HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 2009-09 RESOLUTION NO. R2009-09
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
CONTAINING A SUMMARY OF ALL PROPOSED PROJECTS TO BE
ACQUIRED DURING A FIVE YEAR PERIOD, COST ESTIMATES,
METHOD OF FINANCING AND A RECOMMENDED TIME TABLE
FOR CONSTRUCTING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE UNDERTAKEN
IN THE CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS.
� � � � �
WHEREAS, the City of Friendswood ("City") has determined that there is a need for a
comprehensive financial planning document detailing the City's infrastructure needs, priorities,
method of financing and the costs and timing of the undertaking for those improvements to be
made within the next five years within the City, and such is required by the Subsection (a) of
Section 8.03 of Article VIII of the Charter and provided for in Section 395.014 of the Texas
Local Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Friendswood has reviewed its existing ordinances and has
determined and desires that this information should be contained in one document that is separate
from the annual budget so as to allow for examination in greater detail, simplified modification
to reflect the changing needs of the community at the direction of the Council, and revision and
updating annually; and
WHEREAS, attached hereto is a manual containing a detailed list of infrastructure needs,
priorities, methods of financing and detailed cost estimates programmed for undertaking over a
five year period;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS:
Section 1. Pursuant to the Charter of the City, Section 8.03 (a) as amended, the City
Council hereby adopts the Capital Improvements Plan attached as Exhibit A and entitled "The
City of Friendswood FY 2009 to 2013 Capital Improvement Projects Manual" as an official
document of the City and directs that the information contained and referred to therein shall
control and determine the Capital Improvement Project efforts undertaken by the City until such
time as the document is amended as called for by this resolution and the City Charter.
Section 2. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to maintain
copies of "The City of Friendswood FY 2009 to 2013 Capital Improvement Projects
Manual" and related documents and make them available upon request, for a reasonable fee, to
any individual or entity. The Director is further directed to review and evaluate this data
annually and make recommendations to the Council annually for additions and revisions to the
plan contained herein.
PASSED,APPROVED AND RESOLVED on this 23rd day of Februarv, 2009.
. �
�
David J. H. �` ith
Mayor
ATTEST:
O� f R'EN�B
' � �O
V O
De ris McKenzie, TRM °
City Secretary * *
�
�4rF oF '�+�
R2009-09 2
d it� Im rovement �'�o rdm
C
p p
�
200 9 �
d�dte
p
�_�
.Yra�.. � � .
E �
#.!. � .t�-•-1�;�1 '�,���.- �: �,�,,.
.,
u ,.
�.�
_ �,
. .i ��;� �. , R
T
`��� "s^r �,,„ .�E. � �tF s f Y li'ek��
� u�', I,�i,�!I�����u�� Y� r.i i�'F
t ;�,r 4 a
. �-� .:,,.II�
ts
� �
�`�u�ca�ar,�oar���i�e�r-�'u�e-
�a�ii�B. ����� ���a-�fne�aG�i���o:/�
�u�lia����r►��G�
,�_ ,� ��
...�F,-
...
... .
� �.. � ._„
r . . � �_�.
�"�.,..�._ y�:.::
a�4
� �`���� . � � � �le��ion��a�.�
�laaRr�a�ea�d�a��r��� �mfl�sa�em�enfa-
�m�I�saa�eme'r�
� �
�' �.
,.. , .,� � � ��.v�
� ,� 5 ,� . k ��: �-: �, �, ` ,,�,.
�� x:. .��.:�} j
y, � ,., ±
!! � ��r�*��....,'�i�,� '�,, y�'� , rti., �...�
..4` 'y�y���.. rY �' f,• � rF;' ,�+� c
A��;s: . , ''� �M1
r `
,� . *
/
. w' C�T/oll����—
�i����.a�oa� ��ess��ar�i�isz,l�loiaa�i
�s�a/�ir'v�i�r�aios� C�tsaio�v
�soCution�2009-09Approved 6y�Friert�Is•woocC�'iLy CounciCon�Fe6ruary 23, 2009.
Table of Contents
5ECTION ONE—Table of Contents
Tableof Contents.................................................................................................. 1
ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................. 3
1.0 Introduction................................................................................................. 5
2.0 The Impact of Growth................................................................................. 5
3.0 The Planning Effort&the Evolution of the Document.............................. 6
4.0 Changes to the Process................................................................................ 8
5.0 Changes to the Document........................................................................... 8
6.0 Bond Issue Costs......................................................................................... 10
7.0 The Challenge at a Glance.......................................................................... 11
CIP FY 2009 Total Spending(Table 1)...................................................... 11
8.0 Summary of the Program............................................................................ 11
9.0 The Next Five Years................................................................................... 12
Capital Improvements Five Year Spending Summary(Table 2)................ 13
SECTION TWO—Five Year Obligation Proiects
2009-2013 Capital Improvements Program(Table 3)
Five Year Plan Certificate/General Obligation Projects.......................... 15
Certificate/General Obligation Fund Project Location Map................................. 16
Certificate/General Obligation Fund Project List................................................. 17
Animal Control Building, Phase I......................................................................... 18
CivicCenter renovation........................................................................................ 19
FM 518 Parallel Drainage Phase I........................................................................ 20
LibraryExpansion................................................................................................. 21
Melody Lane Street Reconstruction...................................................................... 22
ParkLand Acquisition.......................................................................................... 23
Pavement Master Plan Phase I.............................................................................. 24
RecordsRetention................................................................................................. 25
SkyviewTerrace................................................................................................... 26
SunnyviewAvenue............................................................................................... 27
VariousPark Projects............................................................................................ 28
SECTION THI2EE—Five Year Water& Sewer Proiects
2009-2013 Capital Improvements Program(Table 4)
Five Year Plan Water& Sewer Projects.................................................. 29
Water and Sewer Fund Project Location Map...................................................... 30
Water and Sewer Fund Project List...................................................................... 31
42 Inch Water Main Replacement........................................................................ 32
Beamer Road Sanitary Sewer Phase I................................................................... 33
Beamer Road Waterline Phase I........................................................................... 34
COH Raw Water System Buy-In.......................................................................... 35
East FM 528 Waterline......................................................................................... 36
El Dorado/Lundy Lane Sanitary Sewer............................................................... 37
Second Take Point, Phase II................................................................................. 38
1
SurfaceWater Station#2...................................................................................... 39
Viejo Drive(E&V� Water Line Loop................................................................ 40
Water Plant Number Five Rehabilitation.............................................................. 41
Water Plant Number One Rehabilitation.............................................................. 42
Water Plant Number Seven Rehabilitation........................................................... 43
Water Plant Number Six Rehabilitation............................................................... 44
Water Plant Number Two Rehabilitation............................................................ 45
SECTION FOUR—Bevond Five Year Proiects
2009-2013 Capital Improvements Program(Table 5)
Beyond Five Year Plan General Obligation Projects............................... 47
2009-2013 Capital Improvements Program(Table6)
Beyond Five Year Plan Water& Sewer Projects..................................... 48
SECTION FIVE—Appendix A
Project Development and Estimating Cost........................................................... 49
I. General Information....................................................................................... 51
II. Typical of All Projects................................................................................... 52
III. Typical of Facility and Parks Projects............................................................ 56
IV. Infrastructure Projects.................................................................................... 58
2
Executive Summarv
Submitted for City Council's information is the FY2009 to FY 2013 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) for the City of Friendswood. Currently, there are eleven (11) Certificate/General
Obligation and fifteen (15) Water and Sewer bond identified CIP projects. Project details and
cost figures have been upgraded to improve project scope identification and reliability of cost
data.This submittal represents the third update of the CIP since its creation in 1999.
The next step in the further development of the CIP is to prioritize the projects, identify/approve
funding sources for the unfunded Obligation and Water and Sewer projects, and proceed with
scheduling of the projects.
Once adopted by the City Council, this document will provide Staff a clear direction on the
funding and scheduling of remaining projects, which will be a part of long range budgeting plan
subject to approval by the City Council. Staff will meet with the City Council in work sessions
to seek approval of funding sources, updating project schedules and to seek guidance for every
Fiscal Year regarding subsequent implementation phases.
Estimated total funding for individual funding sources and their cumulative totals are given
below for the next five-year Capital Improvement Program as well as projects beyond that
period.
FUNDING TOTALS FOR FNE YEAR AND BEYOND CIP
Period Total Estimated Cost GO Fund and Utility Bonds* Unfunded Balance
FY 2009-2013 $ 54,005,000 $ 10,385,000 $ 43,620 000
Be ond Five Years $ 178 414,200 $ - $ 178,414,200
Totats $ 232,419,200 $ 10,385,000 $ 222,034,200
* Remaining 2006 Water and Sewer Bonds and Proposed 2008 Galveston County Bonds.
The five-year CIP identified with this update shifts emphasis to utilities category. The driving
force for utility projects is generated by population growth requiring more infrastructure and an
existing utility infrastructure that requires maintenance or replacement. Community
Development and Public Works focus on implementing the preventive maintenance programs to
prolong life of streets. Staff currently believes these programs have the ability to postpone total
replacement of streets and other infrastructure for a number of years.
Friendswood is a City with aging infrastructure. The infrastructure installed by the City or
dedicated to the City as a condition of development has a useful life that depreciates annually.
Via Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) #34, Staff has determined the value of
these fixed assets, their average useful life, the status of depreciation, and estimated the future
replacement.
3
� This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
4
CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD
CAPI'I'AL Ili��PROVEMElliTT'I'S PROGRAli�I
UPDATE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to City Charter, the City Manager is required to submit a Capital Improvements
Program (CIP) to the City Council. By agreement, this program is to be updated periodically to
reflect the completion of projects the addition of new projects and to update project costs for
financial projection and management efforts. This is the fourth CIP document, the original being
created in 1999 and updated in 2003 and 2007.
At a June 6,2006 work-session with the City Council, staff agreed to update the CIP with
current information regarding projects, costs, and revisions to the program. The intent of the
updated program is to identify, describe and prioritize the infrastructure needs of the community
as it grows and evolves. This task includes an effort to increase the accuracy of the program's
cost estimate for all prospective projects, but more specifically within the initial five-year period.
The overall goal of the CIP is to maintain the same high quality of life for all citizens through the
timely anticipation of the City's needs, planning of improvement projects and determining
funding sources as the community grows.
The program is also intended to depict financial challenges of the City's growth and
maintenance of infrastructure that characterize the City's future and the associated funding
requirements to meet these objectives. The programming portion includes formulating
preliminary plans, projecting estimated project costs, setting priorities, identifying funding
sources and scheduling the implementation of the plans.
2.0 THE IMPACT OF GROWTH
In the 2000 Census, the population of the City of Friendswood was listed as 29,037.
According to current staff estimates, the population has increased to 35,664 in just seven (7)
years. Indications are the City will likely reach its build-out population of 57,400 between 2020
and 2030. Population growth continues to be a primary driving factor in the CIP process,
particularly as it relates to utilities.
During the 2003-OS period, capital project focus was primarily on drainage issues, with
the completion of four (4) projects which addressed eleven (11) of the twenty (20) identified
problem areas from the 1993 Master Drainage Plan. Four (4) others are currently in various
stages of resolution. Continued population growth and development pressures shifted the focus
for the 2005-06 period to improvements in utility infrastructure with major spending planned for
the 2006-07 period on Water & Sewer Bond projects. Currently, there are five water and sewer
projects in engineering for the 2006 period as compared to only two (2) drainage projects.
Additionally,there is one(1)major facility in design and one in construction.
5
3.0 THE PLANNING EFFORT & EVOLUTION OF THE DOCUMENT
In Fiscal Year 1999, a Capital Improvements Program was presented to City Council that
described the infrastructure growth and maintenance needs of the City through a ten (10) year
period. This was the first time that such an extensive and comprehensive plan had been
developed. As was noted at that time, the City was facing its heaviest burden of maintaining
existing infrastructure, and planning for the construction of new growth-related infrastructure.
This remains true today.
In 2002, program categories were determined by the requirements set forth in several of
the City's planning documents, most notably the City's Comprehensive Plan and Vision 2020,
the City's Strategic Plan. During that same time, the City's CIP was centralized under the
Community Development and Public Works Department. Under this centralization, projects
sponsored by individual departments were passed to the new Capital Projects Division for
incorporation into the new planning document for eventual implementation. With the voter's
approval of the General Obligation Bond election in February 2003 the City embarked on the
2003-2008 five-year program guided by Council's reaffirmation of project priorities with
drainage issues topping the list.
In implementing the initial projects from the 2003-08, Drainage Program, Staff
discovered that preliminary planning documents used to estimate both the scope of work and its
costs had not accurately anticipated physical and market conditions for some of the projects.
During design phase, engineering additions to the scope of work were required to provide for the
unanticipated impact on private properties surrounding a project. For example, if detailed
surveying done during the design phase of a drainage project revealed additional areas of
concern, the impact of the additional work to the overall scope of work and the affected areas
had to be addressed. All of the initial projects fell victim to unprecedented material and labor
cost increases experienced throughout the region as a result of market forces.
Staff responded to these issues with a procedure to prioritize the objectives within each
project and construct the infrastructure required to achieve those prioritized objectives first. This
approach has allowed each project to go forward and provide the central core improvement
sought and to add as many additional secondary and tertiary objectives as approved funding
allowed. Thus far, this approach has proven a valid means for meeting the affected project's
objectives while coping with rising costs and expanded scope; however, it falls short of the
intention of both City Council and Staff for the bond funded projects. These conditions have
forced several changes in the process as well as the document.
3. 1 Project Environment: Development pressure continues to drive the schedule of many
projects and frequently impacts the scope as well. Opportunities to shape and influence private
development activities are considered in the planning and estimating phases of the effort. CIP
staff is involved in Development Reviews and frequently interface with developer plans at early
stages to coordinate efforts and reduce costs that might otherwise be borne solely by the City.
This effort helps stabilize and quantify the scope of the project at earlier stages providing
6
increased confidence in the cost estimates. Staff has successfully integrated developer provided
additions to the City's infrastructure to reduce the scope of City funded improvements.
3.2 Strategic Planning: Strategic planning is a part of the above processes and the
Preliminary Engineering Reports (PER) for projects. In instances where the scope of a PER can
reasonably be expanded to include a strategic examination of a system or an area to provide
guidance for specific planning and programming of recognized needs is being addressed with
budgetary constraints in perspective, staff will recommend expanding the scope This small
effort assists in the development and refinement of project scope and helps to identify
opportunities to co-participate with private developers to provide needed infrastructure at a lower
or no cost to the City. This information is also fed back into the development review process to
assist planning staff in guiding developers as they assess their needs and requirements.
3.3 Project Prioritization: The original CIP Manual, generated in 1999, consisted of forty
(40) Obligation(GO)bond projects and twelve (12) Revenue(Utility)bond projects. All projects
identified were drawn from departmental needs assessments and the City's series of Master
Plans, (Vision 2020, Master Drainage Plan Phase I, Parks Master Plan, Streets Master Plan and
the Ground Water Reduction Plan). Initially, these projects were ranked within the sponsoring
departments and then Senior Staff ranked those lists to produce a final prioritization of the
projects. Much of the original prioritization remained with eight (8) of the original 2003 GO
bond projects and seven (7) of the original Utility projects which have been completed, with
another two (2) pending bid and two (2) under construction. The 2006 Utility Bond identified
eight (8) projects three (3) of which have been completed, one (1) is pending bid, three (3) are
acquiring easements and one(1) is under construction.
New projects entering the list are fed into this program structure and the final location among
other projects remains a product of departmental needs and"forces at work." Forces at work are
increased maintenance requirements and breakdown frequencies and developmental pressures.
A final factor influencing the ultimate location of a project in the program is the effort to balance
the number and dollar value of the projects within a manageable time frame for the sponsoring
department.
Drainage projects have been top priority since Tropical Storm Allison, and with the advent of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, have brought these types of projects to the forefront of all capital
projects. In the past, and continuing on to this current CIP Manual, hindrances to effective
drainage have been established in the engineering criterion. First and foremost, the Criteria
Design of drainage in Friendswood is for a five (5) year event. Although this is optimal for new
construction, Friendswood has annexed areas that have been sub par in drainage standards. In
efforts to prioritize area flooding, projects were divided into three categories. Priority drainage
projects address flooding where there is danger or already has been flooding in or near homes.
Secondary drainage projects address flooding that denies access to areas but is not a threat to
property. Tertiary drainage projects address areas where the street floods, but no water ever goes
over the curb; streets are designed to hold extra capacity water in extreme events.
7
4.0 CHANGES TO THE PROCESS
41 Update Cycle: As a planning document, the CIP identifies projected needs far fifteen
years into the future. While it is impossible to accurately forecast project costs in the future,
several things can be done to improve close-term forecasting. First, beginning with this revision,
we discussed an annual update of the CIP document, to integrate changes in the planning costs
and needs. This effort is necessary to capture the effects of annual cost increases and bring the
program current with a 2007 pricing benchmark. As the City's list of needs incorporates
Obligation fund projects, Utility fund projects, and now, General Fund Reserve projects, the
overall effort is more sensitive to market trends.
4.2 Inflation Factor: An inflation factor is being added to the project cost estimates to
adjust the estimated cost from today's dollars to the "planned date" dollars. This factor can be
adjusted individually without affecting the actual quantities to account for market influences.
Estimates are derived from local construction industry cost monitoring entities. This update is
supported by standards issued by Houston Chapter of Associated General Contractors.
This year's estimates have been significantly impacted by the recent price spikes in
material and energy costs due to storm damage along the Gulf Coast. The future inflation factor
for each year is derived by averaging the previous five (5) year figures, actual (for 2006 and
2007) and estimated for years 2008 to 2020. Staff will also review other economic indicators
from both the Department of Labor and the Engineering News Report, as a valuable double and
triple check system.
5.0 CHANGES TO THIS DOCUMENT
5.1 Like its predecessor from 2006, the 2009 to 2013 CIP incorporates significant changes
any of these are in response to the dynamic construction environment. Every effort has been
made to make this the most useful planning tool available for Council and Staff. This update
incorporates Water and Sewer bond projects, Obligation bond projects and, for the first time,
lists a number funded out of the operating budget. This addition makes the document more
comprehensive by incorporating all capital spending over$250,000 of its source.
5.2 Standardized Estimates: Beginning with the individual project cost estimates; there
have been a number of less visible changes in the document. Every effort has been made to
standardize the estimating procedure to produce a more reliable product. The same line item
type estimate format is utilized throughout the document. Standardized pricing for line items has
been introduced to further stabilize the estimate. This has improved the reliability of the cost
data and provides improved project scope identification.
The standardized format also allows Staff to introduce a greater level of detail to the
estimate. The document will no longer rely on the broad category of "contingency" when
specific items are identifiable. A contingency will still appear in the estimate as a hedge against
unforeseen circumstances and in instances where the level of study is considered insufficient to
have identified all possible circumstances. Identifiable cost items will be itemized and accounted
for individually.
8
5.3 Project Scope: This update includes a complete re-work of the Description/Justification
discussion for each project. The accuracy of long-range estimates is directly proportional to the
completeness of the scope at the time the estimate is performed. An extensive effort to improve
scope definition for all projects has been made as a component of this update. The improved
level of project information directly improves the accuracy of the estimate and helps to guard
against "scope creep". This provides the sponsor deparhnent and the planner a better concept of
what the project will and will not provide. For these reasons,the estimate will identify if a study
was available and, what level of study the estimate is based on. If easements are required for the
project, they are roughly quantified and a figure is included for their acquisition. Likewise,
survey and other professional services are considered specifically when estimating professional
service fees. For these reasons, there are likely to be several different percentage factors used in
the estimate for this cost category. It is the intent of staff that when a project becomes part of the
five (5) year plan, a more definitive scope will be utilized by contracting Engineering or
Architectural Services to provide a Preliminary Report on the project that will include estimated
quantities,project and engineering/architectural costs.
5.4 Material Costs: The updated estimates now utilize material prices taken from a real-
time regional job-bid database. Staff has established a reciprocal agreement with one of the
operators of a regional construction information service, Amtek Utility, to provide them the
results from the City's bids in exchange for free access to the database operated by the service.
This database consists of bid prices for both private and public projects throughout the region.
This allows Staff to constantly monitor material and service prices being bid in other
communities and to adjust our price estimates accordingly. Incorporated with the use of Amtek,
is the statewide and regional Texas Department of Transportation Bid Tabs and averages. These
are used most exclusively for items that do not have local bid items and are yet another resource
that can be pooled for more accurate information. Another tool that is exclusively used for
estimating purposes of facility projects is the RS Means Construction Quick Calculator. This
tool will give a Low, Median and High range for many different types of construction projects
since most of the materials used in facility buildings are more volatile than in civil construction
projects. For facilities projects architectural programming and schematic design, help outline a
clearer scope of work and yield more definitive project estimates.
5.5 Professional Services: Staff is now utilizing regional engineering cost curves to estimate
engineering fees. Staff is currently using the Harris County's electronic cost curve estimator for
AE Services. This line item in the estimates consists of engineering fees, geotechnical sub-
consultant fees and surveyor fees. The percentage factor applied to the project for this cost
category is based on the level of engineering effort to be provided, as well as factors that will
impact the surveying requirements for the project. Typically,horizontal construction will require
additional survey effort and the production of easement exhibits. This has been broken down
into various phases of the Engineering, Preliminary, Design, Contract and Construction. New to
the 2009-2013 CIP Manual is calculation for cost of easements,appraisals and testing services.
5.6 Inflation: Another change to past formats is the addition of the cost growth table at the
bottom of each detailed estimate. This has been developed as a hedge against unrecognized cost
growth due to market forces or inflation. This table attempts to project the cost increase of a
9
project between today's 2007 dollars and those of the year in which the project is expected to be
bid and constructed. Using figures from the Houston chapter of general contractors, it appears
that the local market has experienced an average 9% annual inflation increased in construction
projects.
5.7 Contingency: Additionally, some of the estimates have the benefit of already having a
completed engineer's estimate for support. As noted earlier, estimates are now based on all
known data and reflect the level of detail of that data. If a study is not available for the project,
the estimate sheet indicates, "No Study is Available". This is an indicator that, as the scope is
more clearly defined, cost estimated are likely to improve. In those instances, larger
"contingencies" have been added to the estimating. This has been a major source of estimate
problems in the past. For that reason, staff has developed a variable risk-based approach to the
application of contingency factors in the estimates:
a) Estimates that have no study available will contain a contingency of 25%;
b) Those with PER level study will contain a contingency of 15%; and
c) Those estimates that have actual bid numbers provided by contractors will
contain a contingency of 5%.
5.8 The summary tables have been set up to automatically update from changes to a detailed
estimate spread sheet. Such automation reduces the transposition of numbers or mistakes
between totals on estimates and totals shown in the summary tables. Future updates are likely to
consist of updated summary tables and only those project data sheets (the Detailed Estimate and
the Description) that have changed. In this manner, the summary tables could be removed and
discarded and the updated versions could be installed without discarding the entire document.
5.9 Organization: The document has been reorganized in an effort to improve user
friendliness. Previously, the contents were arranged only by their relative priority providing no
intuitive link to the location of the project description and estimate within the Obligation Bond
Fund section or the Water & Sewer Bond Fund section. The revised document is organized by
bond fund type, as with the previous, concern on the Five-Year Plan for both Obligation and
Water& Sewer Bonds. The projects beyond the Five-Year Plan are also separated into these two
categories and sorted by projected year of the project.
6.0 BOND ISSUANCE COSTS:
It should be noted that the staff has NOT INCLUDED the Issuance Costs to sell bonds
in the project cost estimates contained within this document. This document focuses specifically
on construction and engineering costs associated with each project. While these costs will need
to be taken into account when presenting program information to the voters in the future, they
are not considered part of the construction and engineering costs. Actual and final bond sale
amounts may vary depending on the number of projects being funded and the timing of the cash
requirements. It is therefore impractical for CIP to estimate bond issuance costs.
10
7.0 THE CHALLENGE AT A GLANCE
Due to increasing construction costs and an aggressive CIP, the greatest challenge to the
City is funding. The following tables present a summary for the plan (Current Five-Year and
Five-Year Plus divided into project types):
CIP FY 2009 TOTAL SPENDING
Table 1
Current Five Year Program
2009—2013
Drainage $ 6,000,000
Facilities $ 8,000,000
Parks $ 5,600,000
Streets $ 11,400,000
Sewer $ 4,093,000
W ater $ 18,912,000
$ 54,005,000 *
Five to Ten Year Program
2014—2018
Drainage $ 7,803,000
Facilities $ 16,099,000
Parks $ 13,991,000
Streets $ 117,946,200
Sewer $ 19,843,000
Water $ 2,732,000
$ 178,414,200 *
* Figures represent total spending all sources for the time period for all planned projects
8.0 A SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM
An analysis of the preceding tables provides a number of quick observations that require
specific mention. Approximately tweniy-three (23) percent or fifty-four (54) million dollars, of
the 232 million dollars in total program requirements come in the first five-years. Of that, forty-
three (43) percent (23 million dollars) is planned for improvements to Utility infrastructure.
Utilities form the single largest spending category in the Five-Year Plan 2009-2013. The
Utilities category includes water and sewer infrastructure replacement and upgrades. The
spending requirements are based on needs to accommodate growth and maintain the current level
of services to neighborhoods where lines are aged and in need of replacement.
In the Five-Year Plus Plan the emphasis shifts away from Facilities, and towards Streets.
This is directly representative of the savings produced from the Street Point Repair Program.The
success of these efforts have allowed major projects in Annalea/ Kingspark/ Whitehall and in
11
Wedgewood/ Forest Bend, totaling approximately $36.5 million, to be postponed. The annual
maintenance program, funded at a level allowing pre-emptive point replacement, addresses
problem areas sufficiently to warrant the cancellation of major area-wide replacements. This
increase in facility spending, like the spending on Utilities, represents the impact of growth on
the CIP as most of the new facility construction results from the need to expand existing facilities
to provide for the needs of a growing community.
Finally, the financial commitment to drainage appears to remain nearly constant with
eleven (11) percent of the total fifly-four (54) million dollars in spending coming in the Five-
Year Plan. This level of commitment has changed with the Master Drainage Plan Phase II and
the addition of the previous projects that have not been completed due to depletion of funding.
These constitute the Secondary and Tertiary Drainage Projects.
9.0 THE NEXT FIVE YEARS
The Five-Year Plan identified with this update clearly shifts emphasis to the Utilities
category. As previously discussed, the driving force for spending on Utilities is generated by
growth and an aging utility infrastructure. Long term emphasis has shifted away from the aging
street network as the Community Development and Public Works Department focuses on
implementing the preventative maintenance programs (i.e. joint sealing, concrete point repairs,
etc.) to prolong the life of those streets. However, this will require a consistent financial
commitment in the operations budget in order to delay or pre-empt the need for large scale
replacement efforts latter. Staff currently believes this program has the ability to postpone the
total replacement of those streets for a number of years.
By quick observation,the effort levels in the Five-Year Plan are as balanced as external
forces will allow. This can be more easily viewed using the Gantt chart added to the document
for the first time. It is also the commitment of Staff to identify possible needed easements and
public utilities relocates and start the process of these two years before the start of the projects.
12
CAPITALIMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Total Spending-All Sources
FY 2009-FY 2013
Table 2
Obligation Funds 2009 20�0 2011 2012 2013 Tota1 5 Year Plan Total 5Pt'an0 Year
Dninage
Estimated Cost $ 6,000,000 S 6,000,000 $ 7,803,000
Aaiha'¢ed Funds 5 4.985.000 $ a,985.000 S -
Supplemental Funding S S - E 7,803,000
Facilities
Estimated Cost $ 1,000,000 $ 6,500,000 $ 500,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 76,099,000
Authorized Funds $ S S g - 5 "
Supplementai Funding $ 1,D00,000 $ 6,500,000 5 500,000 $ 6,000,000 S 16,099,000
Parks
EstimatedCost $ 2,500,000 $ 3,100,000 � S 5,600,000 $ 13,991,000
Authorized Funds $ � $ - � - S
Suppiemental Funding S 2,500,000 $ 3,100,000 $ 5,600,000 5 73,991,000
SVeets
EsGmatedCost $ 11,400,000 $ 11,400,000 $ 177,946,200
Authorized Funds 5 5,400,000 $ 5,400,000 3
Supplemental Funding 5 6,000,000 $ 6,000,000 E 117,948,200
Total Obligation Funds
EsSimated Cost S 3,500,000 S 27,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 31,000,000 S 155,839,200
Authorized Funds S - S 10,385,OOU $ - $ 70,385,000 S
Supplemental Funding S 3,500,000 3 15,600,000 S 500,000 E 79,600,000 f 15i,639,200
2/72/2009
Utili Funds 2009 2070 2011 2012 2013 TotalSYearPlan 5-YearToWl
Sewer Improvements
Estimated Cost $ 1,516,000 5 2,577,000 $ 4,093,000 $ 19,843,000
Authorized Funds 3 - - � 3 - S
Supplemental Funding $ 1,516,000 S 2,577,000 S 4,093,000 3 t9,843,000
Water Improvemenis
Estimated Cosl $ 4,635,000 $ 3,262,000 S 6,338,000 $ 4,191,000 $ 486,000 $ 18,912,000 $ 2,732,000
Authonzed Funds $ - S � $ - S - 3 - > - S
Supplemental Funding S 4,635,000 5 3,262,000 $ 6,338,000 $ 4,191,000 $ 486,000 5 18,912,000 5 2,732,000
Total Utility Funds
Estimated Cost S 8,151,000 $ 3,262,000 $ 6,338,000 S 6,768,000 $ 486,000 5 23,005,000 $ 22,575,000
Authorized Funds $ - 8 - 3 - S - 3 - S - 5
SupplemeMal Funding S 8.151,000 S 3,262,000 S 6,378,000 S 8.768,000 E 486,000 S 23,005,000 S 22,575,000
Revised 5/6/OB
ToWlBoth Funds
Estimated Cost 59,657,000 330,262,000 $6,838,000 $6,768,000 E486,000 554,005,000 3178,414,200
Authorized Funds SO $�0,385,000 SO EO $0 $t0,385,000 SO
Supplemental Funding E9,651,000 578.662,000 56,838,000 56,768,000 E488,000 542,605,000 5178,474,200
13
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
14
2009-2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
CERTIFICATEIGENERAL OBLIGATION PROJECTS
FIVE YEAR PLAN
Summary by Project and Funding Source
Table 3
Projects in Alphabetical Order
Profe� Certficata or General Fiscal YR Estimated Approved Funds Needed
Obli tion Planned Pro'ect Cost Fundin`
Mimal ConVOI Building Phase I CeNficate 2009 E 1,000,00 E - E 1,000,0
Civie Center Renovation General 2011 f 500,0 5 - E 500,0
F.M.518 Orainage Improvements Phase I Certificate&General 2010 S 8,000,0 $ 4,985,00 E 1,015,00
Library E�ansion General 2010 S 6,000,00 b - 5 6,000,00
Melody Lane-SVeel Galveston Co.GO 2010 $ 4,200,0 $ 4,200,00 $
ParkLandAcquisition Certifiwte 2009 $ 2,500,0 3 - E 2,500,00
Pavement Management Masler Plan Ph 1 Certificale 2010 3 6,000,00 S � E 6,000,00
Records Retention Center Certificate 2010 $ 500,00 S - $ 500,00
SkyviewAvenue Galveston Co.GO 2010 S 600,00 5 600,00 E
SunnyviewTertace Galveston Co.GO 2010 $ 600, S C00,00 5
Various Park Pro'eets General 2010 $ 3,700, $ - E 3 100 00
Tofal CertifieatelGene21 Obligation Fund Projects for 5 Year EsBmated 531,000,000 $10,385,00 520,675,00
Pian
Projects by Fiscal Year Planned
� Project Fiseal YR Estimated Approved Funds Needed
Planned Pro ec!Cost Fundin•
Animal Control Building Phase I Certifieate 2009 $ 1,000,000 S - $ 1,000,000
Park Land Acquisi6on Certificate 2009 $ 2,500,000 S $ 2,500,000
F.M.518 Drainage Improvements Phase I Certifieate&General 2070 $ 6,000,000 5 4,985,000 $ 1,075,000
Library F�ansion Generel 2010 $ 6,000,000 $ 8 6,000,000
Mebdy Lane-Street � Galveston Co.GO 2010 $ 4,200,000 S 4,200,000 $ -
Pavement Management Master Plan Ph 1 CeAifiwte 2010 $ 6,000,000 $ S 6,000,000
Records Retentlon Center Certifiwte 2010 $ 500,000 S � $ 500,000
SkyviewAvenua GaM1reston Co.GO � 2010 5 600,000 $ 600,000 E -
SunnyviewTarrace Galveston Co.GO 2010 S 600,000 S 600,000 $ -
Various Park Projects General 2010 $ 3,100,000 S 5 3,100,000
Civic Center Renovalion General 2011 $ 500,000 S 5 500,000
Total Certifieate/General Obligadon Fund Projects tor 5 Year Estimated t 31,000,000 S 10,385,00 S 20,615,00 �
Plan
15
aucnn
fUNO PROJECTS
� i
i
�' `��/�`\�/1 " ''1� f►�+
I \
�,
�`
GS �"!
'�` c
r— �3_
cs r
� 4 .
cs �o y �'``�
� -r
�'�� `' j i I j
�,, „r G1 � ' j, — +��
'!J,,,,i I _ y'
��� �
� ♦.,._,�y�
< _J ` I
1
. �/ ��— cyt,�a.�.i� t
'!'ti'"' � ♦�w�/
�,�..s
i�
' _ r
f G7 Pavement Manapement Mester
ff (�_ Pian Phase I
; � % i/ GB RecoNs Retentan Center
1 /
� sr G�t Various Parks Pro'
.�.��.��„r+
j� � �d
G8 J---`—
,,�",_____. �---- --
_/ ~� —�
----- _'_ - --��._
��/^'��
� taqsrM
: s ��
�� ,�.
�� ���m
� �_�,�
6�dYmw.iMCayW5iptlawMdmN�YmrNpw9�iR+mnowrayyubWacev+r:�'oltl�mepsN4�4w�tl�+�wfs�pnwrabuw My�lwa/tAttRl�pbb/dRCMphlMNMASIS�
NirNUt�+uxrt.d..«.�...v..,a�a�u+r rrth.w.m.o.�.w n.+Rr.v.w ia�a r�rn�.urarr�m�.d.�,�noa s.m,:aom�v.amv.h+..m k.s.r.,.��v n,�,++r�«a a.�.nc•=eud
hd�pwW9�MAfckeMWIYMMsiUM Q'�1laiMJ Pn AJ sW AwuCEOC POt�M0C1IM MYAT
Ghy af FI!@ltdS WOOd �
"���.�� Friendswood GIS Mapping
R8„m�-��nn
�+.:a,a.�»eea.a-w 1"equals 5,000'
16
GIELe11EE�AL OBLIG�4�'ION FllLVD PROJECTS
PROJECT NAME PAGE
G 1 Animal Control Building Phase I 18
G 2 Civic Center Renovation 19
G 3 F.M. 518 Drainage Improvements Phase I 20
G 4 Library Expansion 21
G 5 Melody Lane- Street 22
G 6 Park Land Acquisition 23
G 7 Pavement Management Master Plan Ph 1 24
G 8 Records Retention Center 25
G 9 Skyview Avenue 26
G 10 Sunnyview Terrace 27
G 11 Various Park Projects 28
17
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Animal Control Buildin , Phase I Police De artment
COUNCIL GOAL: #6 Maintain High Level of Public Service
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Facilities YEAR PLANNED: 2009
SUBTYPE: Construction PROJECT NUMBER: Not Yet Assigned
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Police Department has identified the requirement to construct a new humane facility
by 2009 to meet the growing needs of the communiTy.The proposed project plan consists
of a phase-constructed build-out to eventually support a total of 8 Animal Control
Officers (Animal Control Officers)by 2020 with the initial investment designed to house
up to 6 Animal Control Officers. The preliminary scope calls for a site of up to 1.5 acres
to support building, a large animal containment area, parking and required detention.
The initial phase of construction would consist of a 6000 sq. ft. pre-engineered metal
building frame and roof with exterior CMU walls. This phase would center on
approximately 1600 sq. ft. of administrative and public space and about 3300 sq. ft of
kennels, lab and storage. Phase I of this facility would accommodate a minimum of 24
felines, 28 canines in separated kennels and provide a separate area for the quarantine of
injured / sick pets or bite cases. Phase two would add up to 3000 sq. ft. of additional
building space in order to double the kennel capacity to a total of 56 canines and provide
additional quarantine area and provide office space for the additional two Animal Control
Officers.A more detailed scope is expected to be identified during the preliminary study
phase of the project. The scope outlined above was based on currently identified needs of
the Sponsor Department.
JUSTIFICATION:
The current facility was constructed in approximately 1989 and is located in the
floodway. It was damaged during Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 and required extensive
repairs after that event. Additionally, the facility is inadequate to handle current
operational requirements of the City's humane program with its current staffing level of
two Animal Control Officers and one supervisor. The facility does not comply with
current State regulations requiring a separate area for quarantined animals.
FUNDING:
Funding of this project is to issue Certificate of Obligation Bond for the full amount.
Projected Cost In: 2009
Estimated Construction Cost $ 769,000
Estimated Acquisition Costs $ -
Contingency @ 15.0% $ 115,000
Professional Services @ 15.1% $ 116,000
Total Project Cost $ 1,000,000
18
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Civic Center Renovation Communi Services
COiJNCIL GOAL: #9 Develop Civic Center
Planning Document: Parks and Open Space master Plan
TYPE: Facilities YEAR PLANNED: 2011
SUBTYPE: Construction PROJECT NUMBER: PK0200
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
, The 1993 Parks and Open Space Master Plan identified the need to provide a modern
state of the art facility to handle the recreation needs of a population of 55,000 citizens.
A more detailed scope is expected to be identified during the preliminary study phase of
the project. The scope outlined above was based on currently identified needs of the
Sponsor Department.
JUSTIFICATION:
The Parks and Open Space Plan identified the need for a Civic Center to meet the
needs of a diverse community of 55,000 citizens. The Civic Center will provide a
public facility where residents of all ages will be able to come together and
socialize, recreate and participate in a wide variety of community events and
activities.
FUNDING:
Funding for this project will be to issue a General Obligation Bond, if approved by
the 2009 Bond Election Vote.
Projected Cost In: 2011
Estimated Construction Cost $ 361,000
Estimated Acquisition Costs $ -
Contingency� 15.0% $ 54,000
Professional Services @ 23.6% $ 85,000
Total Project Cost $ 500,000
19
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
FM 518 Drainage, Phase I Community
illowick to Cowards Creek Develo ment
COUNCIL GOAL: #5 Improve Drainage
Planning Document: Updated Master Drainage Plan Phase II
TYPE: Drainage YEAR PLANNED: 2010
SUBTYPE: Construction PROJECT NUMBER: NYA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City's recent update of the Master Drainage Plan Phase II included an evaluation of
the downtown drainage area south of Willowick, to Cowards Creek. The proposed
improvements consist of installing parallel storm sewer lines within the existing right-of-
way of FM 518 and adding two(2), seventy-two(72) inch RCP, drainage pipes, along E.
Castlewood and Stones Throw, outfalling to Clear Creek and Cowards Creek
respectively.
JUSTIFICATION:
As identified in the 2008 update, installing the aforementioned improvements would
mitigate the need for on-site detention for downtown properties within 400 feet of the
centerline of FM 518; thus, increasing the viability for economic
development/redevelopment within the downtown area,south of Willowick.
FiTNDING:
Funding for this project comes from multiple sources. $1.5 Million from the 2008
Galveston County Bond Election,$3.485 remaining from the 2003 General Obligation
Bond Election leaving$1.015 Million that shall be funded by Certificate of Obligation.
Projected Cost In: 2010
Estimated Construction Cost $ 4,846,000
Estimated Easement Costs $ -
GCCDD Regional Detention $ -
Contingency @ 15.0% $ 727,000
Professional Services @ 8.8% $ 427,000
Total Pro�ect Cost $ 6,000,000
20
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Libra Ex ansion Libra
COLJNCIL GOAL: #6 Maintain High Level of Public Service
Planning Document: Community Facilities Plan
TYPE: Facilities YEAR PLANNED: 2010
SUBTYPE: Construction PROJECT NUMBER: FLB001
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project provides for the construction of a new Library in order to meet the growing
needs of the community. The deseription is based on a March 2003 study performed to
identify the possible alternatives and to quantify those alternatives. The 26,000 Square
Foot Facility is sized to serve the Community to build-out.
JUSTIFICATION:
The New Library is in accordance with the Houston Area Library System's
recommendations for facility requirements and is recommended by the Friendswood
Public Library Board.
FUNDING:
Funding source for this project shall be from the 2009 General Obligation Bond Election,
if approved.
Projected Cost In: 2010
Estimated Construction Cost $ 4,816,000
Estimated Acquisition Costs $ -
Contingency� 10.0% $ 482,000
Professionai Services @ 14.6% $ 702,000
Total Project Cost $ 6,000,000
21
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Melod Lane - Street Communi Develo ment
COiJNCIL GOAL: Improve Transportation
Planning Document: Major Thoroughfare Plan
TYPE: Thoroughfares YEAR PLANNED: 2010
SUBTYPE: Construction PROJECT NiJMBER: ST0203
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Currently, the roadway exists from F.M. 2351 to northerly City of Friendswood City
Limits and is approximately 6600 feet long. It exists as a 2-lane asphalt road with an
average width of 24 feet and large open ditches located on each side of the right-of-way.
The Major Thoroughfare Plan(MTP)for the City of Friendswood identifies Melody Lane
as a minor collector. The ultimate cross-section proposed for this street is a 2-lane,
undivided concrete roadway(28-feet wide)with curb and gutter. The section of roadway
between F.M. 2351 and the Woodland Park Drive is proposed as a 40-foot wide, three-
lane concrete street with a continuous left turn lane. The purpose of this wider section
with tum lane is to accommodate the significant number of driveways along that stretch
of the roadway. In addition,the drainage ditches will be improved to underground storm
sewer system.
JUSTIFICATION:
In 2002,the City performed an inventory of existing asphalt roads throughout the City in
an effort to determine which of these roads, based upon their age, existing condition and
traffic load volumes and other factors would warrant conversion to concrete. Melody
Lane,based upon these criteria as well as the additional development along this corridor,
became a prime candidate for the conversion program. The conversion of this street to
concrete will reduce the maintenance costs, the scope of maintenance activity, and the
frequency of maintenance on this highly traveled Collector Street.
FUNDING:
The funding source for this project shall be from the 2008 Galveston County Bond
Election.
Projected Cost In: 2010
Estimated Construction Cost $ 2,586,000
Estimated Easement Costs $ 560,000
Contingency @ 25.0% $ 647,000
Professional Services @ 15.7% $ 407,000
Total Pro�ect Cost $ 4,200,000
22
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Park Land Ac uisition Communi Services
COtJNCIL GOAL: #6 Maintain High Level of Public Service
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Park Facilities YEAR PLANNED: 2009
SUBTYPE: Construction PROJECT NLJMBER: Not Yet Assigned
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
In an effort to obtain additional acreage for much needed ball fields,the City Council has
entered into a contract with Wight Realty Interest, Ltd., for the purchase of sixty (60)
acres of potential park land. The said property is located near the vicinity of FM 528 and
the ciTy limits, being more particularly described as Lots 30, 45, 46, and 47 of the
subdivision of the I & GN RR Company Survey No. 22, Abstract 693, and two ten(10)
acre tracts out of BCAD Property ID 180382, 180389,and 180393. The contract dictates
a utility-ready facility in which the City would be able to develop ball fields in the very
near future.
JUSTIFICATION:
The demand for youth ball fields within the City is growing at an alarming rate.
Accordingly, this is an opportunity to utilize sixty (60) acres outside the city limits for
ball fields.
FUNDING:
A Certificate of Obligation shall be issued for the funding of this project.
Total Project Cost $ 2,500,000
23
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
S iew Avenue Public Works
COIJNCIL GOAL: #13 Improve Transportation
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Street YEAR PLANNED: 2010
SUBTYPE: Construction PROJECT NUMBER: Not Yet Assigned
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Skyview Avenue is one of two(2)remaining roadways within the downtown district that
is still an asphalt street, with open ditches along the sides. The proposed improvements
to the roadway include reconstructing a two-lane, concrete curb-and-gutter section, and
approximately 400 feet from the centerline of FM 518.
JUSTIFICATION:
Installing the aforementioned improvements would provide the necessary cross-section
for neighboring property owners to install parkway improvements(i.e. 15-foot sidewalks,
etc) within the said right-of-way; thus, increasing the viability for economic
development/redevelopment within the downtown area.
FLTNDING:
The funding for this project was incorporated in the 2008 Galveston County Bond
Election.
Projected Cost In: 2010
Estimated Construction Cost $ 437,000
Estimated Easement Costs $ -
Contingency @ 20.0% $ 87,000
Professional Services @ 17.4°/a $ 76,000
Total Project Cost $ 600,000
26
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Sunn iew Terrace Public Works
COiJNCIL GOAL: #13 Improve Transportation
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Street YEAR PLANNED: 2010
SUBTYPE: Construction PROJECT NUMBER: Not Yet Assigned
PROJECT DE5CRIPTION:
Sunnyview Terrace is one of two remaining roadways within the downtown district that
is still an asphalt street, with open ditches along the sides. The proposed improvements
to the roadway include reconstructing a two-lane, concrete curb-and-gutter section, and
approximately 400 feet from the centerline of FM 518.
JUSTIFICATION:
Installing the aforementioned improvements would provide the necessary cross-section
for neighboring property owners to install parkway improvements(i.e. 15-foot sidewalks,
etc)within the said right-of-way;thus,increasing the viability for economic
developmendredevelopment within the downtown area.
FiTNDING:
The funding for this project was incorporated in the 2008 Galveston County Bond
Election.
Projected Cost In: 2010
Estimated Construction Cost $ 437,000
Estimated Easement Costs $ -
Contingency @ 20.0% $ 87,000
Professional Services @ 17.4% $ 76,000
Total Project Cost $ 600,000
27
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Various Park Im rovements Communi Services
COUNCIL GOAL: #6 Maintain High Level of Public Service
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Park Facilities YEAR PLANNED: 2009
SUBTYPE: Construction PROJECT NUMBER: Not Yet Assigned
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
In an effort to obtain additional acreage for much needed ball fields,the City Council has
set aside monies for improvements to the Sports Park and the Natural Parks here in the
City. $1.14 million is to be spent in with additional $490 thousand for the next four(4)
years.
JUSTIFICATION:
The demand for youth ball fields within the City is growing at an alarming rate. Repairs
and improvements to City Park Facilities are a premium concern of the Citizens of
Friendswood.
FUNDING:
This project(s) have been scheduled to be voted on at the 2009 General Obligation Bond
Election.
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension
1 Budegeted for Improvements in 2009 1 LS $1,140,000 $ 1,140,000
2 Budegeted for Improvements in 2010 1 LS $490,000 $ 490,000
3 Budegeted for Improvements in 2011 1 LS $490,000 $ 490,000
4 Budegeted for Improvements in 2012 1 LS $490,000 $ 490,000
5 Budeqeted for Improvements in 2013 1 LS $490,000 $ 490,000
Construction Subtotal $ 3,100,000
28
2009-2073 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
WATER&SEWER PROJECTS
FIVE YEAR PLAN
Table 4
Projects in Alphabetical Order
Fiscal YR Estimated Working Proposed
Project Planned ProjectCOSt Z008 Bonds Capital Bonds
42 Inch Water Main Replacement 2010 $ 2,467,00 S - 3 2,487,00 $
Beamer Road Sanitary Sewer Phase I 2009 $ 1,518,00 � -� S 1,518,00 $
Beamer Road Wtr Line 2010 $ 795,0 S - S 795, $
COH Raw Water System Buy-In 2011 $ 3,500,00 5 - S 3,500, $
East FM528 Water Line 2012 $ 2,231,0 $ - $ 2,231, $
Eldorado/Lundy Lane Sanitary Sewer 2012 $ 2,577,0 $ �� $ 2,577, $
Second Elevffied Water Storage Tank Rehabilitation 2013 $ 488, $ �� 5 488, $
Second Take Point Phase II 2011 $ 1,787, S - S 1,787, $
Surface Water Station#2 2012 $ 189,0 5 - $ 189, S
Viejo Drive(E 8 V�Water Line Loop 2012 $ 1,407,0 � - $ 7,407,00 $
Water PIaM Number Five Rehabilitation 2009 $ 2,810,00 $ � S 2,810,00 $
Water Plant Number One Rehabilitation 2012 $ 364,00 S - 5 364, S
Water Plant Number Seven Rehabilitation 2011 $ 1,051,00 3 �� S 1,051, $
Water Plant Number Six Rehabilitation 2009 $ 891,0 $ - $ 891, $
Water Plant Number Two RehabiliWtion 2009 $ 934,00 $ $ 934, $
Total Water 8 Sewer Projeds for 5 Year Plan Estimated $23,005,000 E - S 23,005,000 S -
Projects by Fiscal Year Planned
Project Fiscal YR Estimated pp06 Bonds WO��ng Proposed
Planned ProjeetCos! CapiWl Bonds
Beamer Road Sanitary Sewer Phase 1 2009 $ 1,518,00 S - $ 1,518,00 S
Water Plant Number Five Rehabilitation � 2009 $�2,810,000 S - S 2,810,00 $
Water PIaM Number Six Rehabilitation 2009 $ 891,00 S � $ 891, $
Water Plant Number Two Rehabilitation � 2009 $ 934,00 5 - $ 934, 5 �
42 Inch Water Main Replacement 2010 $ 2,467,00 S - 5 2,487,00 $
Beamer Road Wtr Line 2010 $ 795,0 S - 3 795, $
COH Raw Water System Buy-In 2011 $ 3,500,00 $ - S 3,500,00 $
Second Take Point Phase II 2011 $ 1,787,00 $ � - S 1,787, $
Water Plant Number Seven Rehabilitation 2011 $ 1,051,00 $ - S 1,051,00 $ �
East FM528 Water Line 2012 $ 2,231, $ - 3 2,231,00 S
Eldoredo/Lundy Lane Sanitary Sewer 2072 $ 2,577,0 $ ' - 5 2,577,00 3
Surface Water Statlon#2 2012 $ 189,0 S �� S 189, $
Viejo Drive(E&V�Water Line Loop 2012 $ 1,407,0 $ �� 3 1,407, $
Water Plark Number One Rehabilitation 2012 $ 364,0 $ - S 384, S
Second Elevated Water Stora e Tank Rehabilitation 2013 $ 488,00 $ - 5 488 S
Total Water&Sewer Projects for 5 Year Plan Estimated S 23,005,000 S - S 23,005,000 S
29
TER AND S81NER
FUND PROJECTS
i
i
n
�' `�t�w�v��' �+ � �
I /�` W
3E •
ar�U13
�`
�� ,:
� .�"i��
l
`f U�4
~ �
� `, 10 '
y }, � w .,�.s U< i - j �--�
��.��s utt� � yr� O
� `'�
� ��
�uii� �
� `r����V
h f � � rJ, ~ ` rt
� �1
j l.e./� �'`�...
�f""'� •'�
/� _C'
/"
/
1 .- Y
1 ���
� / � Q
�, 1
� U3•COH Raw Water System Buyk+
� No location Shown
� Ue.42 Nich Wate�Main
i Repkitertrent-COH
� No LocaUOn Shoxm
�i--1 �--�__�'_...
��—� —._._.��\ �
'_ ---'_r� `_—i'
������
� � Leyend
� � pib
( :..:j Secda
�—JGq�mb
` r�icau�dw
Wd��arTMC/ydlvediwmd�nl#mrto�qr�lrt�evavw'mwdYpbtlpKM�fYdMumWwidMvebun�tdana/M019wsMUM MywA?himiPW^��l�M.vMwASM.
NlTNAtY 51GY7S��M wm+mn wY^HW^a'i✓'$bl+a�w Mesd,�S WM.r N+e�b rof Rdd M�d1Y e((wndnraad iW�6am e'7 d+'�'�M'.bce.m M1M.dry aesrv;iom sr!1'un N Uw+awo i�'+a
hli�d+�!YMIIa!'On W�tl HYbmI1m OM���d�Onlci ai0 NuWd OY OOfINOC!'M�pOYW
C��R,W��►f/a!{I �
„°�f�°°°�° Friendswood GIS Mapping
F,:,,a�.nod re..s nsee
`�' '' �ww�1rr.ha�zw i"tquats 5.000'
30
WATER AND SEWER FUND PROJECTS
PROJECT NAME PAGE
U 1 42 Inch Water Main Replacement 32
U 2 Beamer Road Sanitary Sewer Phase I 33
U 3 Beamer Road Wtr Line 34
U 4 COH Raw Water System Buy-In 35
U 5 East FM528 Water Line 36
U 6 Eldorado/Lundy Lane Sanitary Sewer 37
U 7 Second Elevated Water Storage Tank Rehabilitation 38
U 8 Second Take Point Phase II 39
U 9 SurFace Water Station #2 40
U 10 Viejo Drive (E &V� Water Line Loop 41
U 11 Water Plant Number Five Rehabilitation 42
U 12 Water Plant Number One Rehabilitation 43
U 13 Water Plant Num�er Seven Rehabilitation 44
U 14 Water Plant Number Six Rehabilitation 45
U 15 Water Plant Number Two Rehabilitation 46
31
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
42 Inch Water Main Re lacement Public Works
COUNCIL GOAL: #2 Improve Infrastructure
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Utility YEAR PLANNED: 2010
SUBTYPE: Water Distribution Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: NYA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a co-participation project with the City of Houston and other participants in the
movement and upgrade of the main north/south surface water transmission pipeline from
the Southeast Water Purification Plant along State Highway 3.
Texas Department of Transportation plans to widen State Highway 3 and it will be
necessary to remove the existing pipeline from State right-of-way in preparation for that
project. This presents an opportunity to up-size this transmission line when it is removed
from the easement. Costs of replacements, including the cost of real estate and easement
are the responsibility of the Participants utilizing the transmission line. The
removal/construction project will be managed by the City of Houston and Participant's
cost share will be based on a pro-rata use according to their distribution allocation.
Friendswood's distribution allocation from this line is balanced by its distribution
allocation from the 36-inch line on Beamer.
Replacement and movement of the 42-inch line to a location outside of the Highway 3
ROW is planned for completion by 2010 in order for TXDOT's project to proceed on
schedule.
JUSTIFICATION:
The City of Friendswood is a participant in the operation and maintenance of the 42 inch
Water Line. That pro-rata participation is reduced by its participation in the Beamer
Road 36 inch transmission line. The City is dependent on these as the source of surface
water required to meet the Ground Water Reduction Plan as established in 2001 and to
meet growing population requirements through build-out. As such costs for replacement
of the line are shared out on an allocation pro-rata basis.
Projected Cost In: 2010
Estimated Construction Cost $ 2,467,000
Estimated Easement Costs $ -
Contingency @ 0.0% $ -
Professional Services @ 0.0% $ -
Total Project Cost $ 2,467,000
32
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Beamer Road Sanita Sewer Phase I Communi Develo ment
COLJNCIL GOAL: #2 Improve Infrastructure
Planning Document: North Panhandle Service Plan II
TYPE: Utility YEAR PLANNED: 2009
SUBTYPE: Sanitary Sewer Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: US0021
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a phased project based on expectations for economic development activities in the
northern panhandle area of town. This project is based on a service plan completed in
April 2000 and follows the recommendation for Service Plan II in a phased
implementation. This initial phase of creates the primary sub-service area along the north
side of FM 2351 and consists of approximately 4250 lf of 12 inch gravity sewer, a large
lift station (ultimate capacity of 1 MGD) located near the Frankie Carter Park and an 8
inch force main towards the southwest crossing beneath FM 2351 at a point near
Wandering Trail and then to the Wedgewood Lift Station#17. This service plan provides
sewer initially to 136 acres and ultimately to 377 acres.
JUSTIFICATION:
This area has been zoned an "Industrial District." Efforts to attract light industry and
office warehouse business and development into this area are largely dependent on
availability of City service infrastructure. Water service capabilities, with an ultimate
capacity of 12 million gallons per day, have been constructed within this area.
Construction of sewer capabilities would begin to provide the necessary City services
required for future development of the area and would lay the groundwork necessary to
attract long-term investars. Phase One of this project is envisioned to meet the needs of
initial development along FM2351 east to Beamer Rd and to be expandable, through
Phases Two and Three, to meet requirements of future development of the area as it
grows.
Projected Cost In: 2009
Estimated Construction Cost $ 1,009,000
Estimated Easement Costs $ 68,000
Contingency @ 25.0% $ 252,000
Professional Services @ 18.6% $ 787,000
Total Project Cost $ 1,516,000
33
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Beamer Road Waterline Phase I Public Works
COLINCIL GOAL: #2 Improve Infrastructure
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Utility YEAR PLANNED: 2010
SUBTYPE: Water Distribution Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: US0032
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project consists of the installation of 2800 lf of twelve (12) inch waterline that
would extend to Beamer Road, the loop the line back into the existing system by
installing 667 lf eight(8)inch waterline down to FM 2351.
JUSTIFICATION:
This section of the water main stops before it gets to Beamer Road, with all this area
between Beamer and FM 2351,the need for Economic Industrial growth will increase.
Projected Cost In: 2010
Estimated Construction Cost $ 547,000
Estimated Easement Costs $ -
Contingency @ 25.0% $ 137,000
Professional Services @ 20.2% $ 111,000
Total Project Cost $ 795,000
34
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
COH Raw Water S stem Bu -In Public Works
COLJNCIL GOAL: #2 Improve Infrastructure
Planning Document: Ground Water Reduction Plan
TYPE: Utility YEAR PLANNED: 2010
SUBTYPE: Purchase PROJECT NUMBER: UWO501
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a purchase of raw water capacity from the City of Houston through their
centralization of the Raw Water feed system to the Southeast Water Purification Plant.
The City of Houston has for years operated and maintained their raw water collection and
distribution system used for providing the water supply to treatment facilities
individually. A decision was taken recently to share the costs of operations,maintenance
and improvements out among the municipal customer-participants currently acting as co-
owners in the treatment and transmission facilities.
In order for Houston to continue supplying raw water in future and prevent the sole
burden of the cost being shared only by Houston all future co-participant desire more
capacity are to share the cost. In order to do this fairly,all raw water supplies are group to
create a raw water system with a 240 MGD capacity. Friendswood future purchase (6
MGD) in the upcoming expansion will result in an estimated lump sum payment of$4.2
million dollars due to Houston in 2007-2008.
JUSTIFICATION:
This is a component of the Surface Water supply-treatment-& distribution system that the
City has bought into as an outgrowth of the 2001 Ground Water Reduction Plan. The
City of Houston is sharing out the cost of this system with its co-participants.
Projected Cost In: 2011
Estimated Construction Cost $ 3,500,000
Estimated Easement Costs $ -
Contingency @ 25.0% $ -
Professional Services @ 0.0% $ -
Total Project Cost $ 3,500,000
35
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
East FM 528 Waterline Public Works
COiJNCIL GOAL: #2 Improve Infrastructure
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Utility YEAR PLANNED: 2012
SUBTYPE: Water Distribution Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: NYA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project consists of the installation of 2850 lf of fourteen (14) inch waterline that
would extend to water service to the East Service Area, and then loop the line back into
the existing system by installing 6600 lf twelve (12) inch waterline down to Bay Area
Boulevard.
JUSTIFICATION:
The Water Distribution System is stretched thin when it gets beyond Bay Area
Boulevard, south of FM 528. There axe also not enough loops back to sustain pressure in
this area. This will give potable water to the eastern most area of the City and loop the
FM 528 line to the Bay Area Boulevard line.
Projected Cost In: 2012
Estimated Construction Cost $ 7,569,000
Estimated Easement Costs $ -
Contingency @ 25.0% $ 392,000
Professional Services @ 17.2% $ 270,000
Total Pro�ect Cost $ 2,231,000
36
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Eldorado/Lund Lane Sanita Sewer Public Works
COLTNCIL GOAL: #2 Improve Infrastructure
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Utility YEAR PLANNED: 2012
SUBTYPE: Sanitary Sewer Improvements PROJECT NiJMBER: NYA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Service to these areas can be established by construction of a lift station and 12" and 15"
gravity sewer lines. The lift station will be located in the vicinity of the intersection of
Lundy Lane and Eldorado Lane. The project will include 2,500 feet of 6" force main,
5,000 feet of 12" gravity, 1,500 feet of 15"gravity, 800 feet of augured 12" and 15" and
20 manholes. Easements must be obtained for construction and installation of the Lift
Station.
JUSTIFICATION:
To provide sanitary sewer service to this non-serviced area. Currently the service area
consists of 36 large lots and large acreage tracts along Lundy Lane.The area is served by
individual septic systems.
Projected Cost In: 2012
Estimated Construction Cost $ 7,817,000
Estimated Easement Costs $ -
Contingency @ 25.0% $ 454,000
Professional Services @ 16.8% $ 306,000
Total Project Cost $ 2,577,000
37
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Second Take Point Phase II Public Works
COLTNCIL GOAL: #2 Improve Infrastructure
Planning Document: Ground Water Reduction Plan
TYPE: Utility YEAR PLANNED: 2011
SUBTYPE: Water Distribution Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: UW0521
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The improvement proposed in Phase II of the second take point are the construction of a
one million gallon concrete storage tank and the addition of one variable speed pump
capable of delivering 4,000 GPM.
JUSTIFICATION:
The completion of the Phase II of the second take point will allow the full operation of
this site in accordance to The Ground Water Reduction Plan. These additions will
increase the surface water capacity to 12 MGD.
Projected Cost In: 2011
Estimated Construction Cost $ 1,253,000
Estimated Easement Costs $ -
Contingency @ 25.0% $ 313,000
Professional Services @ 17.7% $ 221,004
Total Pro�ect Cost $ 1,787,000
38
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Surface Water Station #Z Public Works
COUNCIL GOAL: #2 Improve Infrastructure
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Utility YEAR PLANNED: 2012
SUBTYPE: Water Distribution Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: NYA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is the City's Second Surface Water Take Point pumping station.The rehabilitation
will include the sand blasting and painting of the existing plant piping,repair and upgrade
of inechanical and electrical components.
JUSTIFICATION:
A preventive maintenance program prolongs the life of the facilities. The piping
components need to be repainted every 10 to 12 years to assure its integrity and
usefulness. Electrical and mechanical components are subject to obsolescence and may
require updating or replacement at this point.
Projected Cost In: 2012
Estimated Construction Cost $ 122,000
Estimated Easement Costs $ -
Contingency a� 25.0% $ 31,000
Professional Services @ 29.5% $ 36,000
Total Project Cost $ 189,000
39
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Vie'o Drive E & Water Line Loo Public Works
COUNCIL GOAL: #2 Improve Infrastructure
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Utility YEAR PLANNED: 2012
SUBTYPE: Water Distribution Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: UW0507
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project has been altered by development activities. Originally, this included the
construction of a 12 inch main along the west boundary line of the Rancho Viejo
subdivision then cross FM 518 and proceeds into the southern portion of the subdivision.
The developer will now construct a large portion of this system north of FM 518.
The project described here consists of the construction of improvements on the south side
and a tie-in to the main on the north side. The remaining project consists of 5500 lf of 12
inch main and the 150 of augured construction beneath the highway along with
approximately 10 fire hydrant assemblies.
JUSTIFICATION:
With the construction of the second surface water take point and the purchase of
additional capacity from the City of Houston;this system improvement is required to
push water to the southern portion of Friendswood. Significant residential development
(i.e. Wesley West property)is anticipated that will increase the demand for water in that
portion of the City. The project will also help to alleviate pressure problems experienced
during periods of peak demand in Rancho Viejo.
Projected Cost In: 2012
Estimated Construction Cost $ 980,000
Estimated Easement Costs $ -
Contingency @ 25.0% $ 245,000
Professional Services @ 18.6% $ 182,000
Total Project Cost $ 1,407,000
40
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Water Plant Number Five Rehabilitation Public Works
COiJNCIL GOAL: #2 Improve Infrastructure
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Utility YEAR PLANNED: 2009
SUBTYPE: Water Distribution Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: UW0018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This rehabilitation will include the replacement of control room, chemical room,
conversion of pumps, and ground storage tank as necessary. Extensive modifications or
replacement to the elevated storage tank will be necessary. The elevated tank either
should be raised or rebuilt or a new tank constructed. Final recommendations will come
from the PER. Replace all valves and piping as necessary. The existing cyclone fence
will be replaced with 8 feet cedar wood.The existing ground storage tank is made of steel
with a capacity of 210,000 gallons. The ground storage tank should be replaced with a
. 500,000-gallon capacity unit. The control room is in need of modification to eliminate
water damage due to rainfall intrusion.
JUSTIFICATION:
This site contains the one million gallon elevated storage tank. Presently, the existing
elevated tank is inefficient in operation due to its relatively low height.Replacement with
a taller tank is one option to be considered. The existing ground storage tank leaks from
the bottom plates and requires extensive repairs. The ground storage tank is 32 years old
and is in need of replacement, possibly with a new 500,000-gallon unit. The existing
control room facility is extremely small and floods easily. Existing controls are aging to
the point of needing total replacement. Correcting this will require modification of this
building and the surrounding area. The vertical turbine pumps should also be replaced
within this project with horizontal units to improve operation efficiency.
Projected Cost In: 2009
Estimated Construction Cost $ 1,990,800
Estimated Easement Costs $ -
Contingency @ 25.0% $ 498,000
Professional Services @ 16.1% $ 321,000
Total Project Cost $ 2,810,000
41
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Water Plant Number One Rehabilitation Public Works
COiJNCIL GOAL: #2 Improve Infrastructure
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Utility YEAR PLANNED: 2012
SUBTYPE: Water Distribution Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: NYA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Rehabilitation of the Blackhawk water plant. The project includes sand blasting and
painting of both ground storage tanks and some minor equipment repairs and
replacements.
JUSTIFICATION:
A preventive maintenance program prolongs the life of the facilities. The ground storage
tanks require blasting and painting every 10 to 12 years to assure their integrity and
usefulness.
Projected Cost In: 2012
Estimated Construction Cost $ 243,000
Estimated Easement Costs $ -
Contingency @ 25.0% $ 61,000
Professional Services @ 24.7% $ 60,000
Total Pro�ect Cost $ 364,000
42
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Water Plant Number Seven Rehabilitation Public Works
COiTNCIL GOAL: #2 Improve Infrastructure
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Utility YEAR PLANNED: 2011
SUBTYPE: Water Distribution Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: UW0026
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The rehabilitation will include the replacement of control room, chemical room,
conversion of pumps, and ground storage tank as necessary: Replace all valves and
piping as necessary. The existing cyclone fence will be replaced with 8 feet cedar wood.
The existing tanks are made of galvanized steel with a capacity of 210,000 gallons and
63,000 respectably and may require replacement with one half-million gallon tank. Final
recommendation to come out of PER. Recondition existing generator set.
JUSTIFICATION:
This well site is in need of a new control room. The existing room is too small for safety
when performing electrical repair work and no longer meets NEC Codes. The existing
switchgear is at the end of its usable life.The room also floods when there is any rainfall.
A new control room/chemical room will eliminate tHis situation. A replacement of the
existing vertical turbine pumps with horizontal units would provide a more efficient
operation. The ground storage tanks should be replaced as necessary with half million
gallon ground storage as dictated by the last ground storage tank inspection. At this time
the replacement of all needed piping and accessories should be done. The existing
automatic transfer switch at the site was hit by lightening and partially destroyed. A new
switch would enable this site to automatically transfer power when needed.
Reconditioning the existing generator set including increasing the diesel tank capacity
would make this emergency power system more reliable.
Projected Costin: 2011
Estimated Construction Cost $ 728,000
Estimated Easement Costs $ -
Contingency @ 25.0% $ 182,000
Professional Services @ 19.4°/a $ 147,000
Total Project Cost $ 1,051,000
43
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Water Plant Number Six Rehabilitation Public Works
COUNCIL GOAL: #2 Improve Infrastructure
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Utility YEAR PLANNED: 2009
SUBTYPE: Water Distribution Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: UW0019
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The rehabilitation will include the replacement of control room, chemical room,
conversion of pumps, and half million-gallon ground storage tank as necessary. Final
recommendations to come from PER. Replace all valves and piping as necessary. The
. existing cyclone fence will be replaced with 8 feet cedar wood. The existing tank is
galvanized steel with a capacity of only 210,000 gallons.
JUSTIFICATION:
The well site is in need of a new control room. The existing controls are located in an
extremely small room and are aging to the point of needing total replacement.The tank is
thirty-two(32)years old and is in need of total rehabilitation. The vertical turbine pumps
will be replaced with horizontal units to provide more efficient operation. The ground
storage tank will be replaced with a one half million gallon tank to provide more storage
capacity.
Projected Cost In: 2009
Estimated Construction Cost $ 617,400
Estimated Easement Costs S -
Contingency @ 25.0% $ 154,000
Professional Services @ 19.5% $ 120,000
Total Project Cost $ 891,000
44
PROJECT NAME SPONSOR DEPARTMENT
Water Plant Number Two Rehabilitation Public Works
COIINCIL GOAL: #2 Improve Infrastructure
Planning Document: None
TYPE: Utility YEAR PLANNED: 2009
SUBTYPE: Water Distribution Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: UW0017
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The rehabilitation of Plant #2 will include the replacement of control room, chemical
room, conversion of pumps and the probable replacement of the ground storage tank as
necessary. Replacement of all valves and piping as necessary.The existing cyclone fence
will be replaced with 8 feet cedar wood.
JUSTIFICATION:
This well site is in need of a new control room. The existing controls are located outside
and are showing the effects of that environment. The tank is 41 years old and made from
galvanized steel with a capacity of only 210,000 gallons and is in need of total
rehabilitation. The vertical turbine pumps will be replaced with horizontal units to
provide more efficient operation.
Projected Cost In: 2009
Estimated Construction Cost $ 646,800
Estimated Easement Costs $ -
Contingency @ 25.0°/a $ 162,000
Professional Services� 79.3% $ 125,000
Total Project Cost $ 934,000
45
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
46
FY 2009-2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
OBLIGATION BOND PROJECTS
BEYOND THE FIVE YEAR PLAN
Table 5
Projects in Alphabetical Order
Fiscal YR Estimated Cost
Project Planned in Project Year
Animal Control Building,Phase II 2018 $ 1,501,00
Annalea/Kings ark/Whitehall Streets 2018 $ 18,553,00
Briarmeadow Drive 2018 $ 1,971,00
Brittany Bay Boulevard Phase I 2018 $ 6,528,20
Brittany Bay Boulevard Phase II 2018 $ 6,476,00
F.M.518 Drainage Improvements Phase II 2015 $ 4,058,00
Falling Leaf Drive 2015 $ 3,207,00
Fire DepartmentTraining Field Upgrades 2016 $ 1,266,00
Fire Station#5 2015 $ 2,642,00
Friendswood Link Road Ph 2 2015 $ 8,397,00
Friendswood Sportspark,Phase II 2015 $ 7,193,00
Old City Park 2016 $ 966,00
Parks Maintenance Building 2017 $ 3,529,00
Pavement Management Master Plan Ph2 2015 $ 2,963,00
Pavement Management Master Plan Ph3 2015 $ 2,984,00
Pavement Management Master Plan Ph4 2016 $ 3,494,00
Pavement Management Master Plan Ph5 2017 $ 2,384,00
Pavement Management Master Plan Ph6 2018 $ 4,543,00
Pavement Management Master Plan Ph7 2018 $ 8,181,00
Public Safety Building,Phase II 2016 $ 4,809,00
Public Works Building Renovation 2018 $ 2,352,00
San Joaquin Parkway Reconstruction 2018 $ 1,142,00
Sub-regional Park 2016 $ 5,832,00
W.Edgewood(FM2351)Drainage Outfall 2018 $ 3,745,00
Wedgewood&Forest Bend Subdivision 2018 $ 46,367,00
West S readin Oaks 2018 $ 756,00
Total Obligation Fund Projects for Beyond 5 Year Plan Estimated $755,839,20
47
FY 2009-2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
WATER�SEWER PROJECTS
BEYOND THE FIVE YEAR PLAN
Table 6
Projects in Alphabeticai Order
Project Fiscal YR Estimated Cost
Planned in ProPect Year
Beamer Road Sanitary Sewer Phase II 2015 $ 2,641,000
Beamer Road Sanitary Sewer Phase III 2016 $ 1,395,000
Biackhawk Treatment Plant Capacity 2014 $ 11,821,000
FM 528-Falcon Ridge to Windsong Sewer 2015 $ 771,000
FM 528-Lundy Lane to Tower Estates Sewer 2015 $ 1,051,000
San Joaquin Estates Water Line Replacement 2016 $ 2,296,000
Water Plant Number Four Rehabilitation 2014 $ 218,000
Water Plant Number Three Rehabilitation 2014 $ 218,000
Windson Sanita Sewer 2014 $ 2,164,000
Total Water&Sewer Projects for 5 Year Plan Estimated $ 22,575,000
48
Appendix A
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ESTIMATING COSTS PAGE
I. GENERAL INFORMATION 51
II. TYPICAL OF ALL PROJECTS 52
A. Contingency 52
B. Professional Services 53
C. Yearly Cost Increases 53
1. Construction Cost Index History Table 54
2. Material Cost Index History Table 55
D. Easement and Land Acquisition Services and 55
Acquisitions
III. TYPICAL FACILITY AND PARKS PROJECTS 56
1. RS Means Calculator Report 56
2. Facility Cost Estimate Worksheet 57
IV. INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 58
1. Bid Tabulation Sheet 58
49
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
50
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ESTIMATING COST
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
The first Capital Improvement Projects Manual created in 1999, did not have cost
estimates made a part of the document nor did it have a description (scope) of the work
for the projects that were planned. The 2002 Capital Improvement Projects Manual
started to integrate not only cost estimates based on available data, but it added
descriptions, sponsoring department, contingencies, and an organized plan for
prioritization of projects for the next 20 years. Although there was a giant leap in the
quality of the Capital Improvement Projects Manual, there still remained items that could
be upgraded and which had not been planned in the 2002 CIP Manual:
1. Project cost estimates, though more detailed to include engineering services,
easements, etc., may have been inaccurate due to the significant lapse in time
from when the manual was approved and when a project was actually bid.
This was evident in the 2003 GO Bond Elections, where some of the project
scopes had to be narrowed to get projects into the budgeted funds for them.
2. Even with current and accurate cost estimates, project finances for future
projects did not account for increases in construction costs which would
increase the total cost of the project. This also was a contributing factor to the
Project Estimate vs.Bond Fund issues that were seen in 2005 and 2006.
3. Funding sources and other opportunities to either share or eliminate the cost to
the City to build these projects.
The 2007 version of the CIP Manual has addressed many of these items that needed to be
upgraded and/or redesigned. Additionally, the presentation makes the document more
user friendly; continual updating of cost estimates and other data will help make this
document more reliable. Appendix A is intended to give City Council and staff technical
information on how estimates for projects are derived. The most important thing to
remember is that all estimates are based on best practices and on the initial information
given(scope) from the sponsoring departments. More accurate estimates cannot be given
until a project has either programming and schematics or preliminary engineering reports
(PER), which at that time will narrow the scope of work down to a buildable project that
can receive competitive bids. Staff has determined that when a project enters the five-
year plan,programming and schematics or PER's should be initiated.
This 2009 CIP Manual Update has incorporated even more features to help bring the
project cost to a desirable and realistic estimate. All unit prices for materials for Utilities,
Streets, Drainage and Parks have been updated and made consistent. The pricing itself
uses the Texas Department of Transportation (T�OT) overall averages of bid items as
the basis of the unit prices. Additionally, data from AMTEK is also utilized. Despite the
two sources, there are times that certain cost items cannot be located. For those, staff
brought in estimated prices based on similar materials and methods of construction from
51
other City projects. The other new feature is the pricing of Easements or Land
Acquisitions. This has been split into two distinct categories the first being the actual
Acquisition Cost and the second is for Acquisition Services which will fall under the
heading of professional services.
II. TYPICAL OF ALL PROJECTS
Once a project is identified, the sponsoring departments, along with Community
Development-Projects create a General Scope of Work (description). Working from the
scope, and any planning documents, a very preliminary cost estimate is started. Three
items that are the same in all types of projects are A) Contingency, B) Professional
Services and C)%Yearly Inflation Factor.
A. Contingency:
1) As stated in the introduction, there are three different percentages used for
contingencies. Having no PER or Programming for a project leaves the
scope of work as a general project. Items and quantities for construction
are not specifically known. There is no type of materials given and all
underground utilities, site work and soil conditions are also unknown.
Some projects might not even have an exact site location where the project
will be located. Due to these many unknown factors, a project can
increase dramatically from conception stage to PER/Programming stage.
Therefore, a 25%contingency is used,though it may not cover all possible
problems that may occur before the actual design is started.
2) Upon receipt of the PER or Programming, there is a definite idea of the
scope of the project. The scope is then scaled up or down to fit the needs
of the project. Quantities far estimates, materials and other unknown
factors are, for the most part, identified and included in an engineer's or
architect's cost estimate for the project that is given to staff for review. At
this point it is determined if there is enough money budgeted to complete a
project or if the scope needs to be redefined or the project tabled. This is
one of the most important reasons that when a project is entering the five-
year plan, a PER or Programming/Schematic should be authorized to
provide more detail. Percentage of the contingency is reduced to 15%
since most of the unknowns have either been eliminated or addressed.
One outstanding item is the geotechnical work which is not started until
after this step, when an Engineer or Architect is awarded a contract to start
actually design of a project for bids.
3) Once the design has been completed and approved by staff, the project is
then advertised for bids. There may still be some items that are additive or
deductive alternates, or other unforeseen circumstances, but on the whole
the project design is as accurate as possible. The contingency is reduced
to 5% and is held at this level until completion of the project. When the
bids are received, the contingency is also adjusted to be 5% of the actual
52
awarded bid. Staff is recommending that this stay as shown for any
unforeseen problems that might be incurred and saves time on number and
quantity of change orders. Any of this contingency that is used shall be
documented and reported to the City Manager and City Council, as is all
financial activities on projects.
B. Professional Services
Professional Services include, but are not limited to; Engineering/Architectural
Services, Geotechnical Investigation, Surveying, Easement Acquisition and
Testing Services. Professional services start at a 15% level with no PER or
Programming accomplished, though there are a few that start at 18% due to the
abnormal amount of surveying that needs to be completed. After the City
receives PER/Programming services, the percentage is reduced to 12% until a
proposal for design of the project is awarded. Once the proposal for professional
services has been signed, then the actual contract amounts are used from that
point forward.
In this 2009 CIP Manual Update, it was determined to use the Engineering Fee
Curve for Harris County to determine the Professional Services costs and as an
estimate of costs for extra items, such as Geotechnical and Surveying. The
Engineering Fee Curve is derived from the total estimated construction cost of a
project. A review of previous Engineering Contracts has shown the total fees be
split approximately 20% for the Preliminary, 60% for Design, 5% for Contract
Phase and 15% for the Construction Phase. Extras to a contract such as
Geotechnical, surveying, etc. on average are equal to the design amount and
Testing is averaging about 1%.
C. Yearly Cost Increases
Budgeting on any project is problematic inside the construction industry, being
that it is volatile in its very nature. Material costs can be driven up when there is
a shortage of raw material, transportation cost rise or merely a rise in crude oil
prices. Labor is a steadier component yet as with increase that are affected by
materials shortage, there can also be shortages of qualified labor. Sometimes
costs of material and/or labor can decrease as an over-abundant supply of both
enters the market. Forces like these even tax some of the best estimators, but
trying to project the cost of any project multiple years into the future is risky.
Outside forces that do not normally control the market flux sometimes have great
impacts as a result of unforeseeable events. In 2005-2006 there was a massive
increase in lumber prices alone due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,which also put
a burden on the workforce due to the influx of people who evacuated Louisiana
and East Texas. In 2004 there was a sharp rise in concrete materials that stemmed
from a decision of a railroad company to cut back its hauling capacity of
aggregates from Central Texas, effectively raising the price of a cubic yard of
concrete from$55 to near$70.
53
Staff uses and monitors two sources of Cost Reporting in the construction
industry. The Engineering News-Record is a weekly construction magazine that
monitors various types of costs indices in a 20-city market. These are reported on
monthly, with each weekly publication dedicated to a different sector in the
construction industry. Though the immediate national impact can be seen,the one
downfall is that all indices are a national average, and local markets can be even
more volatile than that. Staff, through the use of the Construction Cost Index
(CCI) and the Materials Cost Index (MCI), take the yearly increase for both and
add them together for the yearly increase. Since there is no CCI or MCI for
immediate future years, the past five years are averaged and that becomes the
number for the immediate future years. The following two charts are taken from
the ENR website:
Construction Cost index History(1908-2008)
HOW ENR BUILDS THE INDEX: 200 hours of common labor at the 20-city average of
common labor rates,plus 25 cwt of standard structural steel shapes at the mill price prior to
1996 and the fabricated 20-city price from 1996,plus 1.128 tons of portland cement at the
20-city price,plus 1,088 board ft of 2 x 4 lumber at the 20-city price.
�NNUAL
JAN FEB MAR AFR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC AVG
1990 4680 4685 4691 4693 4707 4732 4734 4752 4774 4771 4787 4777 4732
1991 4777 4773 4772 4766 4801 4818 4854 4892 4891 4892 4896 4889 4835
7992 4888 4884 4927 4946 4965 4973 4992 5032 5042 5052 5058 5059 4985
1993 5071 5070 5106 5167 5262 5260 5252 5230 5255 5264 5278 5310 5210
1994 5336 5371 5381 5405 5405 5408 5409 5424 5437 5437 5439 5439 5408
1995 5443 5444 5435 5432 5433 5432 5484 5506 5491 5511 5519 5524 5471
1996 5523 5532 5537 5550 5572 5597 5617 5652 5683 5719 5740 5744 5620
1997 5765 5769 5759 5799 5837 5860 5863 5854 5851 5848 5838 5858 5826
1998 5852 5874 5875 5883 5881 5895 5921 5929 5963 5986 5995 5991 5920
1999 6000 5992 5986 6008 6006 6039 6076 6091 6128 6134 6127 6127 6059
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC AVG
2000 6130 6160 6202 6201 6233 6238 6225 6233 6224 6259 6266 6283 6221
2001 6281 6272 6279 6286 6288 6318 6404 6389 6391 6397 6410 6390 6343
2002 6462 6462 6502 6480 6512 6532 6605 6592 6589 6579 6578 6563 6538
2003 6581 6640 6627 6635 6642 6694 6695 6733 6741 6771 6794 6782 6694
2004 6825 6862 6957 7017 7065 7109 7126 7188 7298 7314 7312 7308 7115
2005 7297 7298 7309 7355 7398 7415 7422 7479 7540 7563 7630 7647 7446
2006 7660 7689 7692 7695 7691 7700 7721 7722 7763 7883 7911 7888 7751
2007 7880 7880 7856 7865 7942 7939 7959 8007 8050 8045 8092 8089 7966
2008 8090 8094 8109 8112
Base: 1913=100
http://enr.ecnext.com/coms2/article_fecosu0805-constlndexHist 6/2/2008
54
E��°� ���t�r§a�� ��i�� I�d�x (1983-2008)
1913=100 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1983 1624 1656 1641 1642 1656 1662 1684 1684 1653 1645 1631 1631
1984 1622 1628 1632 1646 1639 1626 1614 1613 1616 1606 1606 1602
1985 1603 1608 1604 1610 1610 1616 1645 1637 1619 1619 1623 1611
1986 1607 1609 1612 1621 1654 1655 1643 1633 1639 1648 1645 1644
1987 1646 1638 1648 1655 1650 1646 1655 1665 1665 1675 1664 1701
1988 1686 1686 1693 1701 1698 1699 1697 1708 1698 1688 1689 1685
1989 1689 1675 1676 1681 1683 1684 1691 1706 1710 1709 1708 1708
1990 1700 1707 1711 1714 1728 1743 1742 1729 1727 1723 1718 1700
1991 1701 1695 1693 1682 1686 1691 1708 1753 1735 1726 1724 1712
1992 1712 1704 1738 1751 1774 1787 1777 1771 1768 1784 1777 1788
1993 1807 1806 1846 1944 2098 2092 2010 1972 1946 1952 1970 1995
1994 2036 2093 2109 2120 2113 2083 2064 2055 2048 2039 2029 2029
1995 2031 2024 2009 1999 1989 1987 1996 1993 1965 1968 1979 1974
1996 1973 1977 1985 2000 2013 2028 2039 2062 2094 2139 2168 2072
1997 2206 2207 2189 2254 2262 2293 2269 2238 2225 2207 2166 2195
1998 2185 2186 2177 2189 2187 2178 2169 2172 2192 2177 2174 2165
1999 2173 2161 2151 2158 2156 2157 2184 2208 2230 2228 2211 2192
2000 2197 2224 2228 2225 2241 2219 2198 2191 2177 2163 2151 2127
2001 2122 2108 2116 2104 2105 2120 2189 2152 2097 2097 2088 2056
2002 2045 2045 2062 2039 2063 2070 2070 2049 2044 2029 2016 1992
2003 1987 1981 1961 1960 1970 1961 1954 1976 1974 2003 2031 2011
2004 2008 2056 2139 2219 2295 2345 2361 2376 2431 2452 2448 2420
2005 2402 2399 2417 2483 2489 2492 2486 2466 2460 2494 2548 2575
2006 2584 2584 2572 2578 2570 2585 2607 2609 2608 2608 2637 2596
2007 2584 2583 2546 2551 2578 2572 2600 2599 2597 2590 2581 2577
2008 2578 2577 2600 2606 2633
http://enr.ecne�.com/comsite5/bin/comsite5.pl?page=enr document... 6/2/2008
D. Easement and Land Acquisition Services and Acquisitions
The last new feature in this 2009 CIP Manual Update is the inclusion of Easement
and Land Costs and Easement and Land Acquisition Services costs. Historically,
the City has asked for landowners to donate easements to the City and very
seldom did the City purchase easement rights. The Texas Legislature enacted
HB 1495, establish a change to the Local Government Code, Chapter 402,
Subsection B, to establish a "Landowner Bill of Rights." The law states that the
Attorney General (AG) shall draft these changes and this law shall be effective
February 1, 2008. The "Landowner Bill of Rights" is on the City of
Friendswood's and AG's websites in compliance with the law. Furthermore, the
law also states that an easy-to-understand explanation of these rights, as placed on
the AG website, shall be given to each landowner for which real property or
easements are sought. Due to this law and for a consistent policy and procedure
to follow, City staff drafted and put in place a policy for procedures for easement
and land acquisition. Therefore, City staff deemed it prudent to use T�OT
estimates for Easement and Land Acquisition Services, Appraisal Services and
55
approximate costs for easement and land acquisition based on the County
Appraisal District appraised values.
III. TYPICAL FACILITY AND PARK PROJECTS
Both City Facilities and Parks have one thing in common that our other projects normally
do not; each has a building in its construction. Construction of buildings has many facets
because of the many trades and materials and is the most volatile prices of all Capital
Projects. Prices in the state vary as much as prices in the cities themselves, and there is
no pricing consistency for these items. A bid can vary more than twenty (20)percent, no
matter how detailed the specifications and designs are for the buildings. The best way to
accomplish reasonable consistency it to use a reporting company that samples a variety of
building types, materials and labor. The company that we use for this is RS Means,
which is a subsidiary of Reed Construction Data, a top reporting and data gathering
company for construction in the United States. When inputting information, we can get
the type of facility, the square footage and the local area,which will return a low, median
and high range of construction cost and architectural design. Once again, the
construction spectrum can be seen basically due to the types of material, for example:
Hardi-plank siding would be cheaper than brick veneer or CMU block, but decorative or
split-face block would be more than CMU. Below is a sample of the information that is
available from RS Means:
RSbitam Pay:�I ol 2
�
n�c.ccw
b�h.MPnt•4e�f�^��>R9'AFe!T•�Ntr
1'�P�ux'La . .... . . ...... ..
9HOY14NO!!rvu "..... ...._. .,..__.-...... .
���p��� �'R9Means+]ukkCcal EsdmaMe R
CoaiWcfiiO:iam `hqeqTrtr U6rrryeYPambn '.
kucrrcnc.es,�ss•, 'MaM U4esry �
'M`�ir4 �'�eq�Wyfpy�' #KI.11�i<Y WNIi CU�fclt!lf�l'oGk 9eCI-4Q i RiCvef.C.FILirt2�
�FlSHO 7lnhei�.p ' ' �
� ������r� (tLn§a1� OALVE8T4N,T% �
1 rar '.@uYts� 2 , (
.fi:.S ::SmM1'NS9NPAi ti y
(i'iLC 1 L�t5�:.. '. `� *.�C�.. ���-
l'uvamC ti.tirt:?tu, 'f��{gl.l' i1,Y36 �
CuY a4Ma.N�r�W^).vo'.w�d+
irvnM.:f ftH N� (D�aHNeaM iWe rcm�n imwa4newM
cmnen�.tu.mu::N,��.a.e i�M�a Unlen �mwamw+n
i
4trlt �
so+Vkn �wTrn6 NotMCtuaed i
r-.-_�__ .. ........... ..._.__.__,. __...._�__. ._�..___....1
Bwinsur.i,��+v�ne jCC?LR�figKS lom R�d M�Uh E
nva�S.ie+ �Tnr syd3f:3w fUn,sm s�Ala.ers,
RSMaa.rx (Cweam�'aOree�aaatliha# it76A1tl {Rl3.N5 3750.719�-.
Atln�tid:7 :.
CcRYtltt> ;NCSifmhMFeN: 501.►1! 590.916 =11�.W'.
AmulUS ;�Tpy�yydYqC�C L1,M{,�it iLMi�7H t1,M�
NnipfFAq ..............._.�'_""""_.. __.....,... _�_"""_"_"
�o� � WYWIWC�11a�Cw�pM�wM+�[MbWMFW�wICwIDA �
MM Yw 6MS dsNtl Pm�U�c11�T
CW�yedwerni�F �
AWL1lM i!9Wn1.f•MJ EA1!9i.�.�OM 1�alWY.
�,, � , i m�.��.sw«.wdw�..�+�a.nara�ea � .
,u.,a � w�deew�t.e�nrruaewrunwr.ae�s.aw+rw�roe.
. ,,;., .:��� � �peer4bravnanma�p�aMd'Ju�aewlllM..n..ih.fMarysewrN
F
I's( y •.�i �cfc4l b >u0 ue� �
f'b3; i
_. ..... _. . ..�..
.•IIIywY�IMM�e7kFfNfilMIOOfYltlWMA'IIMCYdplpN�p�iYl�lery i
P�bP�P�v►'uawt A[Twrat(�qaw�ma M�l'r�+3�v^�^�1'k
I 6Wa.RSNIa Wr�ppmenppYlq'1bMYe1Im wtrM�Mbn.
;HSMnrbs`ue�mw�0'+�iaP�ubwr+mvsx��
. qyq�dlnry>wrpYw�idNbba�Ia�iMi�M�mBWasba
j/LLMVUMMAMroYYRrypr�+Yks.eyMMOrdwR�+�9atdarM i
! mnrt�wMtlr7aRr�Wlmm[waMa1�_ _..__.. �i
htqa:uwuMas+vewu.um��atima�atV��9�r.��BiP'P+��'I.ibrar��Expun�w�IxoJr_, 4l?I?'!UOi
56
.�.�.�
In using the RS Means calculator, there are only four things that can be input from the
user, Project Name, Building Type, Square Footage and Zip Code. Everything else is
output from the site and then the basics entered into our Facility Spreadsheet. The
median is number is used as this will normally give options on finishes, trims etc. As
good as this estimating tool is, it lacks thorough knowledge of the particular Capital
Project, which would include other items for the building that RS Means does not. The
RS Means calculator should be used only for estimating the cost of the building. Other
factors such as land purchase, detention, extension of infrastructure, utilities or furniture
are not accounted for. City staff has created a spreadsheet that incorporates all these other
items that are necessary to complete a Facility/Park Project. City staff has created a
Capital Projects form as shown below:
PR03ECT:�ihrary EcPaosWn flsal Year Planna4: 20Cf
UMY UnRs U�it UN1 Exk�ded
DescNplfw� QtY �Mea P�ea Prico
L landtlnaW�nDdawnCmsbl 0.4$ Ac ftt3,111.t1 t64,�00.00
A,��lind Purchase Pa Acro 1.0 AC #1A3,OQA00
B. AaestoPurchaso' D.5 AC 5743,603.OQ� 56A.351.35
C, Claeing Cosri . 1 lS � 0% S0.9U
D, land lo be devebped 6.S RC
il. SiM:imp(OVw�Mnt 1 14 S2Si,700.uD S2 7W.OQ
q, pelenlion Ip be Upvebped 620 ACFF 521,780.D0 54It0,A5
8: $WCrt15eW% Ob� AC 557,889.00 � 516.047.03
C: OYt�wwik: 0.5 AC 319,736.00 � SE.881.20
� 0. UN�wa6er.xwer,ebchic�gaz t L5 313�04S.OS .iYJ.61Z.OS �
E py�yy� .�82 3Y 542.00 5198.187.00 .
� F. LaiMSCapkg 1 l9 St5�000,00 515.000.00 �.
Ifl. SulldMyNNfG�oW1 742�,Q 3F �127.17 f1.�600.09 �
. �A.�� Nel Buldm7 uea �31 SF .
g. Aip�wy Fadi6es 0 SF 571$.79 50.00
N. Ep�d�Ly Mma t LS i100.000.00 =100.OW.06
A, t.�nryE�ar t LS 5�60.0000o ito0.000.00
. ot� Cosls �
NOTES:
Cosi Wcm hom R5 Mem�me�sn catit astimate a��d oaAraaas overhesd�W R�la a lrbra�yr
�Aduai Cost d land twrthasetl wac 584.357.35
A. LafW Cost pw'Atre is b8sed on ihe cost per kcro ot tlia P�i68c Satety Bu�lding.
B, OryM�ape aod ot ConL4uGbn ia basd an ACFT o[ficravadon needeC per GCC00 Oesign Crileris
usQro tha s4nq�fied I�tahai.
C. Wa1er a�M SeKnr basad on aduy casl W inetaNation nt pew construtlion u�ing Puh�ic Sufety BuJdirg .
SMe Contraet
D, Elecd�c C�i 6asdd on approximate 2K Matl./ICWmt mst w�lt vary Aepei�d'my an actv�loea(!w5 af
Pioja�.transfarm8r bu�1tl'vp bxt and di�tance fran cverheed pcimery YneE:�
LNx�ry Expambn PlannW Xur. 2005
� Unit ExEe+tded
Mea. MkA Ptica
LaM{In�p ebeing cmts) �0.45 AC 3t43,if 1 584,000
Ske improvemam 1 lS �i254.700 5255,000
gagAiagprea�Grpssj 11220 SF 5127 51,332.500
Spedaltytbms . 1 l3 5f00000 E100.000
' Tofal Cemwctlon Cwt .6Y,�00
In using this form, the useable square footage which has been established for to the CIP
by the Sponsoring Department is then input and given a tare factor of 03 (30%) for
unusable dead space. In the actual design of the project,this can be reduced to as little as
0.1, but on the average stays around 0.25 to 0.3 planning purposes. Also included in this
57
is the option to either buy retention/detention for the storm sewer or install our own,
given how many acres that we will disturb on the project. Figured into the site utilities is
the average probability of having to extend or add new service for Sanitary Sewer, Water,
Electric, Telephone and/or Cable. Most site improvements are above and beyond the
basic scope of work for building construction, as is the specialty items, which would
include items such as computers, furniture or other specialty items that are unique to just
this building. Facilities and Parks Contracts are unique in one other way-normally these
two types of projects are Lump Sum Contracts in that there are no line item prices.
IV. INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Infrastructure projects to develop or repair water, sewer, drainage and streets are usually
line item projects. There are a various number of different items or sizes to track and
given quantities of each are known, unlike on lump sum contracts. Staff uses two ways
to keep up-to-date on pricing for each of these items. The first way that is utilized is the
bid tabulation sheets from previous bid projects. As long as the bid has not been too long
ago,the numbers for the individual items can be used and adjusted for inflation using the
yearly cost increase. An example of a bid tabulation sheet is given below:
Bid Tabulation For: Pro'ect Name
CONTRACTOR NAME: CoMractor 1 Contractor 2 ConVactor 3
Item Item � Unit Unit Extended Unit Extended Unit F�ctended
Number Descri ion Unit Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount
1 14"Watedine-O n Cu[ LF 954 $44.00 $41,976. $48.00 $45 792.00 $87.00 $82,998.
2 12"Waterline-O en Cut LF 670 $32.0 $21 440. $33.00 $22 110.00 $72.00 $48 240.
3 8"Waterline-O en Cut LF 20 $25.0 $500.0 $131.00 $2 620.00 $119.00 $2 380.00
4 12"Waterline-Directional Drill LF 1060 $80.0 $84,800. $140.8 $149279.80 $228.0 $241 680.00
5 14"Gate Vale EA 2 $4120.0 $8 240. $6 843. $13 686. $5 600. $11 200.0
6 12"Gate Valve EA 2 $1 580. $3160. $2 580.00 $5160.0 $2 300. $4 600.0
7 8"Gffie Valve EA 1 $975.0 $975. $1 881.00 $1 881. $1 400. $1,400.0
8 2"Tem ra Blow off Com lete EA 1 $465.0 $465. $1,000.00 $1 000.0 $980. $980.0
9 Fire H drarrt Assembl 4'Bu EA 3 $2 550. $7 650. $3 234.00 $9 702.0 $3 700.0 $11 100.
10 Extra De th Bu VF 6 565.0 $390. $131. $786.0 $68. $408.
11 Connection to Existin 14"Waterline EA 1 $990.0 $990. $1,227. $1 227.00 $1,500. $1 500.5
12 Trench Safe S stem LF 50 $62. $3100. 520. $1 000. $0.5 $25.00
13 TurfEstablishment AC 0.5 $2W0. $1000.00 $2000.00 $1000. $2690. $1345.00
14a "ExVa"Bank Sand CY 100 $10. $1 000. $10.00 $1 000. $10. $1.000.0
14b "Extra"Crushed Limestone CY 50 $25. $1 250. $25.00 $1250.00 $25.00 $1 250.
14c "Extra"Cemerrt Stabilized Sand TN 5 530.0 $150.0 $30.00 $150.00 $30. $150.0
14d "Extra"Class A Concrete CY 25 $100. $2 500.0 $100.00 $2,500.00 $100.0 $2,500.0
14e "Extra"Reirdorced Steel LB 250 $1. $250.0 $1.00 $250.00 $1.0 $250.
14f "ExVa"Turf Establishment SY 100 $2. $250.0 $3.00 $300.00 $2.50 $250.0
180,086.00 $260,693.80 $413,256.50
One drawback to using such bid tabulation is that there sometimes are no similar or exact
bid items from one bid to another;therefore there may not be a unit price to import to this
new sheet. To alleviate this, staff subscribes to a website that specifically does utility
construction reporting. The City has free access to the data and bid tabulations from all
over the Houston area and the region, and in return we share copies of our bid tabulations
to add to the database. Staff can search for a variety of items that the City would not
normally use on our projects or have prices for. This service also gives staff access to the
Texas Department of Transportation(T�cDOT) average bids for the area and the state.
58