MCIP Partnering Workshop from Dallas County Public Works WELCOME

2 Agenda   9:30amRefreshments and Networking, Icebreaker   10:00amWelcome 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)   1:00pmWorkshop Sessions   1:45pm General Session to Summarize   2:00pm Adjourn!

3 Strategic Plan & MCIP Lessons Learned   Dallas County Strategic Plan   Public Works Mission & Vision   Purpose of Partnering Workshop   Program History

4 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”

5 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.

6 Public Works Vision Our Vision-To Be:   A Leading Planner   An Effective Agent   A Valued Partner   A Valued Part of Dallas County Government

7 MCIP Program History   87 Projects Submitted   57 (66%) Approved   27 Reconstruction/ Widening   21 Intersection   5 New Roads   1 Enhancement   3 Others   TPC = $ M   County Share = $ 57.5 M  Status of Projects  25 Completed  4 Under Construction  14 In Progress  14 Federalized or Cancelled 1 st Call

8 MCIP Program History   61 Projects Submitted   22 (36%) Approved   18 Reconstruction/ Widening   3 Intersection   1 New Road   TPC = $ M   County Share = $ 45.5M  Status of Projects  6 Completed  5 Federalized or Cancelled  11 In Progress 2 nd Call

9 MCIP Program History   51 Projects Submitted   29 (57%) Approved   23 Reconstruction/Widening   3 Intersection   1 New Road   2 Others   TPC = $ 354.0M   County Share = $ 91M  Status of Projects  5 Completed 3 rd Call -2003

10 MCIP Program History   66 Projects Submitted   26 (39%) Approved   13 Reconstruction/ Widening   3 Intersection   8 Enhancements   2 Others   TPC = $ 718M   County Share = $ 207M   Status of Projects  3 Completed  1 Under Construction 4th Call-2005

11 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

12 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

Call-for-Projects   Program Cycle and Deadlines (Toni)   2008 MCIP Application (Cliff)   Eligibility and Evaluation Criteria (Jon)   Cost Estimate Methodology (Jack)

14 Program Cycle & Deadlines 2008  MCIP Applications DueAugust 29*   Preliminary Evaluation ResultsNovember   Cities’ Deadline to RespondDecember 2009   Final Evaluation ResultsJanuary   Staff RecommendationsFebruary   Commissioners SelectionApril

Application   Application Submittal   Mail with CD’s   Application Form   Instructions Sheet   Phone Support   On Website

Application   Application Form Utilizes MS Access™ 97   Teamwork needed to fill out applications   ROW Agents   Design/ Engineers   Planners

Application

Application

Application * Note: All versions other than Access 97 must be converted to your version of Access.

Application

Application

Application

23

Application Record 1 Record 2

Application

Application

Application

Application

Application

Application

31 Project Selection Overview   Projects Ranked Within Each City   Quality of Project Submissions   Commissioners Make Final Decisions

32 L U N C H Enjoy!! Please return at 12:30

33 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   Technical Screening (50 Points)   Emphasizing Project Delivery and Air Quality

34 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

35 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?

36 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

37 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

38 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

39 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)

40 Adjourn! & Thank You

41 General Information .html  Application Form & Instructions   Submit Application To   Attention: Clifford Gholston Dallas County Public Works 411 Elm Street, 4 th Floor Dallas, TX   Alternate Contact: Jonathan Toffer (same address as above)   Questions (main)