1. 1 2008 MCIP Partnering Workshop from Dallas County Public Works WELCOME

2. 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. 3 Strategic Plan & MCIP Lessons Learned   Dallas County Strategic Plan   Public Works Mission & Vision   Purpose of Partnering Workshop   Program History

4. 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. 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. 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. 7 MCIP Program History   87 Projects Submitted   57 (66%) Approved   27 Reconstruction/ Widening   21 Intersection   5 New Roads   1 Enhancement   3 Others   TPC = $ 197.7 M   County Share = $ 57.5 M  Status of Projects  25 Completed  4 Under Construction  14 In Progress  14 Federalized or Cancelled 1 st Call - 1999

8. 8 MCIP Program History   61 Projects Submitted   22 (36%) Approved   18 Reconstruction/ Widening   3 Intersection   1 New Road   TPC = $ 148.8 M   County Share = $ 45.5M  Status of Projects  6 Completed  5 Federalized or Cancelled  11 In Progress 2 nd Call - 2001

9. 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. 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. 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. 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

13. 13 2008 Call-for-Projects   Program Cycle and Deadlines (Toni)   2008 MCIP Application (Cliff)   Eligibility and Evaluation Criteria (Jon)   Cost Estimate Methodology (Jack)

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

15. 15 2008 Application   Application Submittal   Mail with CD’s   Application Form   Instructions Sheet   Phone Support   On Website www.dallascounty.org/department/pubworks/mcip-projects.html

16. 16 2008 Application   Application Form Utilizes MS Access™ 97   Teamwork needed to fill out applications   ROW Agents   Design/ Engineers   Planners

17. 17 2008 Application

18. 18 2008 Application

19. 19 2008 Application * Note: All versions other than Access 97 must be converted to your version of Access.

20. 20 2008 Application

21. 21 2008 Application

22. 22 2008 Application

23. 23

24. 24 2008 Application Record 1 Record 2

25. 25 2008 Application

26. 26 2008 Application

27. 27 2008 Application

28. 28 2008 Application

29. 29 2008 Application

30. 30 2008 Application

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

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

33. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 40 Adjourn! & Thank You

41. 41 General Information .html  Application Form & Instructions www.dallascounty.org/department/pubwks/mcip-projects.html   Submit Application To   Attention: Clifford Gholston Dallas County Public Works 411 Elm Street, 4 th Floor Dallas, TX 75202   Alternate Contact: Jonathan Toffer (same address as above)   Questions214.653.7151 (main)