to Mashta Drive, Fernwood Road runs parallel to Crandon Boulevard. A series of traffic calming circles and raised intersections are present throughout the residential network. East of Crandon Boulevard a variety of local roads provides access to the multi-family residences and hotels. The rest of the Village is comprised of local residential, commercial, or mixed-use roads.

9.2 Traffic Conditions Prior to Start to Work Traffic Volume Data Traffic counts, road capacities, and Levels of Service (LOS) for 11 major road links are presented in the counts, collected on at least two weekdays in either April or March of 2015. This was the most recent traffic data available for the Village. A location map of the 11 different roadway link locations is provided at right. The data contained the peak season 2015 traffic count data presented in a series of tables per location. The highest volume identified was used for analysis for three scenarios: daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour. After careful review, some abnormalities were found at two of the links in comparison with adjacent locations (location 6 and 7). Therefore, as construction is expected to start in 2020, more updated traffic data is recommended to be obtained. Tables 1, 2, and 3 on the following pages contain traffic volumes, roadway classes, capacities (adjusted as per FDOT criteria in the 2013 Quality/Level of Service Handbook), volume to capacity ratios, and LOS for the 11 links in each of the three scenarios. The overall trend on the island is the two-lane arterial roadways tend to have LOS C or better. Rickenbacker Causeway south of the toll has LOS B until just north of Harbor Drive where the roadway transitions into the developed region of the island and changes from Rickenbacker Causeway (SR 913) to Crandon Boulevard. Additionally, directionality is well-defined, with traffic generally heading onto the island in the AM peak hour and off the island in the PM peak hour.

Eleven Roadway Link Locations

9.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES â&#x20AC;&#x201D; MASTER PLAN

Table 1 Existing 2015 Daily Peak Season Level of Service (LOS)

(1) (2) (3)

Facility Type

2015 Daily Volume

Roadway Class

Rickenbacker Causeway (at Toll)

4L ART DIVIDED

59,244

Rickenbacker Causeway (Bear Cut Bridge)

4L ART DIVIDED

Rickenbacker Causeway (at Golf Course)

Location No.

Street Segment

LOS D

LOS E

Existing Daily LOS

Daily Capacity

V/C Ratio

Daily Capacity

V/C Ratio

74,400

0.80

79,900

0.74

33,931

74,400

0.46

79,900

0.42

4L ART DIVIDED

34,729

74,400

0.47

79,900

0.43

Rickenbacker Causeway (at Tennis Center)

4L ART DIVIDED

33,428

74,400

0.45

79,900

0.42

Rickenbacker Causeway (Just north of Harbor Dr)

4L ART DIVIDED

35,673

74,400

0.48

79,900

0.45

Crandon Boulevard (between E Heather & Grand Bay Dr)

4L ART DIVIDED

1,664

32,400

0.05

33,800

0.05

Crandon Boulevard(2) (at Bill Baggs Park Entrance)

2L ART DIVIDED

24,085

15,540

1.55

16,380

1.47

Harbor Drive(1) (between W Heather Dr & McIntyre St)

2L ART UNDIVIDED

3,789

11,840

0.32

12,480

0.30

Harbor Drive(1) (between W Enid Dr & W Mashta Dr)

2L ART UNDIVIDED

3,006

11,840

0.25

12,480

0.24

Harbor Drive(1) (between W Wood Dr & W Mashta Dr)

2L ART UNDIVIDED

2,540

11,840

0.21

12,480

0.20

Fernwood Road(1) (between W Heather Dr & W McIntyre St)

2L ART UNDIVIDED

3,366

11,840

0.28

12,480

0.27

Based on FDOT Class II Roadway with 20% capacity reduction for 2-lane undivided roadway without exclusive turn lanes. Based on FDOT Class II Roadway with 5% capacity increase for 2-lane divided roadway with exclusive left turn lane. V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio

9.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES â&#x20AC;&#x201D; MASTER PLAN

Table 2 Existing 2015 AM Peak Hour Peak Season Level of Service (LOS) Location No.

Street Segment

Direction

Rickenbacker Causeway (at Toll)

Rickenbacker Causeway (Bear Cut Bridge)

Rickenbacker Causeway (at Golf Course)

Rickenbacker Causeway (at Tennis Center)

Rickenbacker Causeway (Just north of Harbor Dr)

Crandon Boulevard (between E Heather & Grand Bay Dr)

Crandon Boulevard(2) (at Bill Baggs Park Entrance)

Harbor Drive (between W Heather Dr & McIntyre St)

Harbor Drive(1) (between W Enid Dr & W Mashta Dr)

Harbor Drive (between W Wood Dr & W Mashta Dr)

Fernwood Road (between W Heather Dr & W McIntyre St)

(1) (2) (3)

(1)

SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB

Facility Type

Table 3 Existing 2015 PM Peak Hour Peak Season Level of Service (LOS)

LOS D LOS E 2015 AM Roadway Peak Hour Peak Hour V/C Peak Hour V/C Class Volume Capacity Ratio Capacity Ratio

4L ART DIVIDED

2,392

4L ART DIVIDED

1,257

4L ART DIVIDED

1,276

4L ART DIVIDED

1,270

4L ART DIVIDED

1,389

4L ART DIVIDED

102

2L ART DIVIDED

814

1,481 1,376 1,358 1,350 1,243 51 953

2L ART UNDIVIDED

165

2L ART UNDIVIDED

128

2L ART UNDIVIDED

100

2L ART UNDIVIDED

189

137 107 109 143

3,660

1,630

788

600

II II

600 600

0.65 0.40 0.34 0.38 0.35 0.37 0.35 0.37 0.85 0.76 0.06 0.03 1.03 1.21 0.28 0.23 0.21 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.32 0.24

3,940 3,940 3,940 3,940 1,700 1,700 840 640 640 640 640

Existing Peak Hour LOS

0.61

0.38

0.32

0.35

0.32

0.34

0.32

0.34

0.82

0.73

0.06

0.03

0.97

1.13

0.26

0.21

0.20

0.17

0.16

0.17

0.30

0.22

Location No.

Street Segment

Direction

Rickenbacker Causeway (at Toll)

Rickenbacker Causeway (Bear Cut Bridge)

Rickenbacker Causeway (at Golf Course)

Rickenbacker Causeway (at Tennis Center)

Rickenbacker Causeway (Just north of Harbor Dr)

Crandon Boulevard (between E Heather & Grand Bay Dr)

Crandon Boulevard(2) (at Bill Baggs Park Entrance)

Harbor Drive (between W Heather Dr & McIntyre St)

Harbor Drive(1) (between W Enid Dr & W Mashta Dr)

Harbor Drive (between W Wood Dr & W Mashta Dr)

Fernwood Road (between W Heather Dr & W McIntyre St)

(1)

SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB

Facility Type

LOS D LOS E 2015 PM Roadway Peak Hour Peak Hour V/C Peak Hour V/C Class Volume Capacity Ratio Capacity Ratio

4L ART DIVIDED

2,284

4L ART DIVIDED

1,393

4L ART DIVIDED

1,409

4L ART DIVIDED

1,390

4L ART DIVIDED

1,431

4L ART DIVIDED

2,660 1,211 1,190 1,188 1,191 102

2L ART DIVIDED

950

2L ART UNDIVIDED

206

2L ART UNDIVIDED

177

2L ART UNDIVIDED

157

2L ART UNDIVIDED

203

905 151 122 127 164

3,660

1,630

788

600

0.62 0.73 0.38 0.33 0.38 0.33 0.38 0.32 0.88 0.73 0.06 0.06 1.21 1.15 0.34 0.25 0.30 0.20 0.26 0.21 0.34 0.27

3,940 3,940 3,940 3,940 1,700 1,700 840 640 640 640 640

Existing Peak Hour LOS

0.58

0.68

0.35

0.31

0.36

0.30

0.35

0.30

0.84

0.70

0.06

1.13

1.08

0.32

0.24

0.28

0.19

0.25

0.20

0.32

0.26

(1)

(2)

9.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

9.3 Traffic Conditions During the Work To more precisely determine how construction activity will impact traffic in the project area, an evaluation of the construction activities for each type of work was completed. Not all construction activities will generate a large displacement of the current motorists. Three major traffic controlling measures implemented during construction will have significant impacts on the traveling public. These include lane restrictions, shoulder closure, and short-term closures. Detour route alternatives are shown on the maps beginning on page 98. However, the timing, sequence, and implementation of closures and lane restrictions will be detailed in the maintenance of traffic plans provided by the contractor during the construction process. This allows the contractor the freedom to construct the project in the way they determine is the most efficient for their operations.

Lane Restrictions Multiple Lane Restrictions: Multiple lane restrictions consist of prohibiting any traffic from entering or exiting a portion of roadway in a defined direction of travel (i.e. northbound or southbound) for an established construction zone length and quantitative duration. The multiple lane restriction uses full lane closures to complete construction tasks while maintaining operational lanes for conveying traffic flows. Once the construction is completed within the initial portion of the roadway, the traffic control is “flipped” or modified, shifting traffic onto the previously impacted lanes and closing the remaining lanes for construction activities. This type of lane restriction can be accomplished with signage and barricades or with construction flagmen, depending on the duration of the restriction. Weekend Closure: Weekend closures are traffic control measures that restrict or close travel lanes for an entire weekend. In most applications, a weekend is considered 9:00 p.m. Friday evening to 5:00 a.m. Monday morning. Weekend closures are installed using barricades, vertical panels, flashing arrow panels, truck mounted attenuators, and the appropriate construction signage to convey the maintenance of traffic. Weekend closures should be scheduled to avoid peak weekends where access and mobility throughout the Village is essential to the success and operation of any special event or holiday.

Night-time Closure: Night-time closures are traffic control measures that restrict or close travel lanes for an entire night. Night-time closures are installed using cones, flashing arrow panels, truck mounted attenuators, and the appropriate construction signage to convey the maintenance of traffic. Night-time closures should be scheduled to avoid peak nights when access and mobility throughout the Village is essential to the success and operation of any special event or holiday. Construction activities anticipated to occur throughout the undergrounding program that may use lane restrictions are:

Conduit installation (undergrounding) Equipment and cable installation (undergrounding) Pole and wire removal (undergrounding) Watermain installation Drainage improvements

Street lighting improvements Pump station improvements

Short-term Closure A complete direction closure consists of prohibiting any traffic by public motorists from entering or exiting the roadway in a defined direction of travel (i.e., northbound or southbound) for an established length construction zone and quantitative duration. In the case of the north-south thoroughfares, this closure could be applied in both the northbound and southbound directions of travel. Although not anticipated to be needed often for the undergrounding program, if necessary, these closures could span a maximum distance of one to two blocks of roadway at a time and be restricted to a weekend time frame. In the case of the main east-west arterials and the local residential, commercial or mixed-use roads, the need for their closure to traffic or availability for a detour depends on the width of the road. This is further evaluated below.

The initial construction activities in any given phase will include conduit construction by a mixture of open cut trenches and directional boring along with the installation of equipment and cabling. The final six months of any given phase will include the removal of the existing overhead poles and wires. Therefore, there will be an overlap when adjacent phases will experience construction impacts potentially requiring road closures near each other.

Table 4 Anticipated Construction Sequence Year

Project Area

2020

Land Use

Major Work Elements

Phase 1

Mixed Use Commercial / Single and MultiFamily Residential

Undergrounding, Village Communications, Street Lighting, Stormwater, Watermain Replacement

2021

Phase 2

Mixed Use Commercial / Single and MultiFamily Residential

Undergrounding, Village Communications, Street Lighting, Stormwater, Watermain Replacement

2022

Elsewhere in Village

2023

Phase 3

2023

Elsewhere in Village

2024

Phase 4

2024

Elsewhere in Village

Demolition and removal of overhead utilities from Phase 3

2025

Elsewhere in Village

Demolition and removal of overhead utilities from Phase 4

Street lighting improvements Pump station improvements The use of a multiple-lane restriction, weekend closure, or night-time closure will be determined during design and construction of each phase.

Shoulder Closure A shoulder closure consists of prohibiting any traffic by public motorists from driving on the roadside shoulder in a defined direction of travel (i.e., northbound or southbound) for an established length construction zone and quantitative duration. In the case of the north-south thoroughfares, this closure will be applied in both the northbound and southbound directions of travel. The closures are anticipated to span the time required to complete the construction of facilities outside of the travel lanes and may reduce travel lane widths. However, they will not eliminate the use of any travel lanes. Construction activities using shoulder closures are:

Conduit installation (undergrounding) Equipment and cable installation (undergrounding)

9.4 General Project Schedule and Construction Sequence The undergrounding of overhead utilities, namely electrical and communication (FPL, AT&T, Comcast), is planned to occur in four phases with starting dates from 2020–2023. Additionally, other improvements may occur during the same time as the undergrounding. These improvements could include the Village’s CIP, the Village’s stormwater master plan improvements, and Miami-Dade County WASD watermain replacement. The Village’s CIP improvements are small-scale projects planned to occur during each year of the program and may be performed in conjunction with the undergrounding. The Village’s stormwater master plan is a 10-year phased program of improvements. The Village is considering accelerating those improvements to coincide with the undergrounding program. MiamiDade WASD watermain improvements are planned to occur in conjunction with the undergrounding program and be confined to the undergrounding phase project area during any given year. These improvements were considered when recommending transportation management options. The following table has the anticipated construction sequence. See also Chapter 6 of this master plan.

Demolition and removal of overhead utilities from Phase 1 Mixed Use Commercial / Single and MultiFamily Residential

Undergrounding, Village Communications, Street Lighting, Stormwater, Watermain Replacement Demolition and removal of overhead utilities from Phase 2

Single-Family Residential

Undergrounding, Street Lighting, Watermain Replacement

Since the focus of the program is the underground conversion of overhead utilities and known large infrastructure programs, private construction projects (homes and businesses) are not currently included in the major work elements, but could have some impacts to traffic behavior in the Village.

Pole and wire removal (undergrounding)

9.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

It is recommended these projects be reviewed for traffic impacts with this TMP to coordinate impacts to the greatest extent practical. It is not possible to predict private construction activities at this time. The Village’s Public Works Department should use this TMP to guide them in the issuance of MOT permits and coordinate the efforts for private construction community within Village construction project areas. Once MOT permits are issued and the MOT measures are implemented in the field, the operations should be monitored closely for effectiveness. Observed issues should be corrected through appropriate modification of the approved MOT based on these observed operational conditions.

9.5 Traffic Control Considerations: Traffic Control Considerations on Main North-South Thoroughfares: The following describes the traffic control considerations on the main northsouth thoroughfares through the Village. It outlines restrictions to impacting these thoroughfares and alternate routes if one of the thoroughfares were to be impacted for construction. The traffic control considerations on the main north-south thoroughfares are as follows:

From Ocean Lane Drive to Mashta Drive, Crandon Boulevard, Fernwood Road, and Harbor Drive run parallel to each other »» Impacts to Fernwood Drive and Harbor Drive shall be

minimized as much as possible. Intermittent closure of a single lane could be allowed if flag men are used or if two-way traffic can be maintained at all times. »» Only two of the three roads can be impacted at the same

time. If either Fernwood Drive and Harbor Drive are impacted, Crandon Boulevard should be fully open to traffic »» Fernwood Drive and Harbor Drive can be closed to traffic

(open to local traffic only) only if required, preferably for a single block at a time and for a brief period. Both roads should not be closed to two-way traffic at the same time.

From Harbor Drive to N Mashta Drive, W Mashta Drive is the only thoroughfare to provide access to Mashta Island; therefore, the roadway cannot be closed »» Work to be conducted from the road shoulder without

impacting the travel lanes »» Intermittent closure of a single lane is allowed if flag men are

used

Traffic Control Considerations for the other Roads: The rest of the Village is comprised of a variety of commercial and local roads. We have classified them as follows for the purposes of maintaining traffic during construction:

Narrow road – use for one-way detour only if needed Wider road – use for two-way detour as needed These are color coded and separated in the maps beginning on page 98. The intent is to have available detour options as work occurs on the main roads (thoroughfares) and there is the necessity to detour traffic through the local roads. The local roads should always maintain access to local traffic and access to driveways. The exhibits provide suggested cross streets for transportation management based on field visits conducted in June 2018 to verify lane widths are adequate to accommodate the detoured traffic. It should be noted that no singular cross street is recommended for a detour, and where possible, multiple adjacent roadways are recommended. By providing multiple options for the detour, the impact to the residential cross streets can be minimized. To promote drivers to use the earlier detour options and avoid the majority of drivers waiting until the last cross street before the road closure to detour, it is recommended variable message signage be provided so specific road names can be recommended for the detour. The specific timing and implementation of closures and lane restrictions will be detailed in the MOT plan to be submitted by the contractor. Specific conditions and recommendations contained in this TMP will be communicated to the contractor in the construction documents. The contractor shall always maintain access to local traffic and access to driveways.

Guidelines for others that occupy the roads: Landscapers and other contractors should be restricted to parking on roads without lane closures, or are outside the affected work area, unless otherwise approved by the Village

Other contractors should be restricted to working on roads without on-going undergrounding work, unless otherwise approved by the Village

Access to cyclists and pedestrians will be described in the construction documents for implementation by the contractor

9.6 Traffic-Related Work Restrictions: The contractor shall maintain the same number of existing travel lanes and parking lanes in each direction open to traffic at all times, except as noted herein. Per the Village’s noise ordinance, the creation of any plainly audible sound in connection with construction is only permitted from 7:00 am to 6:30 pm Monday through Friday. Therefore, no construction activities are permitted during nights, weekends, and holidays.

Weekdays Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays that are not Village holidays shall be considered weekdays. The day after Thanksgiving shall be considered a holiday. A “holiday weekend” shall be defined as the period between noon on the weekday before a holiday and noon on the weekday after a holiday.

Work will not be allowed on Village observed holidays. Full Closures or Partial Closures Full or partial closures will be allowed during weekdays. A full closure of the main northbound and southbound thoroughfares will not be allowed at the same time.

A full closure of any travel lane(s) that does not allow the maintenance of two-way travel at all times will require the use of flag men during the closure period.

A full closure of any travel lane(s) that will create a one-way travel direction, or complete roadway closure, will require advance approval from the Village of Key Biscayne Public Works Department

Conflicting Closures No two adjoining corridors may be closed in the same direction at the same time

No two corridors that act as alternates to each other may be closed at the same time

Notification, Coordination, and Approval of Closures Contractors must notify the Village Engineer at least one week in advance of any proposed closures.

An internal Village of Key Biscayne communication representative shall coordinate all closure activity. This could be the Village’s project manager.

Any work requiring a closure will need to have an approved traffic control plan and corresponding MOT permit from the Public Works Department.

All approved closures must be communicated to the Village on a weekly basis by the contractor during the week prior to the closure so the Village can include traffic alerts on the Village website or undergrounding website.

The Village will produce a weekly media alert for traffic impacts for the upcoming week. At the discretion of the Village a phone number may be published in these media alerts that allows impacted motorists to call and report observed issues with the MOT operations.

The Village’s Public Works Department will coordinate closures among projects through the MOT permitting process and keep the community apprised of upcoming closure activities through media releases.

Field personnel need to notify the Village Engineer and Design Engineer of any cancellations or changes in closure schedules.

All roadway closures, material haul routes, and detours shall be approved by the Village of Key Biscayne prior to implementation. Material haul routes through the City of Miami and Miami-Dade County shall have appropriate agency approvals.

Contractor shall submit the details of the contemplated activities and related traffic impacts to the Village Engineer, City of Miami,

9.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

and Miami-Dade County as needed to receive approval at least 21 days in advance of the contemplated activities that may impact those jurisdictions.

Material hauls on local streets will be subject to the Village of Key Biscayne’s requirements and local ordinances.

After approval of traffic control plans and associated closures and detours on Crandon Boulevard, the contractor shall place advance closure notice information signs per Village of Key Biscayne and FDOT requirements and advise affected businesses, residents, and stakeholders at least two weeks in advance of impending approved closures.

In all cases where there are roadway impacts, the contractor shall assure access is maintained or otherwise provided to and from abutting properties. After approval, the contractor shall advise residents and businesses of any impending access restrictions. Full closure of roads in a manner that prevents access to residences and businesses will not be permitted.

Temporary traffic control devices shall not be set up in advance of a closure unless approved by the Village. Upon completion of the closure, traffic control devices shall be removed from the roadways and shoulders by the end of the work day. The devices may not be left or stockpiled on shoulders or in clear zone areas.

Special Events Partial or full closures on corridors are not allowed when a special event occurs within that roadway corridor.

9.7 Transportation Operations Plan Recommended strategies will be used to improve transportation operations/safety within project work zones.

Emergency Services Field personnel shall coordinate with emergency services for any partial closure where no shoulders are available.

Contractors will remove all traffic control for temporary lane closures prior to holidays or weekends that adjoin a holiday.

Lane closures that require an extended duration and are

Responsibilities/Requirements/ Special Considerations

Signal timing/ coordination improvements

Signal timing changes shall be made when detouring traffic during lane closures. Police officers shall be utilized as needed to adjust signal timing to dissipate excessive backups.

Speed limit reduction/variable speed limits

The speed reduction signs shall be installed at locations shown in the MOT plans.

Temporary traffic barrier

Temporary traffic barrier shall be installed at locations shown in the MOT plans.

Crash attenuators

Crash attenuators are not anticipated but shall be placed at locations proposed by the contractor to break temporary traffic barrier runs for access to work zone.

Warning lights

Type A warning lights shall be mounted on top of all construction signs as noted in the MOT plans. Type C steady-burn warning lights shall be mounted on all channelization devices during nighttime activities.

Signal timing/ coordination improvements

Signal timing changes shall be made when detouring traffic during lane closures. Police officers shall be utilized as needed to adjust signal timing to dissipate excessive backups.

Dedicated (paid) police enforcement

DPS officers shall be used as needed for monitoring and flushing out traffic at signalized intersections along the approved detour routes.

Detour routes shall be communicated to emergency services on a weekly basis, or more frequently as the detour routes change.

Special Approval

Corridor/ Network Management

The Village Public Works Department must approve any exceptions.

Any requests for special exceptions shall be made with four weeks advanced notice to allow time for a thorough review and approval, if required. Work Zone Safety Management

The contractor shall provide schedules of daily activities and corresponding traffic control plans. This information shall be provided in advance and during construction progress meetings. The information provided shall specify the limits of the work activities and related traffic control plan by location, direction, and time. The construction schedule and associated traffic control plans shall be developed in a format suitable for release to other agencies and the public, and shall be updated as necessary.

Selected Strategies

Traffic/Incident Management and Enforcement

implemented with appropriate barriers, traffic control devices, and signage shall be allowed to remain in place during a holiday or holiday weekend.

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES â&#x20AC;&#x201D; MASTER PLAN

100

9.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

101

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES â&#x20AC;&#x201D; MASTER PLAN

102

9.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

103

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Chapter 10 P U BLIC O U T R EA CH P R O G R A M The undergrounding project in the Village of Key Biscayne will incorporate a Public Outreach Program to ensure the community is informed on the process, the benefits, and costs. The Community Outreach Program is a critical part of the public education and transparency efforts. It will create a link between the engineering team, Village staff, elected leaders, the Undergrounding Task Force (UUTF), utility owners, Village residents, and the media. The program should include a “boots on the ground” approach that will engage the community and communicate through presentations, print and electronic media, public meetings, and a Speakers Bureau. This bureau would include the UUTF and other community stakeholders interested in receiving and disseminating information. The Community Outreach Program will need to have separate communication plans to ensure we are reaching both residents and businesses. These plans may include:

The development of a project brand logo and tag line so residents can immediately identify communications related to this project.

Community meetings with Village organizations and groups are involved in Village issues, such as the Key Biscayne Chamber of Commerce and Key Biscayne Historical and Heritage Society. We will also meet with smaller, private groups who may express an interest in the undergrounding project.

Village Hall-style meetings in coordination with the Key Biscayne Chamber of Commerce, and other local community or neighborhood groups, based on the project schedule and needs.

Establishment of a Speakers Bureau and Community Outreach Program. Ensure surrogates who are interested in receiving information or disseminating information are provided regular briefings or talking points so they can share information to their members or contacts. 104

Develop a separate outreach program for the multifamily residences east of Crandon Boulevard that focuses on meeting with condo managers and residents to provide them with factual information, leave behind materials in the condo office, and to connect with the unit owners about the project.

Separate meetings and presentations can be provided as requested to address individual condominium, business, or neighborhood needs, with access to planning and engineering team members or Village staff.

Setup and provide access to communication hotlines, emails and online forms that residents can utilize to address questions or concerns.

During the construction phase of the project, specific communications can be made with affected residents and businesses to keep them informed of the progress and to coordinate how they may be affected throughout the construction phase.

A public information team ready to respond to community questions and concerns.

Village Communications The Village and UUTF will require regular communications with residents and businesses using various mediums to ensure regular updates are being delivered. The Speakers Bureau would be provided with talking points and messages they can use to share with their contacts. This includes the utilization of direct mail, email services, and online communications such as:

105

10.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAM

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Consistent updates to the project website to provide fresh and new

Guest appearances on radio shows/podcasts including Rat Radio.

content 24/7, serving as a one-stop shop for project information and activities.

Work with other news outlets with reach into the Village or national

Utilization of social media to share information. The undergrounding

or regional magazines and periodicals that have an interest in undergrounding.

project has a Facebook page and the Village has a Twitter feed that can be used. Facebook and online ads about community presentations that are occurring can be posted to encourage participation.

Email communications to share information, updates, or alerts that need to be quickly dispersed.

Printing of direct mail, brochures, and fact sheets to provide residents information about the project. This includes the distribution of the fact sheet inserted into the Islander News.

Neighborhood by neighborhood updates as the project progresses, including progress reports, alerts, and completion of milestones and goals.

The implementation of live Tele-Town Hall meetings that allows the residents to call in to listen to the meetings and ask questions during the Q&A portion.

Media Relations The media can provide opportunities to get information out and share details. The outreach plan can include story opportunities and interviews with stakeholders, surrogates and third-party groups. These opportunities may include the following:

Provide the Islander News regular press releases on new information, as well as present opportunities for stories or interviews.

Guest editorials into the Islander News from the Village Manager, Public Safety officials, and experts.

Keep an open dialogue with the Islander News to ensure factual information is presented.

“Letter to the Editor” program that focuses on our messages and

Information brochure for community meeting with construction team in Palm Beach

facts about undergrounding, by helping residents who want to share their experiences. Screenshot example of Village of Key Biscayne Utilities Underground website

106

107

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Chapter 11 O V ER A LL P R O G R A M O P INIO N O F SCHED U LE Based on the Phasing and Sequencing Plan described in Section 6 of this master plan, a more detailed opinion of schedule was developed to better understand how each individual phase would interact with each other during the implementation process. To develop an opinion of schedule to this level of detail at this stage of the planning process, we primarily used our current relevant experience and lessons learned with this type of construction activity. In addition, schedule considerations were developed through discussions with the Village, area contractors with expertise in undergrounding, and the utility owners. These schedule considerations can be categorized into Design Phase Schedule Considerations and Construction Phase Schedule Considerations.

Design Phase Schedule Considerations Survey and utility base mapping must occur prior to the utility owners beginning their design efforts

AT&T and Comcast require the FPL design to be complete prior to beginning their design efforts

FPL Binding Cost Estimates and Utility Agreements are generally produced within three to four months after Village acceptance of the conceptual FPL design and sufficient progress on the easement acquisition process recognizing the various modifications to the design that are made during this process

CMAR procurement should occur after the completion of the FPL concept design but before completion of the final bid documents to take advantage of constructability review comments and value engineering suggestions

108

Easement acquisition is desired to begin as early as possible and be completed prior to the start of construction. Eminent domain processes are not considered in this schedule. All easements are assumed to be granted to the Village without compensation.

Any required permits are desired to be secured prior to the start of construction

Any Village infrastructure work that is to be designed and constructed within an undergrounding phase area is to be included in the bid package for that undergrounding phase area

109

11.0 OVERALL PROGRAM OPINION OF SCHEDULE

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Because of the requirement for FPL to harden their infrastructure, design and construction of this undergrounding program should begin as soon as practical

Pre-Construction Services/Bidding/Award of Phase 1 is to begin in the first quarter of the year to allow adequate time for pre-construction activities and GMP development needed to prepare for an early June construction start. This allows “heavy” construction activities to happen around the school during the summer months.

Community outreach is a continuous process that spans across design and construction

Construction Phase Schedule Considerations In general, construction activities around the K-8 school should be coordinated to occur during the summer in any one phase

“Heavy” construction activities, such as underground infrastructure work and conduit installation, are desired to be constructed in the summer months when traffic volumes are lowest

Year-round construction activities are considered for the undergrounding program

Water main, stormwater, and conduit installation activities may occur simultaneously in any phase area.

To minimize community/traffic impacts, “heavy” construction impacts will not be allowed to occur in adjacent phases at the same time

Cable and equipment installation activities may overlap the duration of backbone conduit installation within a phase

To achieve schedule compression, portions of phases that can be overlapped should be to the greatest extent practical while minimizing traffic and resident impacts

Conversion of individual electric and communications services will follow the energization of the new underground system

Overhead wire and pole removal cannot begin until all services are converted to the new underground system

Roadway, sidewalk, and landscape improvements may occur

OVERALL SCHEDULE HIGHLIGHTS

during the final restoration stage of each phase

Schedule Durations The durations of significant activities that occur within each project phase were developed based on information gathered from a variety of sources. Design durations are largely based on Kimley-Horn’s experience with similar projects and through schedule discussions with FPL, AT&T, and Comcast. Construction activity durations were based on relevant projects currently underway or already completed. These were compared to the activities proposed in this master plan as part of the opinion of cost development, which yielded significant activity durations and were then incorporated into the overall schedule. Appropriate schedule contingencies were also applied to account for normal weather impacts, potential geological challenges, and unforeseen conditions.

99The program schedule began in March 2018 with the development of this master plan.

99Detailed design will need to start as soon as practical to

minimize the duration and completion date of the program.

99Design begins earlier for subsequent phases before prior phase completion to allow more time for the easement acquisition process.

99Construction Manager selection occurs prior to final

design completion to allow them the opportunity to provide constructability reviews and make value engineering suggestions.

99The design of the communications networks follows the

design of the electrical network to allow coordination of the designs that promotes the collocation of electrical and communications equipment in common easements. This reduces the overall number of easements required for the program.

Construction activities for the program are expected to kick off in the summer of 2020 with Phase 1.

99Construction durations for each phase range from 18 to 24

months depending on the quantity of work to be performed and complexity of each phase.

99In order to accelerate the schedule, the construction phase

for Phases 2, 3, and 4 of the program overlaps the previous adjacent phase construction schedule by a minimum of 6 months with potential to overlap 12 months or more.

99The overlap of the construction activities in each phase

is subject to “heavy” construction being complete in the previous phase prior to allowing “heavy” construction activities to begin in the subsequent phase. This is done primarily to mitigate community and traffic impacts.

99The final six months of the construction activity schedule

for each phase is reserved for switch over, pole removal, and final restoration. It is not expected that this will be a continuous construction activity. Experience with similar projects has shown that the coordination required with FPL, AT&T, and Comcast can be time consuming and therefore requires a duration of time for the switch over and pole removal to be accomplished.

99All areas of the Village are scheduled to be converted to

an underground system by the middle of 2025. Final pole removal is scheduled to be completed by the end of the second quarter in 2026.

99The schedule does contain time contingencies for normal

weather impacts, soil conditions, and typical unforeseen conditions. It does not account for significant schedule impacts related to significant weather events that cause the utility owners to focus efforts on storm recovery rather than undergrounding. It also does not consider significant contractor issues related to litigation, bankruptcy, nonperformance, and the like because these types of issues are impossible to predict.

Feeder switch over to the underground system should be coordinated to occur in the cooler months when electrical demand is low, which reduces the complexity of the process and associated costs

110

111

OV E R A LL

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

PR O G R A M

2024

O PI N I O N

2025

1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Jan

Feb March Apr May

Jun

July Aug Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec Jan

Feb March

Apr

May Jun

July Aug

Sept Oct

Nov

Dec Jan

Feb March Apr

May

Jun

July Aug Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan Feb March

Apr May Jun

July Aug Sept

Oct Nov

Dec

Jan Feb March Apr

May Jun

July

Aug Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb March

Apr May

Jun

July Aug Sept Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan Feb March

Apr May Jun July

Aug Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan Feb March

Apr May Jun

July

Aug Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

O F

S C H E D U LE

2026

1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Jan Feb March

Apr May Jun

July

Aug Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Overall Program

Development

PHASE

The binding cost estimate and utility agreement development process will occur concurrently with the final 3-4 months of the design/bid phases. Advertisement for CMARâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s should occur 5-months prior to desired pre-construction services start. Master Planning Survey Design Phase Easement Aquisition

112

Pre-Construction Services/Bidding/Award Construction Switchover/Pole Removal/Final Restoration

113

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Chapter 12 O V ER A LL P R O G R A M O P INIO N O F P R O BA BLE CO NST R U CT IO N CO ST 12.1 Approach The following elements were considered when developing this Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) for each phase of the project.

Use of recent cost information 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 Miami-Dade area were used to develop unit costs that were applied to the overall program. This allows for inclusion of many smaller scale costs that may otherwise be overlooked during the master 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 sample model project areas for five separate area types. These sample areas were then scaled up based on the linear footage of overhead to underground conversion required in any given phase.

12.2 Sample Project Area Development To develop unit costs that could be applied to quantities for a largescale program area, unit costs associated with various “sample projects” representative of larger areas within the Village were developed. Kimley‑Horn first used the sample projects to model the conversion of

114

overhead utilities to an underground location within an assumed area. Kimley-Horn then prepared quantity estimates for the sample project area. Construction work elements estimated for the sample projects included the following:

Construction general conditions (mobilization, maintenance of traffic, bonds, survey, etc.)

FPL, AT&T, and Comcast main conduit installation Cable and equipment installation Service conduit installation Direct costs from FPL, AT&T, and Comcast for their labor, equipment, and materials related to both installation and demolition activities

Pavement restoration Site restoration Landscaping for equipment screening Based on the types of areas that exist within the Village, five sample project areas were developed to project costs across the Village-wide project. A summary of these five sample projects are described below:: 1. Typical Residential Area/Roadway Installation (i.e. Phases 1, 2, and 3) – Units costs were developed for this sample project area that 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 rear to the front street.

115

12.0 OVERALL PROGRAM OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

2. Residential Connectors/Roadway Installation (i.e., Phases 1, 2, and 3) – Unit costs for this sample project area were similar to the sample project above, with the exception that costs associated with FPL feeder and Comcast fiber to the node conduit were included. The density of these east-west connectors is also significantly less than the residential described in sample project 1. 3. Residential on the Water/Non-Roadway Installation (i.e. Harbor Drive and Mashta Island) – Unit costs for this sample project area were similar to the sample project above, with the exception that costs associated with asphalt trench repair for installation of underground infrastructure within the roadway were removed. Costs were added to consider additional sodding requirements and potential driveway restoration associated with a conduit installation off the roadway. Additionally, the electrical load in this sample project is higher due to the larger homes and waterfront amenities including potential boat dockage. This increases the electrical density, quantities of electrical backbone, and equipment. 4. Multi-Family Area Roadway Installation (i.e. Phases 2 and 3) – Unit costs for this sample project were developed considering overhead utility undergrounding in a dense multifamily area. This sample project includes higher costs related to general conditions and maintenance of traffic, higher quantities of electrical and communication backbone, increased electrical and communications equipment density, and increased restoration costs. 5. Fernwood Mixed-Use/Roadway Installation (i.e., Fernwood Road – Phases 1, 2, and 3) – Unit costs for this sample project were developed for a representative section of a portion of the Village served by the Fernwood Road corridor. This corridor is the route for main electrical and communications conduit. It also serves a mix of commercial and public buildings, as well as residential. Equipment, feeder, and communication backbone will be denser than typical residential sample projects due to the addition of commercial parcels.

116

12.3 Project Area Line Item Unit Costs Based on the unit prices and quantities developed for each sample project area, total costs for each sample project area could be developed. The total costs for each sample project area were then divided by the length of undergrounding within the sample project area to develop a representative unit cost per linear foot conversion that could be applied on a Village-wide basis to each of the program’s phase areas. The unit prices per foot of conversion were categorized into the appropriate line item category for use in the overall OPC. A summary of each line item category outlined in the opinion of probable cost is in the table to the right.

Village of Key Biscayne Overall Program Opinion of Probable Cost - August 2018 Item No.

Opinion of Probable Cost

Description

FPL Overhead to Underground Conversion

CATV Overhead to Underground Conversion

$1,300,000

Telephone Overhead to Underground Conversion

$2,800,000

FPL Direct Costs

$6,200,000

CATV Direct Costs

Telephone Direct Costs

$1,900,000

Install FPL Services

$1,500,000

12.4 Quantity Estimation

Install Telephone and CATV Service Conduit

$2,400,000

Impacted Street Light Replacement (Village Custom)

$1,100,000

GIS shape files were developed during this Master Plan for roadways, parcels, existing overhead utility locations, and outside infrastructure project information (water main, CIP projects, etc.) and were used to evaluate the quantities of program elements, including the length of overhead to underground conversion. Based on this GIS data, the following quantities were developed for each phase:

Restoration

$6,000,000

Construction Management

$3,800,000

Engineering/Permitting/Surveying

$2,000,000

Construction Administration

$1,800,000

Legal Fees/Easement Acquisition

$500,000

Public Outreach

$300,000

Credits

FPL Credit - 25% GAF Waiver

Length of existing overhead utilities to be converted underground Length of roadway anticipated to be impacted by conduit installation

Estimated conduit joint trench length Number of parcels per phase

$10,200,000

$800,000

$(4,400,000)

Subtotal Undergrounding Project Costs

$38,200,000

10% Contingency

$3,800,000

Inflation

$4,800,000

Total Undergrounding Project Costs

$46,800,000

Optional Items to Consider "Vista" Style Switch Cabinets (estimated at 40 total)

$2,400,000

12.5 Credits

Additional Street Lights (Village Custom) Extra Conduit for Future Utility Lines (Including FTTP)

$5,300,000

The following credits have been considered in the OPC. Other potential cost savings opportunities are discussed in the latter part of this chapter.

Roadway Improvements - Mill and Overlay Impacted Roads

$3,600,000

Roadway Improvements - Raising Roads Impacted by Storm Improvements

$9,800,000

Roadway Improvements - Traffic Calming

$1,000,000

Water Main Replacement (AC and Unkown)

$3,800,000

Sidewalks (Safe Routes to Schools Program, Budget est. by Village)

$1,000,000

Florida Power and Light Government Adjustment Factor (GAF) Waiver Credit: It is expected the Village will enter an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement with FPL for the conversion of Village-wide overhead facilities. In accordance with the FPL Tariff, this program qualifies for a GAF waiver of 25%. The GAF waiver credit amount has been estimated at 25% of the total estimated FPL contribution-in-aid-of-construction (CIAC) cost to install

Stormwater Improvements (From Stormwater Master Plan)

$400,000

$23,470,000

Equipment Screening (Included in conversion costs)

$ -

Beautification (Cost varies depending on level of improvements)

$ -

the underground system, in accordance with budget cost estimates provided by FPL and the FPL Tariff. In the latest tariff revision, effective February 22, 2018, certain elements of the CIAC calculation can be excluded if the applicant intends to convert existing non-hardened feeder facilities to underground feeder facilities. The calculation would exclude the cost to remove the existing overhead feeder facilities and the net book value of those feeder facilities. In turn, however, the applicant does not get credit for the estimated salvage value of the existing overhead facilities to be removed. Despite that, the revision typically results in a lower CIAC to be paid by the applicant. It is our understanding that there are two proposed bills making their way through the legislature that may provide some additional incentive for FPL customers to underground their utilities, potentially allowing FPL to tap into a pool of money they ordinarily would only be able to access for storm recovery efforts. There are limitations on how much of this may be accessed to maintain reasonable electric rates. Assuming these bills get approved by the state, it would be up to the PSC to adopt rules to implement and administer the law. Because those details are unclear at this point and the bills have not yet passed, the topic will need to be discussed during negotiations with FPL ahead of the design phase of this project.

12.6 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

117

12.0 OVERALL PROGRAM OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

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 CPI (Consumer Price Index), which tracks the 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’s between January 1990–August 2016 were reviewed. The average percentage increase of construction costs during this time (January 1990 and August 2016), as well as the time between the years 2006 and 2016, was 3.0% per annum. The average annual percentage increase in average construction costs for any given year since 1990 ranged between 2.5% and 3.9%. Based on this information, an annual inflation factor of 3% was used for estimating inflation cost impacts in this OPC. It should be noted that 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.

12.7 Assumptions and Limitations Assumptions made in the preparation of this OPC include the following:

12.7.1 General Assumptions and Limitations This OPC considers the undergrounding of electrical, cable, and telephone facilities only. Cellular facilities, broadband infrastructure improvements or new broadband network installations, planned infrastructure improvements, and/or other facilities are not considered in this OPC. The unit costs provided assume all cable, electrical, and telephone conduit will be installed in a joint trench (with required separation) by the same contractor who is directly contracted by the Village.

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 owner. We 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 work versus when work is performed independently by the various utility owners. Even in the case where the utility owners perform the work, there are still items needing to be performed by the municipality, such as easement acquisition, restoration, and rearrangement of customer service entrances from overhead to underground. Items and operations required to be performed by the utility owner include, but are not limited to, underground system make-ready and energization, telephone cable and equipment installation, cable television cable and equipment installation, and overhead infrastructure removal. Costs related to these utility owner activities have been included in this OPC.

The OPC developed for this master plan is based on a high-level cost analysis for large-scale planning and budgetary purposes based only on the information available at the time this master plan was developed. The OPC contained in this master plan should not be considered applicable to a single block or other specific smaller scale areas since variations may exist on a smaller scale.

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 for one lane width and a minimum of 100 feet in either direction in accordance with County standards. Crandon Boulevard is a County-maintained road and therefore milling and resurfacing would be required along this corridor.

Construction will occur continuously throughout the phase assuming year-round construction for the undergrounding program as the Village does not have seasonal construction restrictions.

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 undergrounding projects. Costs related to any eminent domain processes, or compensation for easement space, are not considered in this master plan.

Legal costs are estimated at 2.5% of the total base construction cost.

Cost related to obtaining financing for the program are not included in this OPC. We recommend the Village establish a budget for financial consultants, closing costs, and other related costs of obtaining project funding.

It is assumed the Village will enter into a right-of-way agreement with applicable utility owners for the installation of new underground cabling and equipment within the Village and/or State road right‑of‑way.

BEFORE

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 hire 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, Village staff time, and use of Village facilities and resources have not been included in this OPC.

Revenue generated or costs related to potential Village-owned broadband infrastructure improvements are not considered in this OPC. While these improvements may be constructed concurrently with the undergrounding program, any costs related to this effort are not included in the undergrounding program.

Provisions for additional street lighting have been included in this OPC. It is assumed that existing street lights mounted to FPL or AT&T owned poles on arterial roadways will be replaced in approximately the same location with new FPL standard street lighting. Additionally, proposed street lights for areas that do not currently have lights have been placed at roughly the same intervals as existing lights elsewhere in the residential neighborhood. Costs for custom poles have been prepared based on the recent

AFTER

Detailed network designs for proposed electrical, cable, or telephone infrastructure have not been performed and therefore were not available at the time of this master plan. This OPC is based on assumptions and generalizations regarding elements that a typical underground utility conversion project within the Village of Key Biscayne is likely to include.

This OPC assumes a phased construction approach as outlined in this Master Plan. Each phase of construction is expected to have approximately a 18 to 24-month construction duration. Looking south onto Mashta Island along West Mashta Drive from Harbor Drive

118

119

12.0 OVERALL PROGRAM OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

Fernwood lighting RFP. At the same time, the Village should consider entering into an agreement with FPL to provide lighting throughout the Village. FPL does not assess capital costs for the standard lighting installation but does charge a CIAC for the associated conduit installation. The operating costs will be paid for under the existing separate Village operating budget for street lighting. Existing decorative street lighting that is already served with underground infrastructure is assumed to remain in service.

reimbursed to the program by the private property owner and therefore have not been included in this OPC.

In many locations throughout the Village, electric and communications services originate from a rear property easement. To be compliant with current utility company standards, these services will be converted to a front street location under this program.

Construction cost contingency has been estimated at a rate of 10%. installation and utility demolition is included. Our OPC also includes an allowance for equipment screening.

All construction projects carry inherent risk for construction claims,

12.7.3 Construction Methods: Directional Bore vs. Open Trenching

Directional Boring

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.

Due to the conduit separation requirements for AT&T, FPL, and Comcast infrastructure, a typical installation within the roadway by directional bore would require a minimum of three separate bores, each containing multiple conduits—FPL primary/service conduit, AT&T mainline/service conduit, and Comcast mainline/ service conduits. FPL feeder conduit may or may not be bored separately from the other FPL primary/service conduits depending on the site-specific factors.

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. Kimley-Horn 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. The OPC provided herein is based on the information known to Kimley-Horn at this time and represent 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.

Restoration will be required at each “bore pit” and within areas of the roadway that need to be excavated to intercept primary conduits for transformers, feeder conduits for switches, and service conduits for each building. One restoration area per property was assumed in the analysis.

Open Cut

Costs related to the abandoning of rear yard easements has not

This method assumes AT&T, FPL, and Comcast infrastructure will be installed in a joint trench with the required separation between each utility. Asphalt trench repair is assumed to be required for most joint trench installations as the opportunities for an off-roadway joint trench installation within the Village is limited due to right-of-way and property improvement restrictions.

been considered or included in the OPC at this time.

12.7.2 Existing Conditions Allowances for repair/replacement of service entrances on private

120

process will be installed in public right-of-ways and easements. It is further assumed this infrastructure will be installed in a manner that minimizes relocation of existing utilities in these same locations. These potential impacts cannot be accurately quantified at this time and are therefore not included in this OPC.

Conduit for electrical and cable/telephone infrastructure are typically installed using open-cut trenching or directional boring. Costs for these methods for installation within a typical residential area within the Village were analyzed to determine the most cost-effective installation method.

An allowance for restoration of private property after service

property not meeting existing building codes should be included in the project to maintain the project schedule. These types of costs, while expected to be a rare occurrence, are expected to be

It is assumed that new utility infrastructure related to the conversion

Directional boring machine in Palm Beach

Based on these assumptions, costs for installing a typical conduit run by directional bore was estimated to carry an appreciably higher cost than installation of those same conduits within a joint trench (via the opencut installation method), despite the lack of pavement repair required. Additionally, there are technical challenges with boring on many of the Village’s roadways that can be overcome using the open cut method These challenges include:

Narrow right-of-ways with a high level of utility congestion Significant number of electrical and communications conduits to occupy a corridor with very limited space

Spacing requirements between electrical and communications facilities requiring separate bores

Bore spacing required for constructability to prevent multiple bores from converging together as often happens in sandy conditions and tight spacing Based on the analysis above, it is assumed by this OPC that open-trench installation methods will be used for most of the joint trench conduit installation within Village right-of-way. It is further assumed the FPL, AT&T, and Comcast service conduit installation on private property will be installed via directional bore, minimizing private property disturbances and related restoration costs for the many high-end finishes that exist on private property. FPL service conduit was assumed to be installed as a separate bore to maintain the required separation to avoid electromagnetic interference issues. An exception to this may be the multi-family condominiums on the east side in Phase 2 between Galen Drive and E. Enid Drive. This project area includes large properties with long distances between service points. These buildings are also fed from rear yard overhead poles in easements. Because most properties are large, multi-family condominiums, there is relatively little service conduit to be installed. Many of the service drops are also already undergrounded, therefore it may be possible to intersect these lines and refeed through existing conduit. Most runs are anticipated to be either feeder or primary electric and/or communications backbone. This reduces the number of entry/exit pits required throughout the area, which in turn reduces the anticipated cost of bore machine setups related to

121

12.0 OVERALL PROGRAM OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

directional boring. Combining this with the general desire to disturb as little landscaping and private parking lots as possible, could create a situation where directional boring becomes more technically feasible and the related costs are less than or comparable to an open cut conduit installation. To allow the contractor the greatest freedom to achieve the lowest cost installation with the greatest schedule efficiency, the decision whether to bore or trench will be left to the construction team.

12.7.4 Electrical and Communications Utility Systems 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 an underground system design and layout. However, costs related to “betterment” or system upgrades are assumed to be the responsibility of the utility owner. For example, the existing feeder ties would be replaced underground in-kind at a cost to the Village. New feeder ties not currently in existence (that are intended to enhance system reliability) could be installed at a cost to the utility owner.

Electrical system costs may ultimately include a mix of “Vista” and FPL standard switch gear should the Village desire to incorporate “Vista” equipment in the system. This would provide improved resiliency and storm surge protection since the Vista cabinet is waterproof. This OPC considers that all the switchgear will be standard style, with the option to upgrade to the Vista style cabinet.

“Like-for-Like” copper systems were considered in this OPC for the undergrounding of telephone facilities. It is further understood that AT&T may wish to upgrade to a fiber system after the initial overhead to underground conversion is complete or in conjunction with the program. AT&T stated they will install an upgraded fiber optic network concurrently with the Village’s undergrounding program only if the Village funds those upgrade costs. Therefore, the upgrade has not been considered in the base OPC.

122

“Like-for-Like” fiber/coaxial systems (FTTN) were considered in this estimate for the undergrounding of cable television facilities.

This OPC only considers the minimum number and size of conduits required to implement the overhead to underground utility conversion. Spare conduits have not been included in this OPC.

12.8 Opinion of Probable Cost Summary A summary of total project costs, including contingency and inflation, is provided below.

Village of Key Biscayne Overall Program Opinion of Probable Cost Summary August 2018 Item No.

Opinion of Probable Cost

Description

Overhead to Underground Conversion - FPL

$17,900,000

Utility Conversion Costs - ATT & Comcast

$9,200,000

Impacted Street Light Replacement (Village Custom)

$1,100,000

Restoration

$6,000,000

Construction Management

$3,800,000

Engineering/Permitting/Surveying

$2,000,000

Construction Administration

$1,800,000

Legal Fees/Easement Acquisition

$500,000

Public Outreach

$300,000

FPL Credit - 25% GAF Waiver

$(4,400,000)

Subtotal Undergrounding Project Costs

$38,200,000

10% Contingency

$3,800,000

Inflation

$4,800,000

Total Undergrounding Project Costs

$46,800,000

Opinions of Probable Construction Cost by project phase are provided beginning on page 122.

123

12.0 OVERALL PROGRAM OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

PHASE 1 – Village of Key Biscayne Overall Program Opinion of Probable Cost - August 2018 Item No.

124

Opinion of Probable Cost

Description

FPL Overhead to Underground Conversion

CATV Overhead to Underground Conversion

$2,700,000 $300,000

Telephone Overhead to Underground Conversion

$700,000

FPL Direct Costs

CATV Direct Costs

$200,000

Telephone Direct Costs

$500,000

Install FPL Services

$400,000

Install Telephone and CATV Service Conduit

$600,000

Impacted Street Light Replacement (Village Custom)

$400,000

Restoration

$1,600,000

Construction Management

$1,000,000

Engineering/Permitting/Surveying

$500,000

Construction Administration

$500,000

Legal Fees/Easement Acquisition

$100,000

Public Outreach

$100,000

Credits

FPL Credit - 25% GAF Waiver

$1,300,000

$(1,100,000)

Subtotal Undergrounding Project Costs

$9,800,000

10% Contingency

$1,000,000

Inflation

$1,200,000

PHASE 1 Total Undergrounding Project Costs

$12,000,000

125

12.0 OVERALL PROGRAM OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

PHASE 2 – Village of Key Biscayne Overall Program Opinion of Probable Cost - August 2018 Item No.

126

Opinion of Probable Cost

Description

FPL Overhead to Underground Conversion

$3,300,000

CATV Overhead to Underground Conversion

Telephone Overhead to Underground Conversion

$1,000,000

FPL Direct Costs

$2,300,000

CATV Direct Costs

$200,000

Telephone Direct Costs

$600,000

Install FPL Services

$500,000

Install Telephone and CATV Service Conduit

$700,000

$500,000

Impacted Street Light Replacement (Village Custom)

Restoration

$1,800,000

$300,000

Construction Management

$1,200,000

Engineering/Permitting/Surveying

$600,000

Construction Administration

$600,000

Legal Fees/Easement Acquisition

$200,000

Public Outreach

$100,000

Credits

FPL Credit - 25% GAF Waiver

$(1,400,000)

Subtotal Undergrounding Project Costs

$12,500,000

10% Contingency

$1,300,000

Inflation

$1,600,000

PHASE 2 Total Undergrounding Project Costs

$15,400,000

127

12.0 OVERALL PROGRAM OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

PHASE 3 – Village of Key Biscayne Overall Program Opinion of Probable Cost - August 2018 Item No.

128

Opinion of Probable Cost

Description

FPL Overhead to Underground Conversion

$3,200,000

CATV Overhead to Underground Conversion

Telephone Overhead to Underground Conversion

FPL Direct Costs

CATV Direct Costs

$200,000

Telephone Direct Costs

$600,000

Install FPL Services

$400,000

Install Telephone and CATV Service Conduit

$700,000

Impacted Street Light Replacement (Village Custom)

$100,000

Restoration

$1,900,000

Construction Management

$1,100,000

Engineering/Permitting/Surveying

$500,000

Construction Administration

$500,000

Legal Fees/Easement Acquisition

$200,000

Public Outreach

$100,000

Credits

FPL Credit - 25% GAF Waiver

$400,000 $900,000 $1,900,000

$(1,400,000)

Subtotal Undergrounding Project Costs

$11,300,000

10% Contingency

$1,100,000

Inflation

$1,400,000

PHASE 3 Total Undergrounding Project Costs

$13,800,000

129

12.0 OVERALL PROGRAM OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

PHASE 4 – Village of Key Biscayne Overall Program Opinion of Probable Cost - August 2018 Item No.

130

Opinion of Probable Cost

Description

FPL Overhead to Underground Conversion

$1,100,000

CATV Overhead to Underground Conversion

$100,000

Telephone Overhead to Underground Conversion

$300,000

FPL Direct Costs

$600,000

CATV Direct Costs

$100,000

Telephone Direct Costs

$300,000

Install FPL Services

$100,000

Install Telephone and CATV Service Conduit

$300,000

Impacted Street Light Replacement (Village Custom)

$200,000

Restoration

$800,000

Construction Management

$400,000

Engineering/Permitting/Surveying

$200,000

Construction Administration

$200,000

Legal Fees/Easement Acquisition

$100,000

Public Outreach

Credits

FPL Credit - 25% GAF Waiver

$ $(500,000)

Subtotal Undergrounding Project Costs

$4,300,000

10% Contingency

$400,000

Inflation

$500,000

PHASE 4 Total Undergrounding Project Costs

$5,200,000

131

12.0 OVERALL PROGRAM OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

12.8.1 “Vista” Style Switch Cabinets As described in Chapter 5, two types of switch cabinets can be provided by FPL based on preference or circumstance: 1) the standard “PME” switch cabinet or 2) the “Vista” switch cabinet. The Vista cabinet has a slightly smaller footprint, is shorter, and only requires an eight-foot clearance on one side of the cabinet rather than all sides for the standard switch. The Vista cabinet is also hermetically sealed to prevent water intrusion. The Vista switch cabinet costs approximately $60,000 more than a standard switch cabinet. Forty-one aerial switches exist in the current overhead system. FPL has indicated the underground system would not need as many switches as the aerial system. Since we cannot confirm how many will be required, we assumed the underground system would need 40 switch cabinets, one less than what exists today. This line item also includes FPL’s GAF Waiver discount of 25%.

12.8.2 Additional Street Lights As described in Chapter 5, it is estimated 118 street lights will be impacted by this program and will need to be replaced. Forty street lights are currently being installed by the Village as part of their separate lighting program. It is also estimated a minimum of 41 street lights would be required in Village areas currently without lighting. Kimley-Horn has included in our OPC these additional street lights, assuming the Village elects to install the minimum number identified. A photometric plan may be required and may increase that number significantly.

12.8.3 Extra Conduit for Future Utility This OPC includes costs associated with the installation of spare conduit infrastructure for a Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) Broadband Network that could be used by competitor communication providers interested in providing service to the community. As described in the separate Technical Memo dated June 20, 2018, this includes the installation of conduit to all parcels in the Village. Conduit lengths were estimated using the total length of public roadway for each phase of the undergrounding project. This OPC does not include fiber optic cable or equipment, nor does it include the drop conduit between the right-of-way and the service point of the building/facility to be served. Additionally, assumptions identified in the Technical Memo were maintained with exception of the contingency, which

132

was removed, and general conditions, which were further refined to reflect real-world market conditions.

UTILITY INTEGRATION LANDSCAPE STRATEGY — PROTOTYPE STUDY

12.8.4 Roadway Improvements The Village UUTF requested Kimley-Horn investigate the feasibility of raising public roadways to mitigate future effects of sea level rise. Although this master plan does not contemplate the effects of sea level rise nor sustainability, Kimley-Horn performed a brief analysis of the costs associated with such an endeavor. This analysis assumed roads would consistently be raised by six inches only in the areas where stormwater improvements are proposed in the Village’s stormwater master plan. This Opinion also assumes by raising the roadways, additional concrete gutter, stormwater infrastructure, and design fees would be required. In addition to raising the roads, traffic calming is an important part of the Village’s 2008 master plan. It identified the need for traffic speed control on the roads within the Village. To address this issue the Village engaged a consultant to prepare a Traffic Calming Master Plan in 2012. This master plan identified nine roadways that warranted traffic calming measures, assigned an improvement cost to them, and included the cost in this OPC without consideration for inflation.

12.8.5 Water Main Replacement Provided with the GIS data from Miami-Dade County was information related to the material type of individual segments of the water main system. Kimley-Horn was able to isolate and identify the existing asbestos cement (AC) water main that exists as part of the County’s overall system within the Village. The Village staff has expressed interest in replacing all existing AC water main pipe. This line item cost includes current real-world material and installation costs for 1,257 LF of 12" or greater AC water main, 5,755 LF of AC water main less than 12", and 18,354 LF of listed “Unknown” water main less than 12" that will need to be identified before determining whether it would need to be replaced. Not all Unknown water mains may need to be replaced if they are determined to be made of an acceptable material. The County has indicated that they would be willing to include these upgrades in their budget estimates to reimburse the Village for the work.

Prototype Study #1 – Minimum Constraints

Prototype Study #2 – Moderate Constraints

Prototype Study #3 – Maximum Constraints

133

12.0 OVERALL PROGRAM OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

12.8.6 Sidewalks (Safe Routes to Schools)

12.9 Cost Reduction Opportunities

The budget for this project has been previously established by Village Council with hopes that costs savings could be realized by incorporating this project into the undergrounding of utilities project. Additional sidewalk improvements throughout the Village have not been contemplated in this OPC.

This OPC was prepared based on the understood goals and objectives of the program, including conversion of all overhead utilities to an underground location within the Village municipal limits. As a benefit to the Village, this master planning effort explored several cost reduction opportunities that could be considered by the Village. However, these opportunities may require the goals and objectives of the program be altered, variances from the Village Code of Ordinance requirements be issued, or offsetting revenue and/or grant funding be applied to the program. A summary of such options is presented below:

12.8.7 Beautification Acknowledging the guidelines established by the Village of Key Biscayne Landscape Management Plan, anticipating the spatial constraints associated with varied adjacencies, and projecting budgetary mindfulness, the landscape strategy for integration of utility interventions (a.k.a., electrical and communications equipment), utilizes a series of principles rather than a prescriptive formula to guide placemaking efforts within the public realm. A process-oriented approach to implementation will be coupled with the guiding principles of Species Diversity, Site Specificity, Layering, and Blending in order to integrate these man-made interventions within a natural context. The costs associated with screening the utility interventions have been included in the overall underground conversion costs at $1,000 per property. This figure can be broken out and increased or decreased as required by the Village.

12.8.8 Stormwater Improvements As described in Chapter 4, the Village hired a consultant to prepare a master plan for the implementation of the Village’s drainage improvements, which includes upgrades to stormwater pump stations and gravity drainage wells. Because the improvements proposed by this drainage master plan are widespread, Kimley-Horn has been asked to incorporate these improvements into the undergrounding master plan to realize efficiencies in constructing them at the same time. The Tier 2 improvements identified in the master plan are extensive. The cost for these improvements developed by this master plan are included in our OPC. Although the Village has setup a stormwater enterprise to pay for drainage improvements, the Village currently does not have the budget to incorporate all the improvements identified in this master plan.

134

12.9.1 Construction Methods The overall program cost for undergrounding the existing overhead utilities could be reduced if specific construction techniques and/or sequences are considered. This could be accomplished in several ways.

Pavement Milling and Resurfacing Cost Sharing: As outlined in other sections of this Master Plan, additional infrastructure projects are proposed throughout the Village over the expected duration of the undergrounding program including drainage and water main projects. These infrastructure projects are anticipated to incorporate milling and resurfacing of their work area. For areas where these projects and the undergrounding conversion project will be in the same location, the cost of the required milling and resurfacing could be shared between the participating entities (i.e., Village, Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department, etc.). Details regarding the assumptions that were made for each utility owner with significant infrastructure projects within the Village are noted below: »» Stormwater Master Plan Implementation: The Village

recently completed the preparation of a stormwater master plan that proposes numerous infrastructure improvements to the Village’s stormwater management systems within the Village. The proposed stormwater management system improvements could be implemented in conjunction with the undergrounding project, and where the two projects impact the same roadways, the cost of milling and resurfacing those roads could be shared between the two programs.

»» Improvements by the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer

Department: The Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD) owns and maintains the water and sewer distribution and collection infrastructure within the village limits. The Village completed a septic-to-sewer conversion program approximately 10 years ago where the customers within the Village still using septic tanks had sewer mains installed fronting their properties to connect to the sanitary sewer system. As part of this program, MDWASD also replaced any AC water distribution pipes within the septicto-sewer project area. However, there are still portions of the Village where AC pipe remains that were not on septic, and therefore, were not impacted by that project. Coordination with MDWASD to replace this remaining AC pipe is ongoing, and if the MDWASD were to coordinate its replacement with the Village’s undergrounding program and where the two projects impact the same roadways, the cost of milling and resurfacing those roads could be shared between the two programs. Because MDWASD has not established any funding for this program at this time, we cannot quantify any estimated savings that could be realized. »» Raising of Low-Lying Streets: Some of the costs related

to milling and resurfacing, including the above referenced pavement cost sharing credits, could be funded by a program to raise low-lying roads within the Village. Currently several roads in the Village are low enough and experience minor flooding during king tide events, even when no rainfall has occurred. Raising these low-laying roads will reduce the frequency of tidal flooding and help the drainage system function during storm events by providing additional head on drainage wells discharging water. Village staff expressed interest in this program, but no funding for such a project has been established, therefore we have not quantified any estimated savings related to this program.

Volume Pricing for Pavement Milling and Resurfacing: This program also offers the opportunity for the Village to take advantage of volume pricing related to the milling and resurfacing

costs associated with large-scale paving programs. Thus, the following could be considered: »» Postponement of milling and resurfacing until multiple

phases of undergrounding have been completed. After undergrounding and other proposed infrastructure projects, identified above, in given phases are complete, the milling and resurfacing work can be subsequently bid and awarded by the Village (i.e. two or three phase areas per bidding cycle). Trenches and bore pits would be repaired to grade after conduit installation with final milling and resurfacing to occur later under a separate contract administered by the Village. »» Milling and resurfacing work could occur at night to minimize

traffic impacts to residents and increase paving efficiency.

12.9.4 Offsetting Revenues, Credits, and/or Grant Funding The Village may be able to offset some of the project construction cost through various revenues, credits, or grant funding opportunities. This would ultimately result in a lower net cost realized by the Village for the program. These opportunities include the following:

Sales Tax Savings: The direct purchase of communications conduit and other necessary materials for the duration of the program for which the Village will realize a sales tax savings.

Additional credits or financial contribution from the utility owners: There is a benefit each utility owner realizes in avoided storm recovery efforts after an underground conversion is complete. Currently, only FPL offers a credit (GAF Waiver) for this benefit. The Village should continue to explore ways the utility owners can participate in offsetting the cost of the program based on the benefits they will receive. This can take on the form of enhanced credits, no cost system betterments, etc. In our experience this negotiation will delay the project, prevent conversion, and ultimately pole removal.

Broadband Infrastructure Revenue. The Village could decide to use the program as an opportunity to assist in the installation of another communications service provider to provide property owners with another option for services beyond the legacy

135

12.0 OVERALL PROGRAM OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN

providers. Revenue or cost sharing agreements could be entered between the Village and interested providers. Hotwire communications has expressed an interest in a partnership with the Village to provide a fiber-to-the-home network but would require a volume customer agreement to do so. This option would result in all homes within the impacted area receiving FTTH services, but at a monthly cost to each owner.

Grant Funding. Grant funding such as the FEMA Pre-Mitigation

undergrounding program. Despite this limitation, the grant funds would offset the program costs. These grants can be applied for on a phase-by-phase basis to maximize the benefits, so long as the federal government still offers the funding program. It should be noted that grant funds received from state or federal sources to offset the costs of an underground conversion program cannot exceed the amount of the CIAC prior to the GAF Waiver being applied in accordance with the FPL Tariff.

Grant program could be pursued to help offset program costs. Award amounts are typically small in comparison to the cost of an

BEFORE

AFTER

Fernwood Road looking north from W. McIntyre Street

136

137