The North Omaha Village Revitalization Plan Communities ... Omaha... · Mike Saklar, Sienna Francis House Stan Rone, The Worship Center, N. 24th Street Church of God East Village

The North Omaha Village Revitalization Plan is the intellectual property of Alliance Building Communities (ABC) and the Nebraska Invest-ment Finance Authority (NIFA). No part of this document or the related fi les can be altered or modifi ed without the prior written permission

of ABC.

OPINION OFPROBABLE COST

APRIL 28, 2011

NORTH OMAHAVILLAGE REVITALIZATION PLAN

2 acknowledgements

3Table O

f Contents

Executive CommitteeAlliance Building Community, Inc.; Omaha, NebraskaMichael Maroney, Omaha Economic Development CorporationStan Timm, Omaha Housing AuthorityTed Simpson, Nebraska Investment Finance AuthorityTim Kenny, Nebraska Investment Finance AuthorityVicki Quaites-Ferris, Empowerment NetworkWillie Barney, Empowerment Network

Elected OfficialsBen Gray, City CouncilBrenda Council, Nebraska State SenatorChris Rodgers, County CommissionerFred Conley, Metropolitan Community College/Omaha Housing AuthorityFreddie J. Gray, Omaha Public School Board, Learning CommunityJohn Ewing, Douglas County TreasurerTanya Cook, Nebraska State Senator

Strategic AdvisorsBen Gray, City CouncilEd Cochran, Greater Omaha ChamberGary Wasdin, City of Omaha Library DirectorJohn Mackiel, Omaha Public Schools SuperintendentKristin Williams, The Sherwood FoundationMelinda Pearson, City of Omaha Park, Recreation & Public Property DirectorRick Cunningham, City of Omaha Planning DirectorConnie Spellman, Omaha by DesignRobert Stubbe, City of Omaha Public Works Director

North Omaha Village Strategy TeamBen Gray, City CouncilBrenda Council, Nebraska State SenatorBrian Meade, Kutak RockBridget Hadley, City of Omaha Planning DepartmentChris Rodgers, County CommissionerFreddie J. Gray, Omaha Public School Board, Learning CommunityJohn Ewing, Douglas County TreasurerMayor Jim Suttle’s OfficePatricia Peterson, Kutak RockSis. Marilyn Ross, Holy Name HousingTeresa Hunter, Family Housing Advisory Services Executive DirectorKen Dobson (Green Consultant)

East Village Advisory CommitteeAlex Bane, Long School Neighborhood AssociationAnnette Artherton, Omaha Economic Development CorporationBridget Hadley, City of Omaha Planning DepartmentCurt Simon, MetroDan Burkey, Creighton UniversityDavid G. Brown, Greater Omaha Chamber

Deborah Bunting, Nebraska Arts CouncilDeborah Keating, First National BankDennis O’Neal, First National BankFred Conley, Metropolitan Community College/Omaha Housing AuthorityJohn J. Griffith, Catholic CharitiesKen Johnson, City of Omaha Planning DepartmentMichael Maroney - ChairMike Saklar, Sienna Francis HouseStan Rone, The Worship Center, N. 24th Street Church of God

East Village Planning ConsultantsJohn Trelawney Hoal, H3 Studio; Project DirectorBryan Taylor Robinson, H3 Studio; Project ManagerTimothy Breihan, H3 Studio; Urban DesignerEduardo Ponce, H3 Studio; DesignerLaura L. Lyon, H3 Studio; ResearchWayne Mortensen, H3 Studio; Project Manager (Former)Jessica Swann, H3 Studio; DesignerBob Lewis, Development StrategiesMatt Welti, Development StrategiesPerry Poyner, Alley Poyner Macchietto ArchitectureLaura Alley, Alley Poyner Macchietto ArchitectureJohn Ogomo, Alley Poyner Macchietto ArchitectureKatie Sanwick, Alley Poyner Macchietto ArchitectureTrina Westman, Alley Poyner Macchietto ArchitectureAl Hottovy, Leo A. Daly CompanyElizabeth Hunter, Leo A. Daly CompanyChris Rupert, Leo A. Daly Company

West Village Advisory CommitteeCharles Parks, Montclair Neighborhood AssociationDavid Krecek, Board - Prospect Hill Cemetery Association James Thele, City of Omaha Planning DepartmentKris Carter, Highlander Neighborhood AssociationPatrice Slaven - City of Omaha Parks &Recreation & Public PropertyRichard Brown, CEO, Charles Drew Health CenterStan Timm - ChairSelwyn Bachus, Pastor Salem Baptist ChurchSharif Liwaru, Malcolm X Memorial FoundationTom Warren - President, Urban League of NebraskaTony Welchen, Board - Omaha Housing Authority

West Village Planning ConsultantsCharles Huddleston, Schemmer Associates; Principal-in-ChargeChristopher Solberg, Schemmer Associates; Community PlanningJohn Williams, Schemmer Associates; Landscape ArchitectLarry Jacobsen, Schemmer Associates; Architect/PlannerLinda Beacham, Schemmer Associates; Public ParticipationMatthew Sutton, Schemmer Associates; InfrastructurePatricia Birch, Schemmer Associates; Housing DesignTanya Cook, City Girl Communications; Public Involvement Consultant

Opi

nion

of

Pro

babl

e C

ost

4 summary

Opinion of P

robable Cost

5V I L L A G E R E V I T A L I Z A T I O N P L A N

T he Village Revitalization Plan is an ambi-tious and long-range vision that combines private redevelopment dollars leveraged by public investments in streets, infrastruc-

ture, parks and open space, and specific community and civic anchor institutions. The following Opinion of Probable Cost has been developed in conjunction with the implementation strategy and plan presented in the Village Revitalization Plan Final Report. This Opinion of Probable Cost outlines the probable costs for the various public expenditures and private investments that comprise each of the five primary Implementation Phases of concentrated and coordinated development to leverage each investment for maximum long-term impact. The Implementation Phasing strategy, as de-scribed in detail both in this document and in the Vil-lage Revitalization Plan Final Report, does not prohibit existing or future incremental development projects from occurring outside of these phases, but does maxi-mize the catalytic potential of the Village Revitalization Plan in stimulating new growth and investment in the community of North Omaha.

Opi

nion

of

Pro

babl

e C

ost

6

PHASE 1 SUMMARY

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM:

Cultural Buildings (11): $177.6 M TOTAL

Mixed-Use Buildings (29): $242.1 M TOTAL

Multi-Family Housing (11): $71.3 M TOTAL

Single Family Attached Row Housing (26): $4.9 M TOTAL

Single Family Detached Urban Housing (93): $17.6 M TOTAL


INFRASTRUCTURE: $34.7 M TOTAL

PUBLIC SPACE IMPROVEMENTS: $45.0 M TOTAL PHASE 1 TOTAL COST: $604.1 M

PHASE 2 SUMMARY









PUBLIC SPACE IMPROVEMENTS: $7.0 M TOTAL

PHASE 2 TOTAL COST: $459.9 M

PHASE 3 SUMMARY








INFRASTRUCTURE: $7.0 M



Opinion of P

robable Cost


PHASE 4 SUMMARY











PHASE 5 SUMMARY











VILLAGE REVITALIZATION PLAN TOTAL





Single Family Attached Row Housing (54): $83.5 TOTAL





VILLAGE REVITALIZATION PLAN TOTAL COST: $1.43 B

Opi

nion

of

Pro

babl

e C

ost

8

IMPLEMENTATION PHASING

The entirety of the Village Revitalization Plan—com-prised of numerous infrastructure and public works projects, large-scale private investment, and public-private development partnerships—is a long-range vision that will likely take 30 years or more to fully real-ize. However, it is important that this plan develop and identify particular priority projects. These action items will raise the visibility and excitement of the project and help to catalyze and leverage private investment. The five part implementation phasing outlined maximizes this catalytic potential. It is important to note that im-plementation phasing suggests areas of concentration and coordination of a logical development strategy that leverages each investment for maximum impact. This phasing strategy does not prohibit existing or future incremental development projects occurring outside of these phases.

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Consisting of a mix of public investment that leverages private development dollars, the Development Pro-gram in each Implementation Phase has been created from and in support of the North Omaha Development Goals and their associated strategies, as identified and presented in the North Omaha Market Analysis. The Development Program is comprised of Cultural Buildings, Mixed-Use Buildings, Multi-Family Housing, Single-Family Attached Row Housing, and small- and large-lot Single Family Detached Urban Housing. This

variety of Program and Building typologies supports and advances the goals of the Village Revitalization Plan to ensure that North Omaha is not merely stabi-lized, but will grow with sustained prosperity into the twenty-first century. A detailed break-down of Develop-ment Program components, with associated Opinions of Probable Cost for each component, is provided in each Implementation Phase on the following pages.

OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ASSUMPTIONS & PREMISES

Due to the fact that the Village Revitalization Plan rep-resents a long-term vision comprising significant pub-lic and private investments, any attempt to develop an Opinion of Probable Cost is necessarily limited by the amount of information that is currently available. The H3 Studio Planning team, therefore, is working within the framework of assumptions and premises enumer-ated below. These assumptions and premises have been developed using prevailing costs for comparable facility and amenity types in markets comparable to North Omaha. These assumptions and premises have been developed for purposes of comparison only and in no way may be construed as binding. These as-sumptions and premises are totally and completely ex-clusive of any assumptions and premises not explicitly enumerated herein.

Specific facilitieS & projectSThe Village Revitalization Plan includes eight specific cultural facilities & public space projects that include:

John Beasley Theater (Leo A. Daly & Company)•Lake Street Theater (Alley Poyner Macchietto •Architects)Ohio Street Music Center & Mixed-Use Develop-•ment (Alley Poyner Macchietto Architects)Malcolm X Memorial Birthsite & International •Center (Schemmer & Associates)New Bridge/Entryway from North Freeway •(Schemmer & Associates)New Streetcar Line (Schemmer & Associates)•Adams Park Renovations, Extension & Enhance-•ments (Schemmer & Associates)Entrepreneurship, Small Business, and Collabo-•ration Center (Alley Poyner Macchietto Archi-tects)Pedestrian Bridge over North Freeway (Schem-•mer & Associates)

Each of these projects has a separate Opinion of Prob-able Cost that was developed independently by the design firm responsible for the design of each project, as listed above. These separate Opinions of Probable Cost have been fully and completely included in the overall Opinion of Probable Cost that comprises this document as provided and are noted as such. The H3 Studio Planning Team claims nor maintains no respon-sibility for the accuracy of veracity of these separate Opinions of Probable Cost.

other cultural & public Space projectSThese projects include all other cultural facilities & pub-lic space projects not enumerated above, including li-

Opinion of P

robable Cost


braries, museums, community centers, educational facilities, parks, squares, and pedestrian bridges. En-closed-building facility types are assumed to be Type III (non-combustible) construction or greater depend-ing on building use, floor area, height, and design, as defined in the International Code Council (ICC) Inter-national Building Code (2009.) Building areas provided are in Gross Square Feet (G.S.F.) as measured from the outer extents of the building envelope (“building footprint”) and buildings are assumed to be one story. Opinions of Probable Cost provided are based on pre-vailing costs for comparable facility types in markets comparable to North Omaha. Opinions of Probable Cost account for proposed site improvements within the lot boundary only.

Mixed-uSe buildingSFor the purposes of the Village Revitalization Plan, mixed-use buildings are defined as buildings having retail, flex, or office/research & development use on the ground floor (with a storefront ground-floor front-age) and residential units on upper floors. An aver-age mixed-use building height is assumed to be 2.5 stories (2-story minimum building height with 3-story heights permitted.) Enclosed-building facility types are assumed to be Type V (combustible) construction or greater depending on building use, floor area, height, and design, as defined in the International Code Coun-cil (ICC) International Building Code (2009.) Building areas provided are in Gross Square Feet (G.S.F.) as measured from the outer extents of the building enve-lope (“building footprint.”) Opinions of Probable Cost

provided are based on prevailing costs for comparable facility types in markets comparable to North Omaha. Opinions of Probable Cost account for proposed site improvements within the lot boundary only.

Multi-faMily houSingFor the purposes of the Village Revitalization Plan, multi-family housing is defined as buildings having two or more floors of attached residential dwelling units ac-cessed by common corridors and/or one or more com-mon entrance lobby, hall, and/or porch. An average multi-family housing building height is assumed to be 2.5 stories (2-story minimum building height with 3-sto-ry heights permitted.) Enclosed-building facility types are assumed to be Type V (combustible) construction or greater depending on floor area, height, and design, as defined in the International Code Council (ICC) In-ternational Building Code (2009.) Building areas pro-vided are in Gross Square Feet (G.S.F.) as measured from the outer extents of the building envelope (“build-ing footprint.”) Opinions of Probable Cost provided are based on a figure of $120/G.S.F. for buildings with structured parking, and $85/G.S.F. for buildings with surface parking. We assume that 50% of multi-family housing will be built with structured parking and 50% will be built with surface parking. Therefore, the per-square-foot cost for multi-family housing has been av-eraged to $102.50/G.S.F. regardless of parking facility type. Opinions of Probable Cost account for proposed site improvements within the lot boundary only.

Single-faMily attached row houSingSingle-family attached row housing is defined as resi-dential dwelling units of at least 2 stories, having a minimum of two front walls exposed to light and air while sharing at least one side wall with a neighboring dwelling unit. Single-family attached row houses are accessed from separate private entrances. Enclosed-building facility types are assumed to be Type V (com-bustible) construction as defined in the International Code Council (ICC) International Building Code (2009) consisting of wood or light metal framing with brick veneer cladding or siding. Building areas provided are in Gross Square Feet (G.S.F.) as measured from the outer extents of the building envelope (“building footprint.”) Opinions of Probable Cost provided are based on prevailing costs for comparable facility types in markets comparable to North Omaha. Opinions of Probable Cost account for proposed site improve-ments within the lot boundary only and would typically include sewer laterals, electrical and water supply ser-vice, driveways, paths and access walks, and lawns.

Single-faMily detached urban houSingSingle-family detached urban housing is defined as residential dwelling units of at least 2 stories, having a minimum of all four walls exposed to light and air. Sin-gle-family detached urban houses are accessed from separate private entrances. Enclosed-building facility types are assumed to be Type V (combustible) con-struction as defined in the International Code Council (ICC) International Building Code (2009) consisting of wood or light metal framing with brick veneer cladding

Opi

nion

of

Pro

babl

e C

ost

10

or siding. Building areas provided are in Gross Square Feet (G.S.F.) as measured from the outer extents of the building envelope (“building footprint.”) Opinions of Probable Cost provided are based on prevailing costs for comparable facility types in markets comparable to North Omaha. Opinions of Probable Cost account for proposed site improvements within the lot boundary only and would typically include sewer laterals, elec-trical and water supply service, driveways, paths and access walks, and lawns.

infraStructureSix separate street and streetscape improvement types are proposed in Village Revitalization Plan. Each of these streetscape types is listed and described below, with an enumeration of proposed included facilities, components, and amenities. Opinions of Probable Cost for each street and streetscape improvement type are expressed per-linear-foot cost and include the development of enumerated facilities, components, and amenities only; costs for demolition and removal of existing street materials are not included.

2-LANE COMMERCIAL STREETS: Primary corridors with two travel lanes and up to two parking lanes featuring:

Asphalt street pavement•Decorative concrete or paver sidewalks and •crosswalksNew or improved vertical curbs•Street trees•Tree lawns or tree wells•Signature street lighting and furnishings •

4-LANE COMMERCIAL STREETS: Primary corridors with four travel lanes and up to two parking lanes featuring:

Asphalt street pavement•Decorative concrete or paver sidewalks and •crosswalksNew or improved vertical curbs•Street trees•Tree lawns or tree wells•Signature street lighting and furnishings •

2-LANE COMMERCIAL STREETS (wITH MEDIAN): Primary corridors with two travel lanes and up to two parking lanes separated by a decorative paver or grass median featuring:

Asphalt street pavement•Decorative concrete or paver sidewalks and •crosswalksNew or improved vertical curbs•Decorative paver or grass median•Street trees•Tree lawns or tree wells•Signature street lighting and furnishings•

4-LANE COMMERCIAL STREETS (wITH MEDIAN): Primary corridors with four travel lanes and up to two parking lanes separated by a decorative paver or grass median featuring:

Asphalt street pavement•Decorative concrete or paver sidewalks and •crosswalksNew or improved vertical curbs•Decorative paver or grass median•

Street trees•Tree lawns or tree wells•Signature street lighting and furnishings•

SPECIALTy COMMERCIAL STREETS (CONVERT-IBLE TO PEDESTRIAN PLAZAS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS): This street type forms the focal point of key commercial, civic, and entertainment districts and is designed specifically to be convertible to pedestrian-only plazas for special events. It typically features:

Two travel lanes with up to two parking lanes•Decorative unit-paver street pavement•Decorative unit-paver sidewalks and cross-•walksRoll-curbs for pedestrian access•Street trees•Tree wells•Signature street lighting and furnishings•

NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS: These streets feature typical improvements including:

Improved or repaired asphalt street pavement •Improved or repaired concrete sidewalks•Improved or repaired vertical curbs•Improved or repaired striped crosswalks•Street trees•Improved tree lawns •Improved street lighting and furnishings•

greenwaySGreenways are assumed to be shared-use pedestrian and bicycle trails of asphalt pavement, 8- to 10-feet

Opinion of P

robable Cost


wide with bidirectional travel lanes. Opinions of Proba-ble Cost for pedestrian and bicycle greenways include the development of enumerated trail facilities only and are exclusive of any ancillary costs, including but not limited to: lighting; tree, plant, and groundcover plan-ning; lakes; and other landscape features.

DISCLAIMERS

The Opinion of Probable Cost contained within this document has been prepared by the H3 Studio Plan-ning Team and incorporates separate opinions of prob-able cost developed by the H3 Studio Planning Team sub-consultants Leo A. Daly & Company and Alley Poyner Macchietto Architects and by Prime Consul-tant Schemmer & Associates. The Opinion of Probable Cost contained herein represents a good-faith effort by the H3 Studio Planning Team and is supported by the most current information (as available on the date of this document) that has been provided to the H3 Studio Planning Team by the Client Group or is pub-licly available. All proposals contained herein are un-derstood by both the H3 Studio Planning Team and the Client Group to: 1) be representative of public con-sensus from the Village Revitalization Plan Planning Process, and; 2) have the expressed approval of the Client Group.

This Opinion of Probable Cost is limited only to the conditions and factors expressly enumerated herein. All other conditions and factors that have not been expressly enumerated herein are excluded from this

Opinion of Probable Cost, including but not limited to:

land acquiSitionUnless otherwise noted, all potential costs associated with land acquisition are deemed to be indeterminate and are not included in this Opinion of Probable Cost.

deMolitionUnless otherwise noted, all potential costs associated with demolition of existing buildings, roads, sidewalks, site accoutrements, and infrastructure are deemed to be indeterminate and are not included in this Opinion of Probable Cost.

environMental reMediationUnless otherwise noted, all potential costs associated with environmental remediation including, but not limit-ed to environmental assessment; planning, implemen-tation, and mobilization; capping; excavation; haul-off; and removal are deemed to be indeterminate and are not included in this Opinion of Probable Cost.

Site preparationUnless otherwise noted, all potential costs associated with site preparation are deemed to be indeterminate and are not included in this Opinion of Probable Cost.

utilitieS & public infraStructureUnless otherwise noted, all potential costs associated with the installation, repair, upgrade, or augmentation of utilities and infrastructure within public right-of-ways (excluding Street & Streetscape Improvements as

enumerated herein) are deemed to be indeterminate and are not included in this Opinion of Probable Cost.

This Opinion of Probable Cost is completely and totally non-binding and is provided for purposes of compari-son only. It is not intended or authorized to serve as a cost estimate for the purpose of contracts, construc-tion cost determinations, or soliciting bids.

All lengths, areas, quantities, facility types, and proj-ects provided for in this Opinion of Probable Cost are based upon the Village Revitalization Plan with the ex-pressed approval of the Client Group.

All Opinions of Probable Cost are expressed in 2011 U.S. dollars and do not account for future inflation.

CONDITIONS OF USE

This Opinion of Probable Cost contained is recognized and acknowledged to be a non-binding document. Prime Consultant H3 Studio, its sub-consultants, and Prime Consultant Schemmer & Associates offer no guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, for the information contained herein. Any individual or entity using this Opinion of Probable Cost for any purpose agrees to save and hold harmless the Prime Consul-tant H3 Studio, its sub-consultants, and Prime Consul-tant Schemmer & Associates from any and all costs or damages that may arise subsequent from said use of this Opinion of Probable Cost.

Documents

The North Omaha Village Revitalization Plan Communities ... Omaha... · Mike Saklar, Sienna Francis House Stan Rone, The Worship Center, N. 24th Street Church of God East Village