cityol

CINCINNATI
Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

Date:

February 15, 2012

To: From:

Mayor and Members of Council Milton Dohoney, Jr., City Manager

Subject:

Cincinnati Streetcar Project Budget

At the Special Session of council on February 10, 2012, Councilmember Smitherman requested additional details regarding the streetcar project budget. The most recent project budget is attached, along with a detailed budget narrative. This report is provided for information purposes only. No action of Council is required.

Attachment

M Di :cje

~FVU

REV. 03/10

Cincinnati Streetcar Project Budget Phase 1 Budget Narrative January 27, 2012

(2~~d

Street to Henry Street)

Total Estimated Project Cost for the Cincinnati Streetcar Phase las of January 25, 2012 as reflected in Line 40 is $110,397,100. This cost is $12,900 under the total project sources shown in Line 41 of $110,410,000. As discussed in the following narrative, cost estimates and assumptions are sound and the project is carrying a substantial contingency in order to ensure that the budget is sufficient to complete the project. Pre-Development Costs Predevelopment costs shown in Lines 1 and 2 reflect actual expenditures made through 12/31/2011 from the streetcar project account (03678) established on January 27, 2010 by City council Ordinance 0019-2010 for pre-development costs related to the project. These pre development costs include environmental documentation required for NEPA compliance performed by PB (Line 1), and preliminary engineering work performed by HDR (Line 2).

Design Costs Design costs shown reflect estimated costs to complete design for the project. Line 5 includes costs authorized through 12/31/2011 to the primary project design consultant, Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) and its subcontractors, including HDR Engineering, and DNK Architects plus an additional $1.5 million in additional design estimated to be necessary to complete 100% design on the MOF and TIGER 3 funded extension to 2~ Street and provide design support throughout the construction phase. PBs 30% Scope included work on the alignment from Freedom Way to the University area at the top of Vine Street. In later stages, the scope of the design was reduced to include the work from Fifth Street to Henry Street. The design costs also include general project management support, additional NEPA documentation work related to the TIGER 3 extension, and design support during vehicle procurement. Line 6 reflects design costs for the project authorized through 12/31/2011 to Human Nature, a design consultant under contract to the City to provide design coordination work for the interface with Central Parkway and Washington Park. Line 7 reflects estimating costs authorized through 12/31/2011 to ME Companies, a third party estimating consultant under contract to the City, plus an additional $50,000 to complete additional estimating work related to final design of the MOF and 2~d Street extension. Through 12/31/2011, ME Companies has completed construction estimates at the 30% and 65% design levels and has been authorized to complete a construction estimate at the 100% design levels for the 5th to Henry alignment. ME Companies has also provided a construction estimate based on the 65% design level for a proposed 2~ to Henry route. This estimate serves as the basis for the Construction Direct Costs reflected in Line 10.

Construction Costs Line lOis based on Construction Direct Costs as estimated by ME Companies in their June 21, 2011 construction cost estimate of the 2~ to Henry Route based on 65% design. This estimate

included construction costs based on quantities provided at 65% design and included additional items such as City ROW permits and inspections, inflation, and construction contingency. Line 6 reflects MEs total estimate for the 2~ to Henry route, less the Inflation amount shown on Line 171 of MEs estimate and the City ROW Permits & Inspection amount shown on Line 165 of MEs estimate, plus a reduction of the Contingencies amount shown in Line 166 of MEs estimate to $1,000,000. These costs are reflected in Lines 13, 25, and 38 respectively, of the 1/25/2011 budget. Line 11 includes the estimated costs for station shelters that will be constructed as part of the project. Station shelter design was not part of the 65% design drawings and is therefore not included in MEs estimate of construction direct costs. However, Line 11 is based on a number of 18 shelters for the 2~ to Henry route at a unit cost per shelter of $34,250 as provided in the 9/29/2011 Opinion of Probable Costs for the shelter by DNK Architects. It should be noted that while the 2~ to Henry route will have 18 stops, not all stops will have shelters. Line 12 reflects estimated costs for Ticket Vending Machines (TVM) and Fareboxes based on estimated unit prices of $50,000 per TVM and 18 stops. Construction overhead in Line 13 is estimated at 9.7% of Construction Direct Costs and Station Shelters as shown in Lines 10 and 11. This figure is estimated based on information submitted in proposals as part of the subsequently terminated CM/GC RFP process conducted in early 2011. Inflation in Line 14 is calculated at 3% of Construction Direct Costs, Station Shelters, and Ticket Vending Machines as shown in Lines 10, 11 and 12. It should be noted that the $1.2 million shown in Line 14 is nearly twice the $666,162 shown in Line 171 of MEs 6/21/2011 construction estimate.

Vehicle Costs Line 17 reflects estimated vehicle costs based on the planned purchase of S modern streetcar vehicles and includes both direct vehicle costs as well as system support, spare parts, special tools and testing equipment. Prior to rescaling the project in Spring 2011, the City originally planned to exercise options to purchase vehicles through existing contracts held by other cities (piggybacking). The estimated $4,000,000 unit price shown here is reflective of prices quoted during the Citys investigation of piggybacking opportunities. Additionally, Total Base Contract Price proposals received as part of the vehicle RFP process confirm that the estimate shown in Line 16 is reasonable. Line 18 reflects estimated costs for design support and inspection of vehicles during the vehicle construction process as well as safety and security certification.

Real Estate Costs Line 21 reflects costs authorized through 12/31/2011 for geotechnical evaluations of the preferred MOF location performed by ATC, a geotechnical consultant under contact to the City.

Line 22 reflects appraisal costs authorized through 12/31/2011 for appraisal and review appraisal of the preferred MOF site. Line 23 reflects preliminary estimates from the Citys Real Estate Division to acquire the preferred MOF site. The appraisal and review appraisal have been conducted and approved by FTA and confirm that the estimate shown in Line 23 is reasonable.

Project Administration

City Project Administration Costs shown on Line 26 is estimated at 3% and include staff time for project management as well as permitting, inspection, and other construction management costs. SORTA Project Administration costs shown on Line 27 are estimated at 1% of track construction, vehicle, and real estate acquisition costs for SORTAs project and grant management activities.

Utilities

As part of its negotiations with utility companies regarding relocation of their facilities in coordination with the project, the City estimated a Zone of Influence (ZOl) in relation to the streetcar track within which it determined a minimal scope of utility relocation required for the project. The City consulted with utility stakeholders to estimate costs both for the respective required scopes work within the ZOl as well as preferred scopes of betterment and expanded work outside the ZOl requested by the utility stakeholders. While some of the costs of these expanded scopes of work may be borne by the project, it should be noted that the utility costs shown in Lines 30-34 reflect the maximum amount of cost associated with utility work that will be borne by the project. For each respective utility shown, this amount is sufficient to cover the minimal scope of utility work necessary to construct the project.

Contingency

Line 39 reflects a project Contingency of approximately $8.4 million. This amount represents approximately 8.3% of pre-development, design, construction, vehicle, real estate, project administration, and utilities costs. Contingency for the project is adequate.

Cincinnati Streetcar Project Estimate Phase I January 25, 2012

-

ME 6/21/11 2nd Street to Henry 65% Urban Circ. + TIGER 3 Scope USES

Use Preliminary Engineering HDR Environmental Documentation PB Subtotal Pre-Development costs

-

Budget 157,450 453,194 610,644 13,125,637 55,000 293,546 13,474,183 38,138,560 616,500 900,000 3,759,241 1,189,652 44,603,953 20,000,000 1,000,000 21,000,000 41,559 6,750 3,000,000 3,048,309 2,059,568 686,523 2,746,090 3,500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 1,000,000 6,000,000 16,500,000 101,983,180 8,413,920 110,397,100 110,410,000 12,900

1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Design PB Human Nature Parks design consultant 3rd Party estimating consultant, required by FTA Subtotal Design Costs
-

Construction Direct Costs Station Shelters Ticket Vending Machines/Fareboxes Construction Overhead (@ 9.7%) Inflation Subtotal Construction Costs Vehicles Vehicle Inspection & Design Subtotal Vehicle Costs MOF Environmental Work (Geotech) Appraisals Real Estate Acquisition Subtotal Real Estate Costs City Administration 3% of construction SORTA Admin 1% of construction Subtotal Project Administration Costs Greater Cincinnati Water Works (GCWW) Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati (MSDGC) Cincinnati Bell Level 3, Time Warner, Communications, ect. Duke gas, electric, chilled water, overhead, fiber Subtotal Utilities Subtotal Contingency Total Est. Project Cost Total Sources Sources less Uses