2008 MCIP Partnering Workshop

Partnering Workshop WELCOME from Dallas County Public Works 1 MCIP 2008 Agenda   9:30am Refreshments and Networking, Icebreaker 10:00am Welcome and Introductions, Presentations • • • • MCIP History & Lessons Learned (Don) 2008 Call-for-Projects (Toni) 2008 MCIP Application Form (Cliff) Project Selection Overview (Don)  12:00pm Complimentary Lunch • • MCIP Eligibility and Evaluation Criteria (Jon) Cost Estimate Methodology (Jack)    1:00pm 1:45pm 2:00pm Workshop Sessions General Session to Summarize Adjourn! 2 Strategic Plan & MCIP Lessons Learned  Dallas County Strategic Plan  Public Works Mission & Vision Purpose of Partnering Workshop Program History   3 Dallas County Strategic Plan  Dallas County government Models Interagency Partnerships and Collaboration.  Dallas County is a Healthy Community. Dallas County is Safe, Secure, and Prepared. Dallas County proactively addresses Critical Regional Issues.    Dallas County is the Destination of Choice for Residents and Businesses.  “ VISION GIVES DIRECTION TO DALLAS COUNTY „S FUTURE” 4 Public Works Mission To improve the quality of life of our customers by effectively planning, developing, implementing, and administering approved regional public works transportation projects, supporting maintenance of county-wide roads and bridges, and providing real property management services. 5 Public Works Vision Our Vision-To Be:  A Leading Planner  An Effective Agent A Valued Partner A Valued Part of Dallas County Government   6 MCIP Program History 1st Call - 1999   87 Projects Submitted 57 (66%) Approved   Status of Projects      27 Reconstruction/ Widening 21 Intersection 5 New Roads 1 Enhancement 3 Others    25 Completed 4 Under Construction 14 In Progress 14 Federalized or Cancelled   TPC = $ 197.7 M County Share = $ 57.5 M 7 MCIP Program History 2nd Call - 2001   61 Projects Submitted 22 (36%) Approved   Status of Projects    18 Reconstruction/ Widening 3 Intersection 1 New Road   6 Completed 5 Federalized or Cancelled 11 In Progress   TPC = $ 148.8 M County Share = $ 45.5M 8 MCIP Program History 3rd Call -2003   51 Projects Submitted 29 (57%) Approved      Status of Projects  5 Completed 23 Reconstruction/Widening 3 Intersection 1 New Road 2 Others   TPC = $ 354.0M County Share = $ 91M 9 MCIP Program History 4th Call-2005   66 Projects Submitted 26 (39%) Approved   Status of Projects     13 Reconstruction/ Widening 3 Intersection 8 Enhancements 2 Others  3 Completed 1 Under Construction   TPC = $ 718M County Share = $ 207M 10 Lessons Learned    Approximate Two-Year Program Cycle Program Year (PY) Concept Five-phase Project Delivery System         Intensive Planning from Beginning of Call for Projects Planning Charrette (If Required) Design Partnering Preliminary Design Charrettes + Public Workshops S.U.E. + Utility Partnering + USWAT Enhanced Constructability Review Context Sensitive Solutions, Total Stakeholder Involvement Early Involvement in ROW Acquisition 11 Lessons Learned   MCIP Master Agreement + PSA Partnering    Cities and Other Stakeholders for Continuous Process Improvements During Construction TXDOT/NCTCOG Coordination   Simplified, but Effective Financial Management MCIP Lessons Learned applied to Remaining Bond Projects 12 2008 Call-for-Projects     Program Cycle and Deadlines (Toni) 2008 MCIP Application (Cliff) Eligibility and Evaluation Criteria (Jon) Cost Estimate Methodology (Jack) 13 Program Cycle & Deadlines 2008    MCIP Applications Due Preliminary Evaluation Results Cities’ Deadline to Respond 2009 August 29* November December    Final Evaluation Results Staff Recommendations Commissioners Selection January February April 14 2008 Application  Application Submittal  Mail with CD’s  Application Form    Instructions Sheet Phone Support On Website www.dallascounty.org/department/pubworks/mcip-projects.html 15 2008 Application   Application Form Utilizes MS Access™ 97 Teamwork needed to fill out applications    ROW Agents Design/ Engineers Planners 16 2008 Application 17 2008 Application 18 2008 Application * Note: All versions other than Access 97 must be converted to your version of Access. 19 2008 Application 20 2008 Application 21 2008 Application 22 23 2008 Application Record 1 Record 2 24 2008 Application 25 2008 Application 26 2008 Application 27 2008 Application 28 2008 Application 29 2008 Application 30 Project Selection Overview    Projects Ranked Within Each City Quality of Project Submissions Commissioners Make Final Decisions 31 LUNCH Enjoy!! Please return at 12:30   32 Project Evaluation Process  Eligibility Screening (Yes/No)    Eligibility of Project for MCIP Program City Compliant with County Policies MCIP Experience  Strategic Screening (50 Points)  Emphasizing Regional Aspects and Mobility Emphasizing Project Delivery and Air Quality  Technical Screening (50 Points)  33 Eligibility Screening  City Compliant with Orphan Roads Policy Signed Master Agreement is in place City Partnering Participation City has 50% of Funding Available     Federal Functional Classification of Collector or Greater Proposed Project Should Enhance Capacity  34 Strategic Screening  Interjurisdictional Project Regional Accessibility Promotion of Context Sensitive Solutions Is the Project Located in an Underutilized Area? Is it a Multi-modal/Intermodal Project?     35 Strategic Screening (cont.)  Is the Project Warranted in the Near Term?   Speed Delay Rating Accident Rate Rating  Does the Project Create a Long Term Improvement?    Projected Utilization Rating Traffic Volume Rating Traffic Volume Growth Rating 36 Technical Screening    Benefit Cost Rating Air Quality Rating Delivery Rating      Significant Drainage Improvements Visibility Challenges Requiring Demolitions Environmental Challenges Utility Challenges Potential Excessive Right-of-Way Costs  Right-of-Way Percentage Already Dedicated or Purchased by the City for the Project 37 Project Cost Estimates  2005 Call-For-Projects   Changes Made in Earlier Calls Worked Well Project Costs Were Reasonable  2008 Call-For-Projects     No Change in Process and Methodology Field Reconnaissance of All Projects Team Review of Project Cost Estimates Reconcile County and City Estimates 38 Workshop Sessions  Session 1- Lessons Learned, 5-Phase Project Delivery, & Master Agreement Review (Don, Alberta, and Janet) Session 2- MCIP Application Process (Toni, Cliff, and Jon) Session 3- Cost Estimate Methodology & ROW (Jack, Tony, and Selas)   39 Adjourn! & Thank You 40 General Information  Application Form & Instructions www.dallascounty.org/department/pubwks/mcip-projects.html  Submit Application To  Attention: Clifford Gholston Dallas County Public Works 411 Elm Street, 4th Floor Dallas, TX 75202 Jonathan Toffer (same address as above)  Alternate Contact:  Questions 214.653.7151 (main) 41