..... -'"'' ", ".',". ',. . ". -" ' .. \ ,",!,-.t .'. . DALLAS COUNTY > .• . .' "', . . . . .: . -. ." ", . " -"'.. '.--. -. " 􀁾 ,"... ',". "" . , ' . . PUBLIC WORKS· ... " 􀁬􀁯􀀭􀁚􀀾􀁥􀀿􀀭􀁃􀀩􀁾
.-,",-􀁾􀀮 . ;. " .. :.' ,.;.. '. MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 5 PHASE .PROJECT DELIVERY SYSTEM. . . Developed under Public Work's Strategic Plan ., Goal #4, Prepare for the Future
Objective 4.3 -"Reengineer our design, ROWand construction program al1d PM processes for"MCIP "projects"
. , ,T .i. PHASE 1 --PLANNING & PRELIMINARY DESIGN .,' . ":,. . STEP ONE,.PROJECT DEFINITION .. ".. ". .'. . ' ...'::' .-' . .."..-.--':. • A start with analysis that precedes selection
·of projects 􀁮􀁯􀁭􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁤 by c·ities· 􀁦􀁾􀁩 􀁃􀁯􀁵􀁲􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁾 MCIP for a given Program Year (year in which the project funding is available for construction). Analysis will include
risk assessments from various perspectives --political, Right ofWay, utilities, technical, funding, safety, environmental, and traffic factors. • MCIP project selections are approved
by Commissioners Court in a total slate, and each project is assigned to a specific Program Year. An initial "kick-off' meeting will be scheduled with each city, to go over the projects
in their city that have approved funding. An initial decision will be made on which entity (County, City or other entity) is the Lead Agency for project delivery. To launch the entire
MCIP program, an initial MCIP Master Agreement) will be developed, using a partnering session with all cities to secure input and buy-in. After development, the Master is coordinated
and signed between Cities, County and any other financial stakeholders. The goal will be to include city partners who are totally committed to the projects they submit, and are willing
and able to be cost sharing partners in all phases, to include design, whenever feasible. Partnering and Project Management principles will be embedded in the document, which will focus
primarily on project delivery and notlegaljargon.· We will alsOexpl()re roles for each'stakeholder all focused on assuring timely project delivery; . . . . . .. STEP TWO, PRELIMINARY
DESIGN • Decision on use of Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) will be made after the Charrette, before initiating design. SUE detennination should take funding sources into account.
Hopefully our partners, including utilities, will be willing to participate. This infonnation will be critical for designers to use as they launch the design. A decision will be made
to use the consultants S.U.E. capability or to use the County's Indefinite Delivery Quantity (IDQ) consultant. • County, city, orjoint team ofin:.house designers begins initial design.
Objective is to resolve all alignment issues,jn close partnership with all 􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁫􀁥􀁨􀁯􀁬􀁤􀁥􀁲􀁳􀁾 Preliminary surveying requrres estimating centerline and ascertaining existing ROW.
CountyPM and Inspectors will assure an . effective Constructibility Review is completed at the appropriate time. In most projects a consultant will be brought in for Phase I with an
option to renew or extend the consultants contract after concept design is complete. City partners will be invited to participate in the design consultant selection process. The decision
to extend the contract will be made after an interim evaluation is completed using the 􀁃􀁯􀁾􀁴􀁹􀀧􀁳 consultant evaluation system.
., • A Pre-Design Charrette may be planned and executed with all stakeholders including both political and technical decision makers (cities, utilities, County, any private parties or
other decisionmakers). The purpose ofthemeetmg is to proVide preliminary design information, receive input on · . 􀁩􀁳􀁳􀁵􀁾􀁳􀀬 resolve issues and..thenforge consensus onthe preferred
􀁡􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁾􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁶􀁥􀀮 This allows 􀁾􀁥 design .. to proceed 􀁾􀁮􀁨􀁩􀁮􀁤􀁥􀁲􀁥􀁤 by 􀁣􀀹􀁮􀁴􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁳􀁹orlate.. 􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁫􀁾􀁨􀁯􀁬􀁤􀁥􀁲􀀬􀁩􀁉􀁩􀁰􀁵􀁴􀀮􀂷􀁬􀀧􀁨􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁥􀁴􀁩􀁮􀁧􀁖􀁬􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁢􀁥􀁦􀁲􀁯�
�􀁭􀁊􀀮􀀵􀁴􀀰􀀳 .. . hours dependmg upon the complexity and the number ofissues to resolve. This will mclude aIf· ... orientation walk-thru ofthe project site, when this is beneficial.
We will highlight specific CitY . . transportation standards, including amenities, landscape architecture, zoning and otherROW requirements. • Phase 1 ends with approved preliminary·
alignment and profile and preliminary sizing ofbridges and drainage 􀁳􀁴􀁲􀁵􀁣􀁴􀁵􀁲􀁥􀁾 along with SUE determination, as well as any required environmental analyses. A Preliminary Design
Report will be included as a deliverable for the design consultant. Preliminary environmental orpermitting investigations will have begun. fuformation on road elevations will be included.
The design will be in the range of50% to 60% complete.
'\) I PHASE 2 PRIMARY DESIGN .,,.' . 'tt 􀀧􀁎􀁥􀁧􀁯􀁴􀁩􀁡􀁾􀁯􀁮of:final q()n!Iactwitllconsultantisthe initial 􀁾􀁫􀀬􀀻􀁷􀁩􀁴􀁨SqopeofWork now, '" well defined by' 􀁾􀁩􀀱􀀱 phase1 effort
􀁾􀁉􀁩􀁤,iilc1udes geo 􀁴􀁥􀁣􀁨􀁾􀁬􀀮􀁩􀀮􀁴􀁩􀁬􀁩􀁴􀁙􀀬􀁡􀁮􀁡􀁬􀁹􀁳􀁩􀁳 or SUE"early. in the process. Part ofnegotiations includes definite delivery dates for various phases and reviews.
• Consultant works closely with all stakeholders --under the guidance and direction of the County PM, in a partnering mode. This means we plan to expedite design reviews and 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁳􀁯􀁬􀁩􀁤􀁡􀁴􀁾and
resolve any conflicting guidance from the various entities (cities, county arid others) to build a win-win situation. We prefer 'design review conferences' instead ofsimply passing out
design documents and collecting input from each partner separately. Allow reasonable time for review and then gather all the partners and conclude the review in one sitting is our preferred
mode • Constructibility reviews will be incorporated at key points during design, around the 􀀷􀀰􀁾􀀸􀀰􀀥􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁰􀁬􀁥􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮stage. ' " • Environmental analyses and neighborhood public
workshops are to be concluded during this phase. • Traffic and Utilities data will be considered in design, with data from partner city, County, NCTCOG, or consultant. • Federal projects
will involve environmental impact analysis and Public Meetings. We will push for Categorical Exclusions, when tbis would appear to be a common sense solution (total urban environment
with no discemable environmental impacts). • Early involvement on ROW issues will be important, and early provision of ROW documents will be a part of the design contract
) , ") . PHASE3-DESIGN COMPLETION & RIGHT-OF-WAY INITIATION -....􀁾.. 􀀮􀁾 .... 􀁾􀀮 . . '.' : . . ........ . . . :. ,'";' .' '".0'" . : . "::.: . ".; ..:.'.". ," .-.". '." ':􀁾 . ."..
• Formally begins with the de'livery' of the 􀁒􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁗 documents to the 􀁃􀁏􀁬􀁩􀁾􀁴􀁩􀀧 by' th'e ' consultant. Standards and scheduling will be clearly spelled out in writing within
Consultant's contract. --• County Project ,Manager monitors and tracks progress. Key is that the PM does not, "hand-off' the project to the ROW division, but stays actively "involved
in project management. PMwill use the matrix project team concept to track and keep the project on schedule. PM resolves issues as they develop, keeping all stakeholders in the net,
using e-tools and partnering principles. , ,". ' ROW acquisitioll begins, usingin-house 'or ROWconsllltantonIDQ 􀁡􀁾􀁱􀁵􀁩􀁳􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳􀁾􀁲􀁶􀁩􀁣􀁥􀁳 .' ' contract. ," ',' • County
decides, in consultation with other stakeholders, the packaging of the construction contract (early enough enough to preclude re-work by consultant). • Consultant to make minor changes
resulting from property owner requests. • Design consultant completes work on provided schedule, however, in rare instances may be asked for expert testimony at Eminent Domain hearings.
• County and Partners evaluate Consultant using standard evaluation system. Consultant is given opportunity to evaluate Countys project management process, also.
) PHASE 4 -ROW & Utility Adjustment • 'ROW 􀁡􀁣􀁱􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁩􀁳carried 􀁴􀁾􀀧􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁰􀁬􀁥􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀬􀁡􀁧􀁡􀁩􀁮􀀧􀁵􀁨􀁤􀁥􀁾􀁴􀁨􀁥􀀧􀁡􀁣􀁴􀁦􀁙􀁥􀁰􀁲􀁾􀁪􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁧􀁾􀁲􀁨􀁾􀁮􀁴􀀼
and leadership ofthe PM, with proactive activity ofthe ROW acquisition team. If the city or another partner ,such as TxDOT is the ROW acquisition agency, the PM will still track carefully
the progress and proactively lead efforts to remove obstacles, etc. to keep progress on schedule. • The PM will use partnering principles as well as results of S.U.E. to assure utility
adjustments are accomplished in time to keep scheduled project advertisement and contract award dates. Based on successful partnering efforts for 2 years with major utility providers
(including the UPRR), the PM will assure the attached Essential Elements ofUtility Partnering and GUIDELINES FOR ASSURING ,SMOOTH RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND UPRR are
adheredto byan matrix team members .., . • County project manager tracks and 􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁯􀁬􀁶􀁥􀁳􀁩􀁳􀁳􀁵􀁾􀁳and work 􀀬􀁾􀁾􀁤􀁳􀁣􀁨􀁥􀁤􀁵􀁉􀁾􀁳􀁾􀀺 • The PM completes all work on Plans,
Specs, and Estimates (pSE to prepare project for advertising for bids. • Consultant may be kept on call for unique projects or if required to complete requested Engineering During Construction
(EDe) services, such as shop drawing submittal review and consultation on design intent, assumptions, etc. The intent is to capture the best part ofthe effort and focus that the consultant
or in-house design team has just expended in designing the project.
PHASE 5 --CONSTRUCTION.' ..." .... .:..•. PMdoes all work to advertisep!ojeCtand 􀁾􀁯􀁾􀁫􀁳􀁾􀁴􀁨􀂷􀁐􀁵􀁾􀁣􀁨􀁾􀁳􀁩􀁲􀁩􀁾􀁄􀁥􀁰􀁴 forbid 􀁾􀁯􀁰􀁾􀁩􀁲􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀺􀀧 ." • PM assures an additional
supplement to the Master is completed with each Partner" giving approval of[mal funding, based on bid amounts, on a timely basis. • PM completes all work for construction contract award.
PMworks with all partners to assure a logical 􀁾􀁤 timely notice to proceed is given. This order to begin work and the contract time period will be based on status ofutility relocations,
any city requirements, etc. • PM schedules and prepares for Partnering & pre-construction meeting, assuring the meeting is on the Director and Assistant Director's calendars. PM also
assures 􀁾􀁬􀁬 the right stakeholders are at the meeting and prepared to launch the construction phase successfully • . Construction proceeds on schedule with Construction Ma.nagement
services provided by County or city 􀁰􀁡􀁲􀁴􀁮􀁥􀁲􀁾 PM and project Team ·assure ParmeriI1g ParmeriI1g prinCiples. and .spirit' (Trust, Commitment, and. Shared Vision) are maintained
throughout theproject . construction phase. • PM assures constant conununication with customers and other project stakeholders. This may include a construction oriented Public Infonnation
Neighborhood Meeting, as well as periodic project newsletters, notices ofkey construction events or phasing, meeting with neighborhood interests (property owners, schools, churches,
businesses, etc). We are interested in not only achieving a high quality end-product, but also in delivering the project ina user-friendly manner. • PM assures ultimate owner is provided
As-builts ·made from marked-up construction plans. • PM plans and conducts an After Action Review (AAR) to assess what happened and brainstonn any lesson-learned. If appropriate, this
will also be a "partnering success celebration." • PM conducts one year follow up inspection in conjunction with all applicable stakeholders ..'
:J '. AITACHEMENT 1 Dallas County Project Delivery Team's EssentialElements ofUtilityPartnering '. ·...2002 -_1. Know -_the ---utilities' -_ c:ustomers.and : -ietnernber -that -lVf.!
have the -,saDie_ customers. 2. Make utilities move only if absolutely necessary to achieve the project purpose. 3. Move only once if the move is, in fact, essential. 4. Get involved:
with actual field reconnaissance early. Include and engage Project Representatives or Constructibility personnel very early. 5. Get the acquiring agency's Right of Way personnel involved
early. 6. Schedule initial Utility _ Partnering Conference early. Make partnering the theme and the first topkDo it oli thejobsite to increase the effectiveness.. -7. Involve and Invite
Utility representatives to Neighborhood or Public Meetings. 8. Distribute roadway plans early to get started with the utility planning. 9. Coordinate with all utilities to ensure that
one has no negative impact on another. Coordination should ensure that enough right ofway is acquired to accommodate all ofthe facilities. 10. When plans are changed, get them to utility
companies promptly. Provide a list of changes for our partners. 11. Communicate with utilities frequently to ensure knowledge -of changing personnel and appropriate contact person. 12.
Review utility company's plans, comment on the plans and implement the coordination long before fieldwork needs to begin. ..' -_-13. Do-_-not,-beginimplementing _-a--project --schedule
􀀺􀁷􀁩􀁴􀁨􀁯􀁵􀁴􀁾􀁯􀁴􀁡􀁬 feedback from-all companies. ---------14. Identify the precise sequence of relocations that need to occur. Many -companies are predecessors of other companies'
relocations. Communicate this sequence to all utilities and other stakeholders. Ensure that the sequence is streamlined as much as possible. 15. One way of ensuring the streamlining
of the sequence is web-based notification when each company is complete or is scheduled to be complete. Scheduling is as important as the sequence. 16. Consider that seasonal shutdown
restrictions will -have· signifiCant and adverse schedule impacts, sometimes up toone year. Also . consider .that certain times -of .. day are restricted from utility relocation. In
addition, develop procedures for emergency situations and learn the appropriate "windows of opportunity" for change-overs, etc. 17. Share accurate _ information with all companies and
see that they share information with each other. Share resources ifpossible. 18. Communicate the need to follow City Ordinances,particularly those relating _to traffic control. backfill
and pavement restoration. Traffic control plan must be filed and approved. 19. Insure that the companies have measures for handling complaints about their work and that they do not inconvenience
our mutual customers more than is absolutely essential. Remember, 0 R R !! Prepared by Janet Nonnan and Irv Griffin from input from many stakeholders during numerous partnering sessions
in 2001 and 2002. Revised August 22,2002;
ATTACHMENT 2 GUIDELINES FOR ASSURING SMOOTH RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND UPRR • Start Early Coordination -􀁾􀁥􀁴 up a meeting with Steve Marchenke to share project selection
lists to ascertain projects with 􀁕􀁐􀁾 􀁩􀁭􀁰􀁡􀁣􀁴􀁳􀁾 Then on Impacted projects, share preliminary designs, invite uPRR. to early meetings, such as stakehoider predesign charrettes,publicworkshops
,etc.· ... : .. ... ,.::... : . .. . ... ..• Workoutprecisely the location: ofniilroad project impacts, 􀁢􀁥􀁦􀁯􀁲􀁥􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁴􀁡􀁾􀁴􀁭􀁧􀁕􀁐􀁒􀁒􀀮􀂷􀂷􀁔􀁨􀁩􀁾􀂷 . speeds the coordination
process greatly. Use MAPSCO location, subdivision, and RR Mile Post where ever· possible . • Use the UPRR.com website for a wealth of information, maps, etc. This can save time in answering
questions and can provide much information about UPRR, 􀁩􀁮􀁾􀁬􀁵􀁤􀁩􀁮􀁧 points ofcontact, e-mail and telephone information, instructions, applications, specifications, DOT crossing
information, pennit requirements, ROW agreements, etc. Very, very valuable. Our in-house or consultant designers need to explore this web-site before launching road design whenever there
is going to be a RR crossing. Procedures and responsibilities are clearly laid out, as are design guidelines and specifications. Avoid misty surprises that can impact project costs if
not budgeted. • Expect the UPRR owned ROW to contain many other utilities (telecommunications, power, pipelines, etc), that you will have to pay to relocate. These are private easements
the utilities have paid for and the project will have to bear the costs of relocation. UPRR is a good source of information on the potential conflicts that you will encounter. Budgeting
accurately for these costs will avoid nasty surprises later. .• Do not even 􀁴􀁨􀁩􀁮􀁫􀁾􀁢􀁯􀁵􀁴changingExhibit Bofthe 􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁮􀁤􀁡􀁲􀁤􀁡􀁧􀁲􀁥􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀮􀁕􀁐􀁾􀁨􀁡􀁳 .. agreements
to work out in 23 states, and their lawyers are very vigilant to watch for precedents that might bind UP elsewhere. Work on win-wins in the body ofthe agreement. • Avoid adversarial
actions and relationships, instead try the partnering approach. UPRR will respond in-kind. They desire to maintain integrity in relations with all their communities. Do not presume upon
them (e.g., impossible responses on coordination that you failed to start timely, making demands they cannot meet, presuming the worst). • Look for ways to forge win-wins, for UPRR and
the local community. Understand that USDOT has a policy since 1992 to reduce at-grade RR crossings by 25%. This puts tremendous pressure on RR's to accomplish this goal. Does your community
have a number oflittle-used crossings? Explore ways to eliminate them and UPRR can do much to meet the needs ofyour current project. • When appropriate, have our attorneys communicate
directly with UPRR attorneys. The key is to have worked out all the coordination we can before that, using the information, 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁴􀁾􀁣􀁴􀁳 and principles described in these guidelines.
Then, the Project Manager should stay involved to assure that . going down "legal rabbit trails" is avoided whenever possible. Ifwe follow the spirit ofwin-win, then both sides will
have better results, even if our attorneys are involved, as they have to be. • When you're in doubt and have searched all the readily available information, call Steve Martchenke, Ken
Rouse, or Doug Feagan. Even though they have large territories to cover, they are never too busy to help you proactively solve a problem and forge a win-win. If you have a "folder number,"
this will save them much time in looking up the project file infonnation. Steve Martcbenke Ken Rouse Dopg Feagan 817-878-4596 281-350-7609 402-997-3619
DALLAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS April 17, 2002 Mr. James Co Pierce, Jr., P.R Assistant Public Works Director Town of Addison P. O. Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001-9010 Re: Major Capital Improvement
Program (MCIP) Arapaho Road (Addison Road to Surveyor Boulevard) Dear Mr. Pierce: I have discussed your request for earlier County partIcIpation with Commissioner Jackson. He will look
at possible earlier funding, depending upon progress of other project commitments. He has a commitment to another city in a 2004 T-21 project, so there is a chance there could be a delay.
If that delay occurs and other funding commitments allow, the Commissioner will consider transferring all or a portion of his $1,432,812 earlier than FY 2007 (1 October 2006). We will
be tracking funding commitments as we lead and coordinate project development. We will keep you informed, and appreciate your teamwork and spirit of partnering. Sincerely, Donald R.
Holzwarth, P.E. Director of Public Works Dallas County DRH:dlc Cc: Commissioner Jim Jackson, Jackson, Road and Bridge District No.1 (original letter attached) Alberta Blair-Robinson,
P.R, Assistant Director, Engineering & Construction Donald L. Cranford, Assistant Director, Transportation Planning 411 Elm Street, 4th Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7151
DALLAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS , ' 11% ofCOllsll\1clion cost 9.5% ofconstruClion cost 7% ofCOllSlJUction cost E0 9 d Dallas County MCIP Project Cost Estimation Methodology Pavement and Drainage1
+ Bridge2 + Traffic Signals3 + Street Lighting4 +RR Crossinl -= Subtotal (STI) + Inflation (3o/olyr STI for 6yrs) + Materials (2% ST1) -= Construction Cost Total + Design cost6 + ROW
cost .+ SUE and Utility costs7 .=Subtotal (ST2) + Project Delivery cost(10% ST2) = Total Project Cost I Includes pavement, subgradc, and stonn draiDage improvements. lUke lanes (two
5ft lanes), sidewalks, Clnd handicap ramps ute added ifrequested on appiic:uion. <! Bridge cost estimalc is S50/sq.ft. 3 Traffic Signal rOlldway reconfigllmtion is $110,000 for a 6x6
Janc intCTsection; $99,000 for a 6x4 hme intersection; $8&,000 for a 6x2 lane intersectioll. Estimates are for NEW lrclRic signals. 4 Street Ughting is $3,520 􀁾􀁲 lighl per 200ft. 􀁾
Railroad crossing is $161,100 for a 4131lC divided roadway (ISR median); and .$246,300 for a6 Janc divided roadway (50ft mcdiun) 6Design COSl: $ 0 -1 million = $ I -Smillion = $ 5-2Smillion
= 1SUE is ea) 0 -2% of conslnlction cost, depending on Ule number ofutilitics. UtiJity COSl as stated on application is added
__L .ADDIsoN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 􀁾􀂮Post Office Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001-9010 March 7, 2002 Mr. Donald L Holzwarth, P.E. Dallas County Director ofPublic Works 411 Elm Street,
4th Floor Dallas, TX 75202 Re: Major Capital Improvement Program (MCIP) Arapaho Road -Addison Road to Surveyor Blvd. Dear Mr. Holzwarth: ) (972) 450-2871 16801 Westgrove The above referenced
project has been approved under the MCIP for $1,432,812 in funds for year 2007. Our schedule for this project is to complete final design in September 2002, complete ROW acquisition
in January 2003, complete utility relocation in April 2003, and complete construction in July 2004. This is an aggressive schedule, and could slip some depending upon ROW acquisition.
Nonetheless, we believe the project will be complete long before the MCIP funds are available. This is to request that MCIP funds be made available sooner than 2007 if at all possible.
Even partial payments in the earlier years would be appreciated Your attention to this matter is most appreciated. Very truly yours, Town of Addison cc: Chris Terry, Assistant City Manager
Michael E. Murphy, P.E., Director ofPublic Works
O) Jim Pierce · ..L To: SUbject: Chris Terry; Michael Murphy; Steve Chutchian FW: Approved Master ILA for County CIP CIP ILA, Version 13 NOV, APPRO... Attached is a proposed "master"
interlocal agreement that Dallas County is proposing to be used with their new "pay as you go" Capital Improvement Program which begins in 2004. (2004 means that is the year construction
can start). We have 2 projects that made the cut -Arapaho Rd, Phase III, and Midway Rd signals upgrade and re-timing. Dallas County would like to have this back signed in January. Jim.
-----Original Message-----From: Donald Holzwarth [mailto:DHolzwarth@dallascounty.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 4:14 PM To: jcosby@airmail.net; Jim.Sparks@cedarhilltx.com; Jpierce@ci.addison
.tx.us; mmurphy@ci.addison.tx.us; Ncline@ci.carrollton.tx.us; Rwalhood@ci.carrollton.tx.us; Sjenkins@ci.carrollton.tx.us; Kgriffin@ci.coppell.tx.us; ddybala@ci.dallas.tx.us; pbaugh@ci.desoto.tx.us;
tjohnson@ci.desoto.tx.us; dschwartz@ci.duncanville.tx.us; Davisd@ci.farmers-branch.tx.us; MURAWSKJ@ci.farmers-branch.tx.us; Jbaker@ci.garland.tx.us; Rwunderlich@ci.garland.tx.us; Jmcmeans@ci.grand-pr
airie.tx.us; rlarkins@ci.grand-prairie.tx.us; ttumulty@ci.mesquite.tx.us; Jgodwin@ci.rowlett.tx.us; George human@cor.gov; henry.drexel@cor.gov; Walter ragsdale@cor.gov; jangel@irving.lib.tx.us;
Jcline@irving.lib.tx.us; Publicworksinspector@townofsunnyvale.org; townmanager@townofsunnyvale.org Cc: discodad@aol.com; ABacchus@dallascounty.org; ARobinson@dallascounty.org; BWeems@dallascounty.org
; CMarek@dallascounty.org; DCranford@dallascounty.org; DDavidson@dallascounty.org; ENgwa@dallascounty.org; IHicks@dallascounty.org; JCantwell@dallascounty.org; JHedge@dallascounty.org;
JMears@dallascounty.org; JNorman@dallascounty.org; LFisher@dallascounty.org; MAIN.SWilson@dallascounty.org; NNew@dallascounty.org; SCamarillo@dallascounty.org; SHorner@dallascounty.org;
CON INSP@HOTMAIL.com Subject: Approved Master lLA for County CIP Dear Dallas County Parters: Attached is the version of the Master Master lLA that was approved by the Commissioners Court
on Tuesday, 14 November. We will also send it to you with cover letter by regular mail also. PIs go ahead and start coordination for approval by your City, since this approval is the
first step in our getting off to a fast start. We have Kick-off meetings already scheduled (or conducted) with all of you, and the Project Specific Agreements will flow out of that meeting
and the Predesign Charrette. As you will see, we used your input from the Partnering Meeting on 13 October, and have tried really hard to compose an agreement that reflects partnering
principles in a 50%--50% cost sharing environment. The document is intended to reflect sound Project Management principles throughout. 1
',,-,,' 0.2 Midway Road City of Addison Project #44 Dallas County Major Capital Improvement Plan N W+E S Map By: Kevin S. Burns Chief Cartographer Dallas County Public Wor1ls
Belt Line Road City of Addison Project #45 􀀧􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮 Dallas County Major Capital Improvement Plan N W+E s Map By: Kevin S. Burns Chief Cartographer Dallas County Public Works
""--,' '--_/0.2 Arapaho Road City of Addison Project #46 Dallas County Major Capital Improvement Plan N W*E S Map By: Kevin S. Burns Chief Cartographer Dallas County Public Works
Dallas Parkway City of Addison Project #47 Dallas County Major Capital Improvement Plan N W*E S Map By: Kevin S. Burns Chief Cartographer Dallas Counly Public Works
Belt Line Road City of Addison Project #48 ''---' . -../Dallas County Major Capital Improvement Plan N W+E s Map By: Kevin S. Burns Chief Cartographer Dallas County Public Works
􀀧􀁾􀀯 􀀺􀀰􀁾􀁄􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁡􀁳 County--Public Works GO 􀁾 , 􀁾 􀁾􀀧􀀿􀁴􀁍􀁡􀁪􀁯􀁲 Capital Improvement 􀀼􀀵􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀺 􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁪 Program (Me Kick -OffMeetIng with City ofAddison December 11, 2000
-j 􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀮 Public Works MCIP City of Addison Agenda • Overview ofMCIP • Status ofMCIP • Master ILA • Implementation and Proposed Schedule ofMCIP • Summary -Initial Identification ofLeadAgency
and Project Team
.'-....-/. Public Works MCIP Status ofthe • Callfor Projects-PY04 andPY05 • Five Phase Delivery Process -Spring 00 • City Partnering Meeting -Oct 13 • Approval ofMCIP Project by Comm.
Court -Oct 17 • MCIP ILA Approval by Comm. Court -Nov 14 • Submittal ofMCIP lLA to Cities -Nov 16 • A&EPolicy and Procedures Approval -Dec 00 • City Approval ofMCIP ILA -Jan 01 􀁾 􀁾􀁜􀁌􀀭
t'( 􀁾􀁾
Public Works MCIP Master ILA 􀀮􀀯􀀿􀁉􀁊􀀰􀁾􀁖􀁾􀁤􀁾 􀀨􀁉􀁾􀁾 • LeadAgency 􀁾 􀁾􀁾 opredesign Charette Meetingr 􀁾􀀬 􀁾􀀬􀁰􀀮􀁉􀀢􀁾 I 􀁦􀁾􀁾 MEMORANDUM OFAGREEMENT (MOA) /• PROJECTSPECIFICAGREEMENT
-􀀯􀁾􀁦􀀭􀀭􀁾 I.-ILIt-•Project Manager 􀁾 ',---,
􀀮􀁾 Public Works -MCIP • Implementation and • Execution of the MCIP ILA by Ci • Consultant Selections -Jan 01 • Schedule Pre-designCharrette Meeting/MOA ,-Jan /Feb 01 • Project Specific
Agreements -Feb/Apr 01 • Commence Preliminary Designs -Jan /May 01 1)r 􀁾 􀁾1r-􀁾{}--rA.Jlt 1 v I () _...;k (fW'--􀁾:f rJ"'v 􀁶􀁾 V 􀁾􀁊􀀭􀀮􀁉
......... -.. -. -Selection of Lead -Establish Project Team -Designate Project Manager 􀀢􀁾
STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DALLAS §§ ) MASTER AGREEMENT GOVERNING TRANSPORTATION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THIS MASTER AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of , Texas, hereinafter
called "CITY", and the County of Dallas, Texas, hereinafter called "COUNTY", acting by and through its duly authorized officials, which desire to enter into an Interlocal Agreement,
hereinafter called MASTER AGREEMENT, for the purpose of Transportation Improvements on roads inside Dallas County that are on the North Central Texas Council of Government's Regional
Thoroughfare Plan. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, pursuant to Court Order 2000-2117, dated October 17,2000, County Commissioners Court approved participation in Transportation Major Capital Improvement
Projects for the Program Years 2004,2005, and a portion of2006 within the cities inside Dallas County; and WHEREAS, the approved project lists may be modified, updated or approved by
the Commissioners Court on a periodic, as-needed basis; and WHEREAS, Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code, as amended, provides authorization for local governments to enter into
interlocal agreements; and NOW THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT, is hereby made and entered into by CITY and COUNTY for the mutual consideration stated herein: AGREEMENT Article I. all purposes.
DEFINITIONS: The following definitions are incorporated into this agreement for a) AMENDMENT shall mean a written document executed by all parties detailing changes, additions or deletions
in the MASTER AGREEMENT. b) CITY shall mean the City of , County of Dallas, State of Texas. c) COUNTY shall mean the County of Dallas, State of Texas. d) DIRECT PROJECT & PROGRAM COSTS
shall mean those costs that can be identified specifically with a particular project or program cost objective.These costs generally include MASTER AGREEMENT-11/10/00 1
) compensation of employees for the time devoted and identified specifically to the performance of the proj ect or program, cost of materials acquired, consumed or expended specifically
for the purpose of the project or program; equipment changes; damage claims and other approved capital expenditures; change orders; damage claims; travel expenses incurred specifically
to carry out the project including, but not limited to, design, right-of-way, road or street drainage, utility relocation and adjustment and construction. Direct Cost does not include
either CITY or COUNTY general overhead. e) EFFECTIVE DATE shall mean the date of the signature of the last person necessary for this MASTER AGREEMENT to become effective. f) INDIRECT
COSTS shall mean those costs which have been incurred for common or joint purposes. These costs benefit more than one cost objective and cannot be readily identified with a particular
final project or program cost objective without effort disproportionate to the results achieved. g) INTERLOCAL AGREENJENTS shall mean contracts or agreements entered into between CITY
and COUNTY in accordance with Texas Government Code Chapter 791 . h) LEAD AGENCY shall mean that entity responsible for project management, including, but not limited to planning, design,
right-of-way acquisition, approved utility relocation or adjustment and construction. i) MASTER AGREEMENT shall mean this document including all incorporated documents, attachments,
and exhibits. j) MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) shall mean a written document which incorporates the results of the PREDESIGN CHARRETTE. Said MOA shall at a minimum identify the overall
funding scheme, and basic scope of the PROJECT. k) PARCEL OR PARCELS shall mean those tracts of land and improvements located either wholly or partially thereon, identified by COUNTY,
CITY or other STAKEHOLDER as required for right-of-way requirements of the PROJECT. Such Right-of-way shall include both the existing street, road, drainage or other CITY or COUNTY real
property ownership and all additional real property to be utilized for the PROJECT. 1) PREDESIGN CHARRETTE shall mean a meeting of decision making STAKEHOLDERS and other members of the
PROJECT TEAM for the purpose of entering into a MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT for the overall funding, alignment and scope ofthe PROJECT. m) PROJECT MANAGER shall mean the person appointed
by the Lead Agency who is assigned the primary duty for assuring Project Team coordination and timely project delivery. There will be only one PROJECT MANAGER assigned to a PROJECT.
n) PROJECT TEAM shall mean representatives from COUNTY, CITY, and other STAKEHOLDERS as may be mutually agreed upon by COUNTY, CITY and STAKEHOLDER or otherwise with responsibility for
delivering the completed PROJECT. 0) PROJECT(S) shall mean the road improvements approved by the COUNTY for inclusion in the Transportation Major Capital Improvements Program approved
by the Commissioners Court and approved by the CITY and/or other applicable STAKEHOLDERS. p) ROAD or STREET AMENITY shall mean PROJECT features not included in the STANDARD BASIC PROJECT
DESIGN including but not limited to street pavers, colored concrete, planters, irrigation, decorative lighting, special signage, or any other feature above and beyond the MASTER AGREEMENT-11/10/00
2
\I STANDARD BASIC PROJECT DESIGN or any increase in capacity in excess of COUNTY determined requirements based on anticipated future traffic flow. q) RIGHT OF WAY (ROW) shall mean that
real property, (either existing, or required in fee and! or easement) identified by COUNTY, CITY, or other project STAKEHOLDER as necessary for the construction of the PROJECT. Such
Right-of-way shall include both the existing street, road, drainage or other CITY or COUNTY real property ownership and all additional real property to be utilized for the PROJECT. (r)
STANDARD BASIC PROJECT DESIGN shall mean the standard COUNTY-approved CITY criteria for paving, bridges, drainage and appurtenances, traffic control items including pavement marking,
warranted uniform signals, street light foundations, pull boxes, conduit, sidewalks, medians, storage/turn lanes, access, required structural retaining walls and standard driveways excluding
ROAD OR STREET AMENITIES, or such design criteria as may be mutually agreed upon in a project specific SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT. W(s) SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT shall mean an agreement subsequent
to this document which is entered into to establish the contractual rights and responsibilities of the CITY and COUNTY as it relates to the PROJECT. 􀁾􀀨􀁴􀀩 STAKEHOLDER shall mean any
governmental or quasi-governmental entity making a financial contribution to the PROJECT. fu} (u) TxDOT shall mean the Texas Department of Transportation. (v) UTILITIES shall mean each
City Utility, public utility, common carrier, governmental or quasigovernmental facility, fiber optic facility, or other facility located within the limits of the Project by virtue of
Texas or Federal Law or agreement between the entity and the CITY, COUNTY, or STATE OF TEXAS. (w) CITY UTILITY shall mean those owned or operated by CITY which require relocation or
adjustment for the purpose of the construction of the PROJECT as identified by PROJECT plans. (x) UTILITY IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY shall mean all UTILITIES located within the limits of
the PROJECT by virtue of Texas or Federal Law or agreement between the entity and the CITY. (y) UTILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHT-OF-WAY shall mean all UTILITIES, excluding CITY UTILITIES,
whose facilities are located within the limits of the PROJECT by virtue of satisfactorily documented pre-existing real property ownership. (z) UTILITY BETTERMENT shall mean any increase
in the capacity of any UTILITY'S Facility adjusted or relocated as a part of the PROJECT as compared to the existing Facility, or any upgrading of the UTILITY'S Facility above the standard
practices, devices or materials, specified by the UTILITY and customarily used by CITY or UTILITY on projects solely financed by CITY or UTILITY. Provided, however, that any upgrading
necessary to successfully accomplish the PROJECT shall not be considered a Betterment, and further, that any increase in the capacity of the Utility Facility resulting solely from the
replacement of devices or materials no longer regularly manufactured, processed or installed shall not not be considered a Betterment, provided that such replacement shall be only to
the standard devices or materials currently used on other projects financed solely by CITY or UTILITY. This meaning shall apply to utilities that are part of the project as well as the
standard basic street components (See "STANDARD BASIC PROJECT DESIGN"). MASTERAGREEMENT-11/10/00 3
Article II. PERIOD OF THE AGREEMENT · .. ) This MASTER AGREEMENT becomes effective when signed by the last party whose signing makes the respective agreement fully executed (The "Effective
Date"). This MASTER AGREEMENT shall be an annual agreement and shall automatically renew without further action by either party unless or until terminated as provided in Article IV (Termination)
or the expiration often (10) years, whichever shall first occur. Article III. AMENDMENTS This Master Agreement may be amended with the mutual consent of the CITY and COUNTY. Any amendment
must be in writing and approved by the parties' respective governing bodies. Article IV. TERMINATION, DEFAULT, TIME OF THE ESSENCE AND FORCE MAJEURE 1. TERMINATION 1 A. This MASTER AGREEMENT
may be terminated by any ofthe following conditions: lif(l) By expiration of term ofthe agreement. 􀁾􀀨􀀲􀀩 By mutual written consent and agreement of COUNTY and CITY. e)(3) By either
party, by notice in writing establishing the effective date of termination to the other party as consequence of the party being in default of the provisions of this Agreement or any
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT or failure to timely provide funding, with proper allowances being made for circumstances beyond the control of the defaulting party. 6j(4) By either party with
ninety days written notice to the other party. B. Should either party terminate this MASTER AGREEMENT as herein provided, all existing, fully executed SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMEN.pmade under
this MASTER AGREEMENT shall not be terminated and shall automatically inco!1Jorate all the provisions ofthis MASTER AGREEMENT. 􀁾􀁾 4.. 7:e"''''''􀁾.,. C. In the event that any SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT is terminated prior to completion of the PROJECT, no additional Costs shall be incurred other than Costs due and payable at the time of termination for services actually performed
ort1}at shall become due and payable due to such termination. The LEAD AGENCY, to the "extent permitted, may terminate all project contracts, unless written notice is given by either
party to the other of its intent to co te the PROJECT, and prepare a final accounting for the PROJECT. 􀁾􀁦􀀨􀁊􀀭􀀫􀀧􀀭 \ 􀁾􀁾􀀿 D. If the PROJECT is terminated by the CITY prior to
the award of any construction contract and the PROJECT is located within the CITY limits, CITY shall pay to COUNTY the full amount expended by COUNTY on the project and COUl'JTY shall
transfer to CITY its rights and all deliverables that it may be entitled to receive under the existing professional services or other project contracts or agreements. Such amount shall
be included in the MASTERAGREEMENT-ll/I0/00 4
final accounting for the PROJECT. Such amount shall be due and payable in full ninety (90) days subsequent to the termination, or thirty days subsequent to delivery of final accounting.
E. Once the construction contract has been let, with the approval of the other party, the SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT for that PROJECT cannot be terminated until completion of the construction.
F. In the event that a PROJECT is terminated either party may, upon written notice, take over the project and prosecute the work to completion by contract or otherwise at their sole
cost and expense. In the event that the party completing the work is not the LEAD AGENCY, it is agreed that the PROJECT MANAGER will furnish to the completing party a listing of current
records pertaining to any outstanding obligations or other records or information required by any project contract, including any Work Order, or requested in writing by completing party
in either printed or electronic format or both. The LEAD AGENCY agrees to cooperate with the completing party. The LEAD AGENCY will use its best efforts to transfer to the completing
party all contracts. Obligations under such contracts shall become the sole obligation of the completing party upon transfer. Completing party agrees to timely pay all future obligations
under such contract as they become due and payable. Completing party hereby releases the LEAD AGENCY from any and all liability under such assigned contracts subsequent to date of transfer,
effective upon the transfer date. LEAD AGENCY shall exercise its best efforts to insure a transition of services without interruption G. Either party shall have the right to retain copies
of all data, information, engineering, studies, or other items produced to the date of termination. H. Provisions B through G will survive the termination of this MASTER AGREEMENT and
any SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT and shall be a continuing obligation until the transition of services, all payments made and the PROJECTS are complete. All items listed or required in this
provision shall be furnished by LEAD AGENCY to completing party without additional cost or expense to completing party. 2. FORCE MAJEURE: Neither COUNTY nor CITY shall be deemed in violation
of this Contract if it is prevented from performing any of its obligations hereunder by reason of, for or through strikes, stoppage of labor, riot, fire, flood, invasion, insurrection,
accident, order of court, judge or civil authority, an act of God, or any cause reasonably beyond the party's control and not attributable to its neglect. In the event of such an occurrence
the time for performance of such obligations or duty shall be suspended until such time that such inability to perform, shall be removed. The party claiming the suspension shall give
notice of such impediment or delay in performance to the other party within ten (10) days of the knowledge of such occurrence. Each party shall make all reasonable efforts to mitigate
the effects of any suspension. Article V. INDEMNIFICATION COUNTY and CITY agree that both COUNTY and CITY shall each be responsible for their own negligent acts or omissions or other
tortious conduct in the course of performance of this MASTER AGREEMENT, without waiving any sovereign or governmental immunity available to either COUNTY or CITY under Texas law and
without waiving any available MASTER AGREEMENT-11/10/00 5
\} defenses under Texas law. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to create or grant any rights, contractual or otherwise, in or to any third persons or entities. Article VI.
NOTIFICATION A. When notice is permitted or required by this MASTER AGREEMENT, it shall be in writing and shall be presumed delivered when delivered in person or three (3) days subsequent
to the date placed, postage prepaid, in the U. S. Mail, Certified or Registered, Return Receipt Requested and addressed to the parties at the following address. B. All notices and correspondence
to County by City shall be mailed or delivered by hand as follows: Dallas County Public Works Donald R. Holzwarth, P.E., Director 411 Elm Street, Suite 400 Dallas, Texas 75202-3389 C.
All notices and correspondence from County to City shall be mailed or delivered by hand as follows: [Title of Appropriate City Official] City, Texas D. Either party hereto may from time
to time designate another and different address for receipt of notice by giving written notice of such change of address to the other party. Article VII. CITY COVENANTS AND AGREES AS
FOLLOWS: A. To execute the necessary agreements for the implementation of design and construction of the PROJECTS mutually agreed upon and incorporated herein by SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT.
B. Provide City Council Resolution adopting approved preferred alignment, proposed estimated budget, and commitment to meet PROJECT funding for each milestone as specified herein or
in a SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT. C. CITY agrees to share the funding of each PROJECT with COUNTY on an equal share basis (50%/50%), or as otherwise agreed upon cost sharing arrangement as
specified in a SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT with the following exclusions: CITY shall bear the entire cost of: 1. CITY owned utilities relocation or adjustment such as water and sanitary sewer
facilities, except utility adjustments directly attributable to storm sewer improvement conflicts; MASTER AGREEMENT-11/10/00 6
) 2. ROAD or STREET AMENITIES including but not limited to street pavers, colored concrete, planters, decorative lighting, special signage, or any other feature over the STANDARD BASIC
PROJECT DESIGN; 3. UTILITY BETTERMENTS and ROAD or STREET AMENITIES-,-4. CITY PROJECT TEAM participation or project management (if the CITY has LEAD AGENCY Responsibility) Direct Costs
which are not supported by a detailed hourly accounting system; 5. CITY Indirect Costs. When mutual written agreement has been reached as to PROJECT limits by COUNTY and CITY at the
Predesign Charrette, City agrees to acquire right-of-way required for designated projects by voluntary dedication, the subdivision platting process and/or other legal means, to the maximum
extent possible, and to ensure through the building permitting process that setback requirements are imposed to limit encroachment upon the required right of way. CITY agrees to fund
ROW not acquired but reasonably expected to be. CITY also agrees to fund the removal of improvements that are encroachments within existing or proposed right of way areas. In the event
of any proposed use of the PROJECT right-of-way that will conflict with the proposed PROJECT and CITY is unable to obtain such right-of-way as described above, CITY shall notify COUNTY
of such conflict. COUNTY and CITY shall determine if the acquisition of the conflicting parcel would be in the best interest of the PROJECT. In the event that agreement is reached and
the parcel is acquired such cost shall be included in the pro rated cost of the project in the agreed upon proportions. CITY hereby grants the COUNTY authority to enter into eminent
domain proceedings within the city limits on each specific right of way alignment as approved by the CITY and COUNTY. D. I*-To require all Utilities located within or using the present
public right of way on all designated transportation projects within CITY's municipal limits to adjust and/or relocate said Utilities as required by the proposed improvement of the designated
transportation Project. CITY Utilities shall be relocated or adjusted at no cost to COUNTY except as may be specifically set forth in this MASTER AGREEMENT. E. CITY agrees to be cooperative
on issues relating to billboards, advertising signs, nonconforming uses, zoning and similar restrictions and to exercise its best efforts to provide variances when possible to minimize
cost and delay of PROJECT. Additional PROJECT cost caused or contributed to by CITY ordinance, zoning, non-conforming use determination or other requirement shall be paid in full by
CITY. F. _CITY shall require the adjustment and/or relocation of UTILITIES to be accomplished and finalized, as expeditiously as possible after approval of final plans to prevent PROJECT
schedule delays. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, all UTILITIES shall be adjusted or relocated and the right-of-way clear for construction not later than thirty
(30) days prior to the award of the construction contract. CITY will notify the COUNTY and other STAKEHOLDERS when utility conflicts would impact progress of the project completion.
COUNTY and CITY agree to work in partnership and with all STAKEHOLDERS to solve the problem to include helping to engage elected officials in MASTER AGREEMENT-11/10/00 7
the problem resolution with the goal to prevent delays In the commencement or prosecution of construction on the PROJECT. G. Where new storm drainage facilities are in conflict with
CITY owned water and sanitary sewer systems, and the storm sewer design cannot be modified, after submission of an acceptable schedule of work and cost estimate by the CITY to the COUNTY
and COUNTY approval, the actual costs of the necessary adjustment of CITY water and sewer utilities shall be pro rated at the overall percentage agreed to by CITY and COUNTY for cost
sharing. CITY shall be responsible for funding one hundred percent (100%) of any BETTERMENTS. Except as provided herein, all costs for adjustment and/or relocation of utilities in the
public right of way shall be the responsibility of the Utility Owner or of the CITY UTILITY. Any PROJECT delay or other damages caused by CITY UTILITY'S failure to timely relocate or
adjust the facility shall be at the entire cost of CITY. H. To provide for continuing surveillance and control of right of way to prevent the construction, placement, storage or encroachment
of any signs, personal property or other appurtenances in the right of way. In the event that the aforementioned features are allowed by CITY to encroach on necessary ROW during the
duration ofthe project, CITY shall bear the entire cost of removal or relocation of said encroachment. I. To provide to COUNTY for COUNTY'S or COUNTY'S designee use, at no cost, adequate
copies of all construction standards, codes, (specifically including zoning and development codes), plats, specifications, guidelines, standards or any other pertinent information as
determined by COUNTY to be required for the completion of the PROJECT. Additionally, CITY shall furnish COUNTY, at no cost, such documents as necessary to keep all items previously furnished
to County current. J. Actively participate and provide authorized representation with decision making power at PREDESIGN CHARRETTE, preconstruction meeting, partnering meetings and project
team meetings which are necessary to project development/completion and fiduciary relationships. K. CITY agrees to provide timely review of interim submittals. "Timely review" will be
agreed upon during the PREDESIGN CHARRETTE as a part of the PROJECT schedule. City further agrees that if no review notes are submitted by CITY in writing to COUNTY on a timely basis,
plans are approved as submitted. L. City agrees that it will pay all additional project cost for any CITY requested discretionary change, including, but not limited to STREET AMENITIES
AND UTILITY BETTERMENTS, in or addition to the design or construction of the project subsequent to the City opportunity to review the sixty five percent (65%) design plans. M. Provide
at CITY's cost for the continuing maintenance of all PROJECT ROW, such as mowing, drainage, trash removal, etc., during the period between acquisition and construction. MASTER AGREEMENT-11/10/00
8
N. Subsequent to the completion of a PROJECT, that the CITY will be responsible for all future maintenance, operation and control of the PROJECT, without cost or contribution from the
COUNTY. O. Bear the entire cost of design, construction and administration for landscaping, streetscaping, streetlighting, as such items are not included in the STANDARD BASIC PROJECT
DESIGN and other ROAD OR STREET AMENITIES specified or requested by CITY in excess ofSTANDARD BASIC PROJECT DESIGN. P. It is the intent of this MASTER AGREEMENT that the COUNTY will
be the LEAD AGENCY. In the event that the CITY and COUNTY agree in writing that CITY will manage and administer one or more PROJECTS, CITY and COUNTY will enter into a SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
as to that project(s). In such instance, CITY agrees to assume all LEAD AGENCY responsibilities except as may be set forth in the SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT as determined by mutual consent.
Article VIII. UTILITY IMPACTS. A. In cases where a UTILITY IS LOCATED IN A PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHT-OFWAY, and it is necessary to relocate the facility or make adjustments by reason of
the widening or improvement of the designated project, the COUNTY (or CITY if acting as the LEAD AGENCY) will, after submission by utility company of right of way documentation and cost
estimates acceptable to the CITY, COUNTY and other STAKEHOLDERS, assign the actual costs for the relocation and/or adjustment of said utility to the PROJECT. B. In cases where a UTILITY
IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, excluding CITY UTILITIES, occupies any portion of the PROJECT RIGHT-OF-WAY by Texas or Federal Law or by agreement with the CITY that allows or permits the CITY
to cause the relocation of the utility for the construction of the project, the CITY shall timely require and enforce the relocation or adjustment requirement at no cost to the project.
In the event that the CITY has no legal or contractual right to cause the relocation, the relocation or adjustment shall be relocated or adjusted and all cost shall be a Project Cost.
CITY shall take all steps necessary to insure that such relocation or adjustment shall not conflict with or delay the PROJECT schedule. Article IX. COUNTY AGREES AS FOLLOWS: A. To provide
as a PROJECT Cost preliminary engineering which will define project details, e.g., location, scope of work and specific right of way alignment for each improvement. Such preliminary
engineering shall be submitted to the CITY for approval, prior to proceeding with the final design and any right of way acquisition. B. To provide as a PROJECT Cost for the construction
of transportation improvements based upon design criteria conforming to STANDARD BASIC PROJECT DESIGN in conformity with applicable CITY ordinances and standards, to the extent of MASTER
AGREEMENT-11/10/00 9
.. Commissioners Court approved program funding. Scope of work shall include the agreed upon design standards as the basis for improvement criteria. Deviations from mutually agreed upon
application of CITY standards and/or design criteria shall require prior approval of CITY. Where CITY standards do not exist, TxDOT standards as of the EFFECTIVE DATE of this MASTER
AGREEMENT shall be utilized unless otherwise mutually agreed by SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT. A.C. To actively participate and provide authorized representation at PREDESIGN CHARRETTE , preconstruction
meeting, partnering meetings and project team meetings which are necessary to project development and completion and fiduciary relationships. D. To provide project management of each
Project where County is LEAD AGENCY from commencement to completion of construction. CITY and COUNTY may further agree by mutual consent to redefine project management roles as beneficial
to the PROJECT as defined in the MOA and SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS. E. Upon receipt of written request detailing the information requested, to provide information related to the PROJECT
to CITY or CITY'S designee at no cost to the CITY. F. COUNTY agrees to provide timely review of interim submittals and hereby agrees that if no review notes are submitted by COUNTY (if
CITY is filling the role as PROJECT MANAGER) in writing to CITY, plans are approved as submitted. "Timely review" will be agreed upon during the PREDESIGN CHARRETTE, as part of the project
schedule. G. To submit final engineering plans for review and written approval by CITY at least thirty (30) days prior to advertising for construction. H. To provide for the acquisition,
including acquisition by Eminent Domain, of the necessary additional right of way, on designated projects, in accordance with minimum standard requirements and utilizing existing public
right of way to the maximum extent possible as a PROJECT cost. 1. To require all contractors to secure all necessary permits required by CITY on said construction projects. r') J. J.
To furnish record drawings of construction plans for the permanent records ofCITY within L-. 􀁾􀁭􀁯􀁮􀁴􀁨􀁳upon completion and acceptance of the transportation improvement PROJE'Cr:'
K. In and for Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, including the future obligation of maintenance, operation, control and acceptance of liability therefor
to transfer, by Quit Claim Deed, all PROJECT related easements acquired by COUNTY to CITY. L. In the event COUNTY and CITY agree in writing that CITY will be the LEAD AGENCY for the
agreed upon PROJECT, COUNTY will reimburse CITY for agreed costs as detailed in Article XI (FUNDING) in an amount not to exceed the PROJECT cost as approved by Dallas County Commissioners
Court and incorporated in the SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT. All COUNTY payments shall be in accordance with COUNTY Policies and Procedures or as may be mutually agreed between the parties
and incorporated in a SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT. MASTER AGREEMENT-11/l0/00 10
Article X. PREDESIGN CHARRETTE A. CITY and COUNTY, as specified in Articles VII and IX, respectively, will designate officials or representatives to participate in a Predesign Charrette
to be conducted on a mutually agreeable date and location. At least part of this meeting will be conducted on the PROJECT site. B. Results from Predesign Charrette will identify the
general project scope and the general preferred alignment of the project, and project administration and management roles, to include the PROJECT MANAGER. Additionally, key project team
participants shall be identified at the Predesign Charrette . C. At the conclusion of the Predesign Charrette a SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT shall be produced which outlines the identified
roles and scope for the Project. Article XI. FUNDING A. CITY and COUNTY mutually agree to proportionately fund the DIRECT PROJECT & PROGRAM costs as agreed by the parties in a SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT. Unless otherwise specified in the SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, COUNTY shall bear fifty percent (50%) of the total DIRECT PROJECT & PROGRAM costs Excluding the ROAD OR STREET AMENITIES,
relocation or adjustment of CITY UTILITIES, UTILITY BETTERMENT, INDIRECT COST, DIRECT COST not supported by detailed hourly accounting system and other items as specified in this MASTER
AGREEMENT or any SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT. COUNTY shall not be responsible for any amount of funding in excess of the PROJECT· not-to-exceed amount as shown in the PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT. Unless otherwise specified in the SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, CITY shall bear fifty percentage (50%) of all DIRECT PROJECT AND PROGRAM costs. In addition City agrees to fund all
other City cost as provided herein, including, but not limitedto, ROAD OR STREET AMENITIES, relocation or adjustment of CITY UTILITIES, UTILITY BETTERMENT, INDIRECT COST, DIRECT COST not supported by detailed hourly accounting system and other
items as specified in this MASTER AGREEMENT or any SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT. B. Unless otherwise stated in a SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, the milestones for each project shall be (1) preliminary
and primary design (2) right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation or adjustment and (3) construction. The LEAD AGENCY shall prepare an estimated cost for each milestone. Upon approval
of the cost by the other party, each party shall fund its share of the respective milestones by placing that amount of money in an escrow account or otherwise encumber the funds to insure
that the LEAD AGENCY will have sufficient funding available from current revenue for the timely payment of PROJECT milestone costs. The LEAD AGENCY may bill the other party for periodic
payments for the actual amount of work completed toward the completion of the milestone. Upon completion of the milestone, the nonmanagement party will be furnished a notice that such
work has been completed and allthe amount of funding that may be utilized to pay subsequent milestone Project cost. Notwithstanding any other term or condition contained herein or in
any SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT, neither party will be required to award any contract until written certification has been received that funding for the project has been certified in \vriting
to have been placed MASTER AGREEMENT-11/1 0/00 11
in escrow or encumbered for the payment of the non-awarding party's portion of the PROJECT cost. C. In the event that the cost of the PROJECT shall exceed the not-to-exceed amount, CITY
and COUNTY agree to either reduce the scope of construction or seek additional funding to complete the PROJECT at the agreed upon cost share percentages. At the termination of the PROJECT,
the LEAD AGENCY will do a final cost accounting of the PROJECT. In the event that the amount paid by either party exceeds its portion of the actual cost, the difference will be remitted
to such party. In the event that additional funds are due, the LEAD AGENCY will bill the other party who agrees to pay such funds within thirty (30) days of receipt of such billing.
D. If CITY elects to manage PROJECT, COUNTY will reimburse CITY based on invoices for actual costs expended in accordance with COUNTY invoicing policy. E. Upon execution of a SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT, CITY shall escrow an amount adequate for initial project costs which COUNTY may use to pay for initial professional services required for scoping, preliminary, and primary
design. Article XII. NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY ENFORCEMENT. It is expressly understood and agreed that enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and all right of action
relating to such enforcement shall be strictly reserved to CITY and COUNTY and nothing contained in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right of action whatsoever by any
other person on this Agreement. It is the express intention of CITY and the COUNTY that any entity other than CITY or the COUNTY receiving services or benefits under this agreement shall
be deemed an incidental beneficiary only. This Agreement is intended only to set forth the contractual right and responsibilities of the agreement parties. Article XII. RIGHT OF ENTRY
The CITY agrees that COUNTY shall have the right to enter upon the PROJECT area for the time period necessary for the completion of the Project. CITY agrees to furnish such police or
other CITY personnel as requested BY COUNTY for traffic control or other public safety matters at no cost to the PROJECT or COUNTY. Article XIV. LIST OF PROJECTS CITY agrees that it
has been furnished with a list of the potential PROJECTS as approved by the Dallas County Commissioners Courts, subject to the agreement between the parties of a SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT.
CITY stipulates and agrees that the Commissioners Court Order approving the projects identifies the potential PROJECT location and describes the type of project in sufficient detail
that the CITY is fully aware of the location and type of projects being considered. MASTER AGREEMENT-11110/00 12
The City of , State of Texas, has executed the Agreement pursuant to duly authorized City Council Resolution , Minutes -----'Dated the __day of , 200_. The County of Dallas, State of
Texas, has executed this agreement pursuant to Commissioners Court Order Number and passed on the__day of : 200 . CITY OF _ BY _ TITLE ATTEST _ CITY SECRETARY \ ATTORNEY MASTERAGREEMENT-ll/l0/00
COUNTY OF DALLAS BY _ LEE JACKSON, COUNTY JUDGE APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Dahill, Advisory Chief, Civil Section Dallas County District Attorney 14
) Jim Pierce From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Donald Holzwarth [DHolzwarth@dallascounty.org] Thursday, October 19, 2000 3:49 PM jcosby@airmail.net; Jim.Sparks@cedarhilltx.com; Michael Murphy;
Ncline@ci.carrollton.tx.us; Rwalhood@ci.carrollton.tx.us;"Sjenkins@ci.carrollton.tx.us; Kgriffin@ci.coppell.tx.us; ddybala@ci.dallas.tx.us; pbaugh@ci.desoto.tx.us; tjohnson@ci.desoto.tx.us;
dschwartz@ci.duncanville.tx.us; Davisd@ci.farmers-branch.tx.us; MURAWSKJ@ci.farmers-branch.tx.us; Jbaker@ci.garland.tx.us; Rwunderlich@ci.garland.tx.us; Jmcmeans@ci.grand-prairie.tx.us;
rlarkins@ci.grandprairie.tx.us; ttumulty@ci.mesquite.tx.us; Jgodwin@ci.rowlett.tx.us; George_human@cor.gov; henry.drexel@cor.gov; Waltecragsdale@cor.gov; jangel@irving.lib.tx.us; Jcline@irving.lib.tx
.us; Publicworksinspector@townofsunnyvale.org; townmanager@townofsunnyvale.org discodad@aol.com; ABacchus@dallascounty.org; ARobinson@dallascounty.org; BWeems@dallascounty.org; CMarek@dallascounty.or
g; DCranford@dallascounty.org; DDavidson@dallascounty.org; ENgwa@dallascounty.org; IHicks@dallascounty.org; JCantwell@dallascounty.org; 􀁾􀁉􀁈􀁥􀁤􀁧􀁥􀁀􀁤􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁡􀁳􀁣􀁯􀁵􀁮􀁴􀁹􀀮􀁯􀁲􀁧􀀻
JMears@dallascounty.org; JNorman@dallascounty.org; LFisher@dallascounty.org; MAIN.SWilson@dallascounty.org; NNew@dallascounty.org; SCamarillo@dallascounty.org; SHorner@dallascounty.org;
CON_INSP@HOTMAIL.com Partnering Meeting Follow-up I want to thank all of you for your excellent participation. The feedback I am getting from you is that the 4 hours was time well spent.
We view it as an investment in forging effective relationships that assure better project delivery to our joint customers. The ClP list did pass the Commissioners Court on Tuesday, without
comment, so we are in great shape. We are already calling to set up the first "Kick-off" meetings with each of you, in the next weeks. We can discuss roles and goals, and get this new
ClP rolling. I hope to have the revised lLA out to you soon, with the changes we talked about incorporated. Thanks Don Holzwarth 1
) Jim Pierce From: Sent: To: Subject: County-Cities Partnering, 13 0 .•• Michael Murphy Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:09 PM Jim Pierce FW: Partnering Session on new Dallas County CIP
Mike Michael E. Murphy, P.E. Director of Public Works Town of Addison (972)450-2878 -----Original Message-----From: DHolzwarth@dallascounty.org [mailto:DHolzwarth@dallascounty.org] Sent:
Wednesday, September 20, 2000 4:11 PM To: jcosby@airmail.net; ddybala@bigtex.ci.dallas.tx.us; Jim.sparks@cedarhilltx.com; Jbaumgartner@ci.addison.tx.us; Ncline@ci.carrolton.tx.us; Rwalhood@ci.carrolt
on.tx.us; Sjenkins@ci.carrolton.tx.us; Kgriffin@ci.coppell.tx.us; pbaugh@ci.desoto.tx.us; tjohnson@ci.desoto.tx.us; dschwartz@ci.duncanville.tx.us; Davis@ci.farmers-branch.tx.us; murawski@ci.farmers-
branch.tx.us; Jbaker@ci.garland.tx.us; Rwunderlich@ci.garland.tx.us; Jmcmeans@ci.grand-prairie.tx.us; rlarkins@ci.grand-prairie.tx.us; Jcline@ci.irving.tex.us; ttimulty@ci.mesquite.tx.us;
Jgodwin@ci.rowlett.tx.us; George human@cor.gov; Steve spanos@cor.gov; Tom stone@cor.gov; Walter-ragsdale@cor.gov; jangel@irving.tex.us; Publicworksinspector@townofsunnyvale.org; townmanager@townofsun
nyvale.org Cc: discodad@aol.com; ABacchus@dallascounty.org; ARobinson@dallascounty.org; CMarek@dallascounty.org; DCampagna@dallascounty.org; DCranford@dallascounty.org; DDavidson@dallascounty.org;
DKeesey@dallascounty.org; DMcswain@dallascounty.org; ENgwa@dallascounty.org; JHedge@dallascounty.org; JMears@dallascounty.org; JNorman@dallascounty.org; MAIN.SWilson@dallascounty.org;
MDavis@dallascounty.org; NNew@dallascounty.org; SCamarillo@dallascounty.org; SHorner@dallascounty.org; Ivan.Nicodemus@DLSCMAQ.com; Jack.Loggins@DLSCMAQ.com; CON INSP@HOTMAIL.com Subject:
Partnering Session on new Dallas County CIP Partners of Dallas County Public Works, We are inviting you to attend a partnering meeting to discuss the upcoming Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) for Dallas County. I have talked to you before about the changes we are making with our implementing our Strategic Plan and our new "5-phase Project Delivery System" and by the
13th of October, we will have the first Program Years of our CIP selected by the Commissioners Court. These projects, all to be cost shared at 50%--50%, will be the first to be started
with a goal of getting them into 1
Our basic theme is to use partnering principles ) 􀁾􀁥 goal of your organization if you want them to Dallas County people there, and you can let us know ahead. .\am Year, either 2004
or 2005. to other key people in I expect about 15 -20 many as you want, just construction during the Pre. the partnering meeting is to bring you up to speed on the state of the process
as well as the projects selected. We will get your input on the ILAs we will jointly develop and use, on the process and contract for design consultant selection, and in general on the
entire project delivery process we plan to use. throughout the life of the project ? from planning through design and ROWand then through construction. The session will be at the County's
Health and Human Services Building at 2377 Stemmons. We will give you the exact room later. It will go from -0930 until 2:00 pm and we will give you a way to order a box lunch. PIs get
this attend. bring as This will be a great way to get our new CIP partnering off to a smooth start and to get your input on how to make it a better process and partnership. Look forward
to seeing you there. Don Holzwarth 2
)DALLAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 5 PHASE PROJECT DELIVERY SYSTEM October 13, 2000
PHASE 1 --PLANNING & PRELIMINARY DESIGN STEP ONE, PROJECT DEFINITION • A start with analysis that precedes selection of projects for County's CIP for a given Program Year. Analysis will
include risk assessments from various perspectives -political, Right ofWay, utilities, technical, funding, safety, environmental, and traffic factors. • After PY selections are made,
Initial Interlocal Agreement (ILA) is coordinated and signed between Cities, County and any other stakeholders. The goal will be to include city partners who are totally committed to
the projects they submit, and are willing and able to be cost sharing partners in all phases, to include design, whenever feasible. We will also explore roles for each stakeholder all
focused on assuring timely project delivery. We will clearly define Project Management and total team responsibilities. We intend to use Partnering Principles ofTrust, Commitment, and
Shared Vision throughout the life ofthe project. • A Pre-design Charrette may be planned and executed with all stakeholders (Cities, utilities, County, any private parties or other decision-makers),
dependent upon project complexity and number ofunknowns. This will include an orientation walk-thru ofthe project site, which includes right ofway assessment. We will highlight specific
City zoning and other ROW requirements. • An initial contract will be signed with the best qualified consultant to either perfonn the entire preliminary design, or participate in Phase
1 as a liaison etc. If signed before the Charrette, the consultant will participate in that event.
,\I PHASE 1 --PLANNING & PRELIMINARY DESIGN STEP TWO, PRELIMINARY DESIGN • Decision on use of Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) will be made after the Charrette, before initiating
design. SUE determination should take funding sources into account. Hopefully our partners, including utilities, will be willing to participate. This information will be critical for
designers to use as they launch the design. • County, city, or joint team ofin-house designers or selected AlE firm begins initial design. Objective is to resolve all alignment issues,
in close partnership with all stakeholders. Preliminary surveying requires estimating centerline and ascertaining existing ROW. County PM and Inspectors will assure an effective Constructibility
Review is completed. In most projects a consultant will be brought in as early as possible in Phase I with the possibility for an amendment to the contract after concept design is complete.
City partners will be involved in the selection process. The decision to amend the contract for completion ofthe Primary Design will be made after an interim evaluation is completed
using the County's consultant evaluation system. • Phase I ends with approved preliminary alignment and profile and preliminary sizing of bridges and drainage structures along with SUE
determination. Preliminary environmental or permitting investigations will have begun. Basically the level ofeffort will approximate that required of the Preliminary Schematic and Environmental
Assessment Phase that currently is required on the STP/MM projects.
... \/) PHASE 2 --PRIMARY DESIGN • Negotiation of amendment to contract with consultant for Primary Design is the initial task, with Scope ofWork now well defmed by all Phase 1 effort
and includes geo tech, utility analysis or SUE early in the process. Part of negotiations includes definitive delivery dates for various phases and reVIews. • Consultant works closely
with all stakeholders --under the guidance and direction of the County PM, in a partnermg mode. Any available internet-based Project Management tools, including extranets, will be used
to optimal effect during the life of the project. • Constructibility reviews will be incorporated at key points during design. • Environmental analyses and neighborhood public workshops
are to be included during this phase. • Traffic and Utilities data will be considered in design, with data from partner city, County, NCTCOG, or consultant. Agreed upon level of S.U.E.
will be key input into design details. • Any required environmental impact analysis will be included in this phase. Common sense will be used to address significant issues without wasting
time on clearly unimportant areas. The goal is to execute environmentally sustainable development that improves the overall quality of life of our joint customers, the transportation
users and citizens of Dallas County and the partner city. • Early involvement on ROW issues will be important, and early provision of ROW documents will be a critical milestone ofthe
design contract. • PM completes interim evaluation of consultant
) PHASE 3 -DESIGN COMPLETION & RIGHT-OF-WAY INITIATION • Begins with the delivery of the R-O-W documents to the County by the consultant. Standards and scheduling will be clearly spelled
out in writing within Consultant's contract. County or City ROW functional manager works to assure efficient execution ofROW planning and execution services, as part of the Project Matrix
Team. This includes management of ROW Services IDIQ contract, if this delivery tool is used. • County or City Project Manager monitors and tracks progress. Resolves issues as they develop,
keeping all stakeholders in the net, using e-tools and networking. Any available internet-based Project Management tools, including extranets, will be used to optimal effect during the
life of the project. • ROW acquisition begins, using in-house or ROW consultant on IDQ contract. PM works closely with ROW functional people to assure all acquisition activities stay
on track, issues are brought to conclusion, logical design changes are made, etc. PM uses Matrix Team and assures appropriate leadership required to assure project delivery dates are
met. • County decides, in consultation with other stakeholders, the packaging of the construction contract (early enough to preclude re-work by consultant). • Consultant to make minor
changes resulting from property owner requests. • Design consultant completes work on provided schedule, however, in rare· instances may be asked for expert testimony at Eminent Domain
hearings. • County and Partners evaluate Consultant using standard evaluation system. Consultant is given opportunity to evaluate Countys project management process, also.
) PHASE 4 -ROW & Utility Adjustntent • ROW acquisition is carried to completion. • We will use partnering principles as well as results of S.U.E. to assure utility adjustments are accomplished
in time to keep scheduled project advertisement and contract award dates. • County or City Project Manager tracks and resolves issues and work and schedules, using Matrix Team. • All
work is done to prepare project for letting (Ready to Advertise). • City works as part of Matrix Team to expedite utility relocations. • Consultant may be kept on call for unique projects
or if required to complete requested Engineering During Construction (EDC) services, such as shop drawing submittal review.
PHASE 5 --CONSTRUCTION • Project is advertised and bids opened. • Final Supplemental City County Agreement is completed with each Partner giving approval of final funding on a timelybasis.
• Construction contract is awarded and notice to proceed is given. • Partnering & pre-construction meeting scheduled, planned, and executed with key stakeholders in attendance. • Construction
proceeds on schedule with Construction Management services provided by County or city partner. Partnering principles and spirit of Partnering (Trust, Commitment, and Shared Vision) are
maintained throughout the project construction phase. • As-builts are provided for ultimate owner from marked-up construction plans. • Project is formally turned over to the City for
maintenance. • Evaluations are completed in final form on consultant, using interim evaluation results. • Close out project report including lessons learned. These will be captured by
using an Mter Action Review (AAR) session with the entire Project Matrix Team. • Conduct one year follow up inspection in conjunction with all applicable stakeholders
) \ I DALLAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS 00 OCT -4 PH 3: t.5 October 4, 2000 .MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Background Commissioners Court Donald R. Holzwarth, P. E., Director ofPublic Works
Major Capital Development Program Selection ofTransportation Projects for Funding In Spring of 1999 the Commissioners Court began the process of identifying, evaluating and selecting
transportation improvements to be funded through the Major Capital Development Fund with a "Call for Projects" issued to the cities for participation funding in TEA-21 projects. Selection
ofthe TEA-21 projects was finalized in November 1999. The Attachment includes listings ofthe selected TEA-21 projects by District. In December 1999 the Court issued a Call for Projects
to the cities to identify candidate Thoroughfare improvement projects for potential County funding. In this Call the cities were asked to commit to cost participation with the County
on a 50%-50% basis. Candidate projects were accepted for consideration until March 2000. Between March and July 2000 County staffand the consulting firm ofKimley-Horil together with
NCfCOG perfonned extensive data validation and technical evaluation ofthe 86 candidate projects submitted by 18 cities. The fmal results ofthe evaluations were presented to the Court
on July 11,2000. Since July 2000 the Court and County staffhave been reviewing the evaluation results with the cities, confinning city and District priorities, resolving scope and cost
participation with the cities, and assessing risk, schedule and constructability to finn up final recommendations for funding. The Attachment includes projects recommended for Thoroughfare
funding in eachDistrict.', Throughout this process the Commissioners and staffhave worked with our partners to identify candidate "Major Impact" projects. A number ofpotential Major
Impact projects have been identified and are currently under review for future consideration. At this time, only Commissioner Mayfield has confmned his recommendation for one project
to be funded in Major Impact category: Mountain Creek Parkway. This project is shown under District 4 in the Attachment. Parallel to the project selection process the Commissioners Court
and the Office ofBudget and Evaluation have worked to develop and approve funding forecasts for the Major Capital Development Fund. The current funding forecasts for the Transportation
elements (TEA-21, Thoroughfare and Major Impact) are shown by District in the Attachment. The first page ofthe Attachment summarizes the funding forecasts and the recommended project
totals for the entire Program. The Summary also includes four estimates providing a range ofpotential Administrative costs which must be funded in addition to the project costs. 411
Elm Street, 4th Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7151
""I Commissioners Court October 4, 2000 Page 2 of2 Financial Impact The total project and administrative costs recommended in the Attachment are within the total Transportation funding
forecast for the Major Capital Development Fund. Funding distribution is held equal among the four Districts. The Major Impact funding in each District is left unallocated to projects
except in District 4. The project funding shown in the Attachment will obligate approximately 77% ofthe available funds for FY 2004 and FY2005, excluding administrative costs. The percentage
of available funds obligated drops to approximately 53% in FY 2006 and approximately 18% in FY 2007. No funding would be obligated beyond FY 2007. Final selection ofthe recommended projects
as listed in the Attachment is in accordance with Major Capital Development Fund Policy. Schedule Approval ofthe recommended projects identified in the Attachment will permit staff and
our partner cities to initiate development ofnecessary Interlocal Agreements and begin the implementation ofthese projects. A "partnering" workshop hosted by Dallas County Public Works
is scheduled for Friday, October 13th to discuss the project development process and the initial joint development stages. Projects listed in the Attachment are shown in the target Program
Year (planned construction start year). Recommendation The project selection process is near completion for the Thoroughfare portion ofthe Major Capital Development Program. While minor
adjustments in these recommended projects can be expected and additional projects will be selected in the future for all three categories offunding (TEA-21, Thoroughfare and Major Impact)
staff recommends that the Commissioners Court approve the projects identified in the Attachment for funding in the Major Capital Development Fund. Ifthe Court concurs a Court Order to
approve the recommended projects will be prepared for the Court's consideration on it's next scheduled formal agenda. Approved By: Donald R. Holzwarth, P. E. Director ofPublic Works
Attachment
FIVE PHASE PROJECT DELIVERY SYSTEM PHASE COUNTY CITY(lES) CONSULTANT • Call for projects ILA-• Liaison Contract • Risk analysis • Est. cost share • Attends charrette I • Coordinate ILA,
other stakeholders • Define project management and • Project Walk-• Define Project Management Team team responsibilities thru • Conduct Predesign Charrette • Predesign charrette • Provides
Survey including Commissioners, etc. • Project Walk-thru • Alignment Study • Conduct Project Walk-thru • Commit to maintain current zoning • EA, Permits, etc. • Determine level ofSUE
and row • Prelim Schematic • Initiate design thru • Fund 50% of design and SUE? (STP/MM) 􀁾 In-house • Commit to alignment 􀁾 City • Provide preliminary surveying 􀁾 Consultant • Input
in consultant selection/and/or • Negotiate Liaison contract extension of consultant contract? • Determine centerline • Approve alignment study • Constructability Review • Consultant
Evaluation • Negotiate contract with consultant • Provides accurate data at no cost • Negotiates contract • Defines delivery dates • Well define scope ofwork • Coordinates with stakeholders
• Coordinates with all • Determine definite delivery dates • Input in constructability review stakeholders under II • Project Management in partnering County Project Management mode
• Completes EA • Constructability review • Conducts public meetings • Produces traffic studies?? • Approve EA and Neighborhood • Provides final ROW Meetings documents within schedule
• Check traffic/utility data • Identify early ROW issues/resolve . '---......' J 0:__
• Final approval ofROW documents • Input on packaging for • Minor changes • Project Manager (PM) monitors construction per property III and tracks progress. • Evaluation owner requests
• PM resolves issues • Expert testimony • PM communicates to all for ED stakeholders • Evaluation • ROW acquisition begins • Package for construction bidding • Evaluate consultant •
Acquire ROW-complete • Expedites utility relocations • Engineering • Require utility adjustments • Provides plans for City requested during IV • Resolve issues/track schedules joint
venture work construction • Prepare to Advertise for • Review shop construction drawings • Advertise for construction bids • Attends Preconstruction and • Attends • Final ILA with City(Supplemental)
Partnering Meetings Preconstruction V • Approve partnering, • Final IIA (Supplemental) and Partnering preconstruction meeting • Final Payment Meetings • Construction Management • Close
out contract • Close out contract • Partnering with all stakeholders 􀁾 Consultant/Contractor Evaluations 􀁾 Consultant/Contr • As-builts created/approved • Project turned over for actor
Evaluations • Close out project report (AAR) maintenance 􀁾 Consultant/Contractor Evaluations • 1 yr maintenance review • Turn over to City for maintenance • Conduct 1 yr maintenance
review 􀁾 Inspection 􀁾 Punch list 􀁾 Approval 2
) AGREEMENT/CONTRACT MATRIX CITY CONSULTANT MASTER AGREEMENT LIAISON ../Who will actively participate in ../Contracts for Alignment Study predesign Charrette ../Commits to walk-thru
of project ../If request termination, must repay lost ../Commits to initial survey work engineering dollars to date ../Commits to Charrette ../Commitment to results ofmutually agreed
upon Charrette ../Begins EA process V/Performs Schematic PROJECT SPECIFIC PRIMARY/FINAL DESIGN AGREEMENT ../Who will design ../Provides fmal EA ../Who will manage ../Provides final Schematic
../Who will acquire ROW ../Provides final ROW docwnents ../Who will be Project Manager ../Defines submittal delivery ../Who is on Project Management Team dates(schedule) ../Commits to
specific horizontal alignment ../Commits to specific scope ofwork CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT ../Commits to specific bid amount ../Attends Preconstruction ../Commits to specific
limits (scope) ../Participates in Partnering ../Addresses any joint venture work ../Reviews shop shop drawings ../Addresses specific reimburseables ../Other engineering during construction
as necessary Jcn:AGREEMENT contract matrix revised 9/27/00
i 􀁾 -I " ---------------􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 _____􀁌􀀱􀁴􀁾􀁾􀀴􀁩􀁾􀀶􀁌􀁭 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀂭 -------,-:---.􀁾r -􀁾 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭-'---------'-----------:-;---------------------------------
--------------------" 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀭􀁾 : ! -------;--,ii􀁉' 􀁲􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭I,
j! ! ! -! I 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀢􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀭􀀭 -􀀫􀀫􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀭 ._--_.._------._...-------_._--􀀮􀁟􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 ---.-._--------_.._-_._-_. 􀀭􀁾􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀭􀁟.._-_.-.__.---_._-�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀬􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 ..-., ._--_._----I! ------·--·---------------!iir-----.------...-----.. 􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀮􀀭...-----..-..---.
"--..--.---------..-----.--..-----..----..---------.---------.----.---.. 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭 , , i!
STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DALLAS §MASTER AGREEMENT GOVERNING MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 􀁾􀁒PROGRAM YEAR 20W1 AND::zoos.. TillS MASTER AGREEMENT is made by and between the City
of , Texas, hereinafter called "CITY", and the County of Dallas, Texas, hereinafter called "COUNTY", acting by and through its duly authorized officials, desire to enter into an Interlocal
Agreement,hereinafter called MASTER AGREEMENT, for the purpose of Roadway Improvements on XXXX Road from XXXX to XXXX; and, WITNESSETH WHEREAS, pursuant to Court Order 2000-XXXX, dated XXXXXXXX,
Commissioners Court approved participation in Major Capital Improvement Projects for the Program Years 2004 and 2005, in the City ofXXXXX, on the aforementioned roads; and WHEREAS, Chapter
791 of the Texas Government Code, as amended, provides authorization for local governments to enter into interlocal agreements; and NOW THEREFORE, TillS AGREEMENT, is hereby made and
entered into by CITY and COUNTY for the mutual consideration stated herein: AGREEMENT Article I. DEFINITIONS: The following definitions are incorporated into this agreement for all purposes.
1. CITY shall mean the City of , County of Dallas, State of Texas. 2. COUNTY shall mean the County of Dallas, State of Texas. 3. TxDOT shall mean the Texas Department of Transportation,
State of Texas. 4. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS shall mean contracts or agreements entered into for the mutual benefit of the travelling public. 5. MASTER AGREEMENT shall mean this document
including all incorporated documents, attachments, and exhibits. 6. SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT shall mean an agreement subsequent to this document which is entered into to establish the
contractual rights and responsibilities of the CITY and COUNTY of Dallas as it relates to the PROJECT. DRAFT VERSION OFMCIP -MASTER ILA -9/28/00 for discussion only Pg. 1
.'" ) 7. PROJECT(S} shall mean the below listed road improvements: 􀁾 cJ1 Roadmthlimus 􀁾 8. PARCEL OR PARCELS shall mean those tracts of land d improvements located either wholly or
partially thereon, identified by COUNTY as required for right of way requirements ofCOUNTY 9. PREDESIGN CHARRETTE shall mean a meeting of decision making stakeholders and other members
of the PROJECT TEAM for the purpose of entering into a' MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT for the overall funding, alignment and scope of the PROJECT. 10. CITY UTILITY shall mean those utilities
owned by City which require relocation or adjustment for the purpose of the construction of the PROJECT as identified by PROJECT plans. 11. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) shall mean a
written document which incorporates the results of the PREDESIGN CHARRETTE. Said MOA shall at a minimum identify the overall funding scheme, horizontal alignment and basic scope of the
PROJECT. 12. AMENDMENT shall mean a written document executed by all parties detailing significant changes in the MASTER AGREEMENT. 13. RIGHT OF WAY (ROW) shall mean that real property
identified by COUNTY as necessary for the construction of the PROJECT. 14. PROJECT TEAM shall mean representatives from COUNTY and CITY mth responsibility for delivering the completed
PROJECT. 15. EFFECTIVE DATE shall mean the date of the signature of the last person to sign the document. 16. STANDARD BASIC STREET DESIGN shall mean the paving, drainage and appurtenances,
traffic control items including pavement marking, warranted uniform signals, street light foundations, pull boxes, conduit, sidewalks, medians, storage/turn lanes, access, and standard
driveways. 17. BETTERMENT shall mean any increase in the capacity of the PROJECT as compared to the existing Facility, or any upgrading of the Facility above the standard practices,
devices or materials, specified in this MASTER AGREEMENT and customarily used by COUNTY on projects solely financed by COUNTY. Provided, however, that any upgrading necessary to successfully
accomplish the PROJECT shall not be considered a Betterment, and further, that any increase in the capacity of the PROJECT resulting solely from the replacement of devices or materials
no longer regularly manufactured, processed or installed shall not be considered a Betterment, provided that such replacement shall be only to the standard devices or materials currently
used on other projects financed solely by COUNTY. 18. AMENITY shall mean PROJECT features not included in the STANDARD BASIC STREET DESIGN including but not limited to street pavers,
colored concrete, planters, irrigation, decorative lighting, special signage, or any other feature above and beyond the STANDARD BASIC STREET DESIGN. 19. DIRECT PROJECT & PROGRAM COSTS
shall mean those costs that can be identified specifically mth a particular cost objective. These costs generally include compensation of DRAFT VERSION OFMCIP -MASTER ILA -9/28/00 for
discussion only Pg. 2
employees for the time devoted and identified specifically to the performance of the project or program; cost of materials acquired, consumed or expended specifically for the purpose
of the project or program; equipment and other approved capital expenditures; travel expenses incurred specifically to carry out the project. 20. INDIRECT COSTS shall mean those which
have been incurred for common or joint purposes. These cost benefit more than one cost objective and cannot be readily identified with a particular fmal cost objective without effort
disproportionate to the results achieved. PLEASE NOTE YOUR COMMENTS HERE DRAFT VERSION OFMCIP -MASTER ILA -9128100 for discussion only Pg. 3
Article II. PERIOD OF THE AGREEMENT ) This MASTER AGREEMENT becomes effective when signed by the last party whose signing make the respective agreement fully executed. This MASTER AGREEMENT
shall remain in effect until terminated as provided in Article IV or the expiration often (10) years which ever shall first occur. Article III. AMENDMENTS Amendment of this MASTER AGREEMENT
by Notice with Mutual Consent: COUNTY may notify CITY of changes in this MASTER AGREEMENT resulting from changes in federal or state laws or rules or regulations and these changes in
the MASTER AGREEMENT shall be incorporated into this agreement unless COUNTY is notified by CITY within 60 days. This MASTER AGREEMENT may be amended by mutual agreed written amendment
that is executed by the all parties. Article IV. TERMINATION. DEFAULT, TIME OF THE ESSENCE AND FORCE MAJEURE This MASTER AGREEMENT may be terminated by any of the following conditions:
A. By mutual written consent and agreement ofall parties. B. By either party with ninety days written notice. If this MASTER AGREEMENT is terminated under this clause, all existing,
fully executed advance funding agreements made under this MASTER AGREEMENT shall automatically incorporate all the provisions of this MASTER AGREEMENT. C. By either party, upon the failure
of the other party to fulfill the obligations as set forth in this MASTER AGREEMENT and any supplement thereto. D. Neither COUNTY nor CITY shall be deemed in violation of this Contract
if it is prevented from performing any of its obligations hereunder by reason of, for or through strikes, stoppage of labor, riot, fire, flood, invasion, insurrection, accident, order
of court, judge or civil authority, an act of God, or any cause reasonably beyond the party's control and not attributable to its neglect. In the event of such an occurrence the time
for performance of such obligations or duty shall be suspended until such time that such disability to perform, for which the party is not responsible or circumstances beyond its control,
shall be removed. The party claiming the suspension shall give notice of such impediment or delay in performance to the other party within ten (10) days of the knowledge of such occurrence.
Each party shall make all reasonable efforts to mitigate the effects of any suspension. Article V. INDEMNIFICATION COUNTY and CITY agree that both COUNTY and CITY shall each be responsible
for their own negligent acts or omissions or other tortuous conduct in the course of performance ofthis MASTER AGREEMENT, without waiving any sovereign or governmental immunity available
defenses under Texas law. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to create or grant any rights, contractual or otherwise, in or to any third persons or entities. DRAFT VERSION
OFMCIP -MASTER ILA -9/28/00 for discussion only Pg. 4
Article VI. NOTIFICATION A. When notice is pennitted or required by this MASTER AGREEMENT, it shall be in writing and shall be presumed delivered when delivered in person or three (3)
days subsequent to the date placed, postage prepaid, in the U. S. Mail, Certified or Registered, Return Receipt Requested and addressed to the parties at the following address. B. All
notices and correspondence to County by City shall be mailed or delivered by hand as follows: Dallas County Public Works Donald R. Holzwarth, P.E., Director 411 Elm Street, 4th floor
Dallas, Texas 75202 C. All notices and correspondence from County to City shall be mailed or delivered by hand as follows: City Director ofPublic Works City, Texas D. Either party hereto
may from time to time designate another and different address for receipt ofnotice by giving written notice ofsuch change of address to the other party. PLEASE NOTE YOUR COMMENTS HERE
DRAFT VERSION OFMCIP -MASTER ILA -9/18/00 for discussion only Pg. 5
Article VII. CITY agrees as follows: A. To execute the necessary agreements for the implementation of design and construction of the above described project(s). Provide City Council
Resolution adopting approved alignment, proposed estimated budget, and commitment to meet PROJECT funding for each milestone as specified in SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS. .B. CITY agrees
to share the funding of PROJECT with COUNTY on an equal share basis (50%/50%) with the following exclusions: CITY shall bear the entire cost of-• CITY owned utilities such as water and
sanitary sewer facilities; • PROJECT AMENITIES including but not limited to street pavers, colored concrete, planters, decorative lighting, special signage, or any other feature over
the basic street design; • Project management direct costs which are not supported by a detailed hourly accounting; • Indirect costs. C. When in mutual agreement by COUNTY and CITY at
the time of Predesign Charrette, to acquire right of way required for designated projects by voluntary dedication, the subdivision platting process and/or other legal means to the maximum
extent possible and to ensure through the building permitting process that setback requirements are imposed to limit encroachment upon the required right of way. CITY hereby grants the
COUNTY authority to enter into eminent domain proceedings within the city limits on specific right of way alignment as approved by the CITY and COUNTY. CITY agrees to fund ROW it failed
to acquire through its platting and permitting ordinances and for the removal of improvements (encroachments) within existing or proposed right of way areas. D. To require all utilities
located within or using the present public right of way on all designated transportation projects within CITY's municipal limits to adjust and/or relocate said utilities as required
by the proposed improvement of the designated transportation project for CITY Utilities at no cost to COUNTY except as may be specifically set forth in this MASTER AGREEMENT. E. CITY
agrees to be cooperative on issues relating to bill boards, advertising signs, nonconforming uses, zoning and similar restrictions and to provide variances when possible to minimize
cost and delay ofPROJECT. F. CITY shall require the adjustment and/or relocation of utilities to be accomplished and fmalized, as expeditiously as possible, after approval of final plans,
but in no event later than six (6) months after receiving notification in writing from COUNTY that acquisition of additional right of way for the designated project has been completed.
CITY shall initiate legal action to compel the adjustment or relocation of the utilities by the utility owner or, if necessary to prevent delays in the commencement or prosecution of
DRAFT VERSION OFMCIP -MASTER ILA -9/28/00 for discussion only Pg. 6
construction on the project, CITY will itself adjust and relocate said utilities. Any additional cost due to CITY requirements shall be borne by CITY . G. In cases where a franchised
utility has a private right ofway easement for its utility and it is necessary to make adjustments by reason of the widening or improvement of the designated project, the COUNTY will,
after submission of satisfactory right of way documentation and cost estimates acceptable to the COUNTY by the utility company, bear the actual costs for the relocation and/or adjustment
of said utility. H. Where new stonn drainage facilities are in conflict with CITY owned water and sanitary sewer systems, and the stonn sewer design cannot be modified, after submission
of an acceptable schedule of work and cost estimate by the CITY to the COUNTY, the actual costs ofthe necessary adjustment ofCITY water and sewer utilities shall be pro rated at the
overall percentage agreed to by CITY and COUNTY for cost sharing. CITY shall be responsible for funding any BETTERMENTS. Except as provided herein, all costs for adjustment and/or relocation
ofutilities in the public right ofway shall be the responsibility of the utility owner or of the CITY UTILITY. Any PROJECT delay or other damages caused by CITY UTILITY's failure to
timely adjust at the entire cost of CITY. PLEASE NOTE YOUR COMMENTS HERE DRAFT VERSION OFMCIP -MASTER ILA -9128100 for discussion only Pg. 7
) I. To provide for continuing surveillance and control of right of way to prevent the construction, placement, storage or encroachment of any signs, personal property or other appurtenances
in the right ofway. In the event that the aforementioned features are allowed by CITY to encroach on necessary ROW during the duration of the project, CITY shall bear the entire cost
ofremoval or relocation of said encroachment. J. To provide adequate copies of all codes, (specifically including zoning and development codes), plats, specifications, guidelines, standards
or any other pertinent information as determined by COUNTY required for the completion of the PROJECT to COUNTY or COUNTY's designee at no cost. Additionally, CITY shall furnish COUNTY
such documents as necessary to keep previously furnished information current. K. Actively participate and provide authorized representation with decision making power at predesign charrette,
preconstruction meeting, partnering meetings and project team meetings which are necessary to project development/completion and fiduciary relationships. 􀀴􀁾􀀮 L. CITY agrees to provide
timely review of interim submittals and hereby agrees that if no review notes are submitted by CITY in writing to COUNTY within twenty (2(») days plans are approved as submitted. M.
Provide for the continuing maintenance of all existing ROW, such as mowing, drainage, trash removal, etc., during the period between acquisition and construction N. Bear the entire cost
of design, construction and administration for landscaping, street scaping, street lighting, and other amenities specified or requested by CITY in excess of basic design. In addition,
CITY shall bear the entire costs related to any change in criteria or features requested by CITY after prior approval, vocal or tacit. O. In the event CITY elects to manage and administer
PROJECT, CITY agrees to assume all applicable roles previously identified as COUNTY to be determined by mutual consent in MOA. PLEASE NOTE YOUR COMMENTS HERE DRAFT VERSION OFMCIP OFMCIP
-MASTER ILA -9/28/00 for discussion only Pg. 8
Article VIII. COUNTY agrees as follows: A. To provide preliminary engineering which will define project details, e.g., location, scope of work and specific right of way alignment for
each improvement for approval by CITY, prior to proceeding with the final design and any right ofway acquisition. B. To provide for the construction of transportation improvements based
upon design criteria confonning to CITY ordinances and standards, to the extent of ftmding. Deviations from CITY standards and/or design criteria shall require prior approval of CITY.
Where CITY standards do not exist, TxDOT standards as of the EFFECTIVE DATE ofthis MASTER AGREEMENT shall be utilized. C. To actively participate and provide authorized representation
at predesign charrete, preconstruction meeting, partnering meetings and project team meetings, which are necessary to project development and completion and fiduciary relationships D.
To provide administration and management of project from commencement to completion of construction. CITY and COUNTY may further agree by mutual consent to redefine administrative and
management roles as beneficial to the PROJECT as defined in the MOA. E. To provide infonnation related to the PROJECT to CITY or CITY's designee at no cost to CITY. PLEASE NOTE YOUR
COMMENTS HERE DRAFT VERSION OF MCIP -MASTER ILA -9/28/00 for discussion only Pg. 9
) F. To submit final engineering plans for review and approval by CITY, at least thirty (30) days prior to advertising for construction. G. To provide for the acquisition of the necessary
additional right of way, on designated projects, in accordance with minimum standard requirements and utilizing existing public right ofway to the maximum extent possible. H. To require
all contractors to secure all necessary permits required by CITY on said construction projects. I. To furnish record drawings of construction plans for the permanent records ofCITY within
twelve (12) months upon completion and acceptance of the transportation improvement project. J. To transfer, by Quit Claim Deed, all roadway related easements acquired by COUNTY to CITY.
K. In the event COUNTY elects for CITY to manage PROJECT, COUNTY will reimburse CITY for agreed costs as detailed in Article X and retain only responsibilities for reimbursement and
reimbursement certification. PLEASE NOTE YOUR COMMENTS HERE DRAFT VERSION OFMCIP -MASTER ILA -9/28/00 for discussion only Pg. 10
) Article IX. PREDESIGN CHARRETTE A. CITY and COUNTY, as specified in Article VI and VII, will designate officials or representatives to participate in a Predesign Charrette to be conducted
on a mutually agreeable date and location. B. Results from Predesign Charrette will identify the general project scope and the general alignment of the project, project administration
and management roles. Additionally, the Predesign Charrette shall identify key project team. participants. C. At the conclusion ofthe Predesign Charrette a MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT shall
be produced which outlines the identified roles and scope for the Project. PLEASE NOTE YOUR COMMENTS HERE DRAFT VERSION OFMCIP -MASTER ILA -9/28/00 for discussion only Pg. 11
Article x. A. B. c. D. \} FUNDING CITY and COUNTY mutually agree to assess proportionately fund the direct project costs as more fully described in Court Order XXXXXXXXX dated the XX
SS of XXXXXXXXX, 200X attached as Attachment A and incorporated herein as if reproduced word for word for all purposes. COUNTY shall bear XXXX percentage of the total project costs excluding
the amenities, CITY utility items. CITY shall bear XXX percentage of all project costs in addition to any amenities. In the event that the cost of the PROJECT shall exceed the Not to
Exceed Amount, CITY and COUNTY agree to either reduce the scope of construction or seek additional funding to complete the project. At the termination of the PROJECT, COUNTY will do
a final cost accounting of the PROJECT. In the event that the amount paid by CITY exceeds its portion of the actual cost, the difference will be remitted to CITY. In the event that additional
funds are due, COUNTY will bill CITY who agrees to pay such funds within thirty (30) .days ofreceipt of such billing. If CITY elects to manage PROJECT, COUNTY will reimburse CITY based
on invoice for actual costs expended in accordance with COUNTY invoicing policy. CITY shall escrow an amount of $XXXX for initial project costs which COUNTY may use to pay for initial
professional services required for scoping and preliminary design. PLEASE NOTE YOUR COMMENTS HERE DRAFT VERSION OFMCIP -MASTER ILA -9/28/00 for discussion only Pg. 12
) Article XI. RIGHT OF ENTRY The CITY agrees that COUNTY shall have the right to enter upon the Project area for the time period necessary for the completion of the Project. City agrees
to furnish such police personnel as requested by County for traffic control or other public safety matters at no cost to County. Article XII.. MISCELLANEOUS GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Applicable
Law. This Contract and all matters pertinent thereto shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and exclusive venue shall be in Dallas County,
Texas. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, this Contract is expressly made subject to County's Sovereign Immunity, Title 5 ofTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and
all applicable State ofTexas and Federal laws. -B. Entire Agreement. This Contract, including all Work Orders, all exhibits and addendum, constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties hereto and may not be modified except by an instrument in writing executed by the parties hereto as herein provided. C. Severability. Ifany provision ofthis Contract shall be
held invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions hereof shall not be affected or impaired, and such remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. D. DefaultlWaiverlMitigati
on. It is not a waiver ofdefault if the non-defaulting party fails to declare immediately a default or delays in taking any action. Pursuit of any remedies set forth in this Contract
does not preclude pursuit of other remedies in this Contract or provided by law. Consultant shall have a duty to mitigate damages. E. Federal or State of Texas Funding. In the event
that any work or part thereof is funded by State ofTexas or U. S. Government federal funding and any statute, rule, regulation, grant, contract provision or other State of Texas or U.
S. Government law, rule, regulation or other provision imposes additional or greater requirement(s) than stated herein, City agrees to timely comply therewith without additional cost
or expense to County. F. Headings. The titles which are used following the number of each paragraph are only for convenience in locating various provisions ofthis Contract and shall
not be deemed to affect the interpretation or construction of such provision. G. Number and Gender. Words ofany gender used in this Contract shall be held and construed to include any
other gender; and words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa, unless the text clearly requires otherwise. H. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all ofwhich shall constitute one and the same instrument. I. Funding. Notwithstanding any provisions contained herein, this
Contract is expressly contingent upon the availability of funding for each item and obligation contained DRAFT VERSION OFMCIP -MASTER ILA -9/28/00 for discussion only Pg. 13
herein for the tenn ofthe agreement and any extension thereto. CITY shall have no right of action against the COUNTY ofDallas in the event that the COUNTY ofDallas is unable to fulfill
its obligations under this MASTER AGREEMENT as a result of lack of sufficient funding for any item or obligation from any source utilized to fund this MASTER AGREEMENT or failure to
budget or authorize funding for this MASTER AGREEMENT during the current or future fiscal years. In the event that County ofDallas is unable to fulfill its obligations under this MASTER
AGREEMENT as a result of lack of sufficient funding or if funds become unavailable. County ofDallas. at its sole discretion. may. subsequent to execution by County. provide funds from
a separate source or terminate this MASTER AGREEMENT. J. Remedies This agreement shall not be considered as specifying the exclusive remedy for any agreement default. but all remedies
existing at law and in equity may be availed ofby either party to this agreement and shall be cumulative. The City of , State of Texas, has executed the Agreement pursuant to duly authorized
City Council Resolution , Minutes Dated the __day of , 200_. The County of Dallas, State of Texas, has executed this agreement pursuant to Commissioners Court Order Number and passed
on the__day of ---" 200 • CITY OF _ BY TITLE ATTEST _ CITY SECRETARY \ ATTORNEY COUNTY OF DALLAS BY LEE JACKSON, COUNTY JUDGE APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Dahill, Advisory Chief, Civil
Section Dallas County District Attorney DRAFT VERSION OFMCIP -MASTER ILA -9/28/00 for discussion only Pg. 14
PLEASE NOTE YOUR COMMENTS HERE CdiSelas 2000-03/CIPMLA DRAFT VERSION OFMCIP -MASTER ILA -9/28/00 for discussion only Pg. 15
DALLAS COUNTYPUBLIC WORKS • GUIDING COALTION --Finished 7 Habits • Salary Increases for Technical People, Re-Iook by Personnel for some other specialties • Successful CIP Planning Cycle
and Transition to PM Two Outstanding Call for Projects -Great Performance by consultant and County Team -Superb Teamwork between PW and Commissioners to build project lists -Acceptance
by Court without controversy for first PY projects • Sticking together during tough times --opportunities, not unsolvable problems
PUBLIC WORKS • FY 2001 BUDGET SUBMISSION APPROVALS -3 Additional People -Training for Designers and GIS folks -Confirmation from Court that we are on right azimuth • PARTNERING SUCCESSES
-Joe Wilson and Beltline --Coppell, highly successful starts -City-County Partnering Session 13 October • Successful Bids op. 3 Key Projects -Joe Wilson -Beltline -Haskell
) GOAL #4 PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE:· Objective 4.1: Develop candidate project recommendations with our partner cities and agencies for the 1999 TEA-21 Call for Projects by NCTCOG as Phase
1 of our Capital Improvement Program. (Don Cranford) AAR Objective 4.2: Develop recommended transportation elements for the Dallas County Major Capital Development Funding Plan. (Don
Cranford) Objective 4.3: Reengineer our design, ROW, and construction programming and project management processes for future Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. (Don Holzwarth,
AD's, and Jack Hedge) GOAL #5 INVEST IN PEOPLE: Objective 5.1: .Establish a professional development system that provides for more systematic career progression, training programs, and
incentives for high performance tied to our Departmental Goals and Objectives. (Don Holzwarth, AD's, Toni Bacchus and Irv Griffin) Objective 5.2: Improve Public Works facilities and
furnishings in order to increase personal productivity. (Don Holzwarth and AD's) AAR Objective 5.3: Assure all Public Works Team Members have Personal Performance Objectives in place.
linked to the Department Strategy, and are held accountable for achievement. (Don Holzwarth, AD's, and all Supervisors) Objective 5.4: Develop Safety manual for County personnel. (Dan
Middleton and James Walsh) Issue 2, Number I Revised 8/30/00 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 1999 to 2001 Mission Statement: Our mission is to improve the quality of life of our
customers --the citizens, taxpayers, transportation users, communities, and intemal County partners -by effectively planning, developing, implementing andadministering approved regional
public works transportation projects, supporting maintenance of county-wide roads and bridges, and providing real property management services. Vision Statement: Dallas County Public
Works Department........ • A recognized leader in regional transportation planning and coordination. • An effective agent and valued partner for planning, design, right-of-way acquisition,
and construction of high value-added regional transportation projects. • Avital part of Dallas County govemment. • Avalues based organization,"o-Respected, Responsive, Reliable; -demonstrating
extraordinary caring.. ... caring leadership of our County people; caring partnerships focused on our customers; .. . . caring stewardship of the fiscal and natural resources we manage.
-.;" . . ) DALLAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS Dallas County experienced a surge of economic growth and population expansion in the lato nineties. Critical to the success of sustainablo growth
is the transportation infrastructure in tho County. With over 2 million people and 32 cities, Dallas County is preparing for the 21st CentuT]f with a renewed sense of energy and excitement.
The men and women of the Public Works Department enthusiastically accept the challengo to be proactive leaders in delivering transportation projects in a manner that truly delights our
customers. Our Strategic Plan consists of our Mission, Vision, Goals and Objectives. . DIRECTOR'S DIRECTOR'S INTENT: ·Our. Strategic Plan. represents our best thinkinq on what should
be driving our collective 􀁣􀁨􀁡􀁮􀁧􀁅􀁾 efforts. As we work the day-to-elay tasks in ourjob descriptions, our vision and goals are the beacon and aligning force we all need to assure that our efforts are orchestrated. Our mission is basic, that we improve the quality of
hfe of our customers through our value-added transportation proJechi and related services. Our vision is about what 􀁗􀁅􀁾 aspire to be. We have a slgmflcant role to p-Iay in the unique
and exciting environment of Dallas County. Our cities need us to be 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁡􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁶􀁬􀁾 leaders since we have the perspective of thH whole County. Our customers -the citizens and transportation
users -need us to have 􀁴􀁨􀁬􀁾 County and region-wide transportation picture in focus. In order to be a good leader and a good partner, we need to be robust and strong Internally -Respected,
Responsive, ana Reliable. We need to be revolutionary in our thinking in how to deliver projects while the environment in which we work has become more complex. Given the political,
environmental, and bureaucratic constraints we face, we need extraordinary efforts to succeed. We aspire to be indispensable to our customers. Their elected representatives, the Commissioners
and Judge, should view us as their team 'of professionals whom they can count on to deliver vitally needed transportation 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁪􀁾􀁣􀁴􀁳 and services, on-time and within budget. When
we truly delight those whom we serve, our future will be assured." " ) STRATEGIC GOALS While our vision is a beacon, the Goals guide us to more specific action. They become the major
categories of effort in which we need to progress. We expect the Goals to change only infrequently as we proceed up the path of change. As opportunities arise, we may discover other
major categories of work that we need to accomplish to achieve our vision. Our five Goals guide us to achieve revolutionary progress for the benefit of our customers and partners. GOAL
#1 REV 0 L UTI 0 N I Z E EFFECTIVENESS: Oramabcally Improve our project delivery capability. Use the 3 R's of Restructuring, Reengineering, and Reinvention to assure we are optimally
organized, have the most efficient processes and have the right core competencies to meet future needs. GOAL #2 LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGY: Use the new information management, design and project
management tools to help revolutionize our productivity. . GOAL #3 REVITALIZE PARTNERSHIPS: Improve the effecbveness of our external partnerships and internal County teamwork. GOAL #4
PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE: Prepare for the next capital investment program through extensive coordination and assuring we leam from insights gained in executing the 1991 Bond Program..
GOAL #5 INVEST IN PEOPLE: Show extraordinary care for our people, assuring that we recruit, develop and retain the best possible team members for Public Work&.
STRATEGIC OBJE 􀀮􀁾 Our Vision and Goals are ultimately achieved through specific actions -our Objectives. These are C9ncrete plans of action with process and product improvement as
the targeted results. They are aimed at the heart of our business -delivering projects to customers in concert with our partners. We initially tackled a finite number of Objectives in
order to stretch but not overwhelm our people. As Objectives are successfully completed, an After Action Review 'M-R} is written to explain "What Happened" and "Lessons Learned". Often
these reveal the need for new or modified Objectives. As a result we have alinost doubled the number of Objectives. By continuing to select lhe right Objectives, achieving the milestones,
and incorporating measures of progress into our regular processes, we can achieve the kind of lasting and beneficial change to achieve our Vision. GOAL #1 REVOLUTIONIZE EFFECTIVENESS:
Objective 1.1: Achieve effective and efficient financial program management capability in Public Works. (Don Holzwarth}AAR Objective 1.2: Achieve FY 00 and FY01 targets for encumbering
funds in each of the 3 Program areas of Public Works (Transportation & Planning, Property, and Engineering & Construction). (Don Holzwarth)Objective 1.2.1: Achieve FY 00 & FY 01 design
completion and construction award targets. (Alberta Blair-Robinson) Objective 1.2.2: Achieve FY 00 and FY01 targets for encumbering funds in .property acquisition activities. (Selas
Camarillo) Objective 1.2.3: Achieve FY 00 and FY01 Targets for encumbering planning, transportation and CMAQ funds. (Don Cranford) Objective 1.3: !'-jngineer our utility coordination
process in design and construction. (Janet Norman) AAR Objective 1.3.1: Increase capability through Indefinite Delivery Quality Contract for Subsurface Utility Engineering. (Janet Norman)
Objective 1.3.2: Increase capability through Strategic Utility Partnering. (Janet Norman) Objective 1.4: Institute evaluation systems for design consultants and construction contractors.
(Dale Davidson) AAR Objective 1.5: Revise and improve contracts with consultants and cities. (John Mears) AAR . Objective 1.5.1: Revise ILA contract documents with cities and other agencies
that will be utilized for the new MCIP. (Alberta BlairRobinson) Objective 1.5.i Develop new contract and systems for . bringing consultants' on-board for new MCIP. (Alberta Blair-Robinson)
Objective 1.6: Assign designers to work as construction project engineers. (Alberta Blair-Robinson) AAR Objective 1.7: Increase capability to do lab, survey, design, and subsurface utilities
engineering (SUE) services through Indefinite Delivery Contracts. (Jack Hedge and Alberta Blair-Robinson) Objective 1.8: Increase capability within the Design Branch by filling vacant
designer positions. (Jack Hedge, Alberta Blair-Robinson and Don Holzwarth) Objective 1.9: Increase Right of Way acquisition capability to assure Bond Program and future Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) projects stay on track. (Selas Camarillo) AAR Objective 1.10: Revise the Dallas County overall ROW policy. (salas Camarillo) Objective 1. 11: Develop a f<:. )Iy structured
and documented constructibility review process. (Irv Griffin) AAR Objective 1.12: Develop new change order policy and procedures. (James Walsh) AAR Obiective 1.13: Establish a Pavement
Quality Team to evaluate Dallas County procedures, specifications, and processes related to concrete pavements. (Larry Ansley) AAR Objective 1.14: Dramatically Improve Public Works Financial
Management Processes. (Noah New) Objective 1.15: Establish and maintain a Public Works Department Technical Library (Jack Hedge and Sid Horner) Objective 1.16: Continue to train and
develop a matrix team process to effectively incorporate the 5Phase Capital Improvement Program utilizing the individual strengths of the team members. (Irv Griffin) Objective 1.17:'
Develop New Public Works Design Guidelines and Manual. (Jack Hedge) Objective 1.18: Revise/update subdivision policy. (Jack Hedge, David McSwain and Doug Keesey) Objective 1.19: Develop
a Manufactured Home Rental Community Policy. (Jack Hedge) AAR Objective 1.20:· Fill senior inspector and current vacant inspector positions. (Alberta Blair-Robinson) Objective 1.21:
Establish Construction Utility Coordinator. (Alberta Blair-Robinson) GOAL #2 LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGY: Objective 2.1: Upgrade Public Works computer resources and tools in order to dramatically
improve our effectiveness. (Don Holzwarth) AAR Objective 2.2: Obtain Cell phones for appropriate people in Public Works. (Sid Homer) AAR Objective 2.3: R( ) and Implement New Project
Management TOOlS (Microsoft Projects 98 and New PSR). (Alberta Blair-Robinson) , Objective 2.4: Dramatically improve our project delivery capability by planning, developing and acquiring
technology to move Public Works Transportation projects to web-based or other computer linked solutions for project management. (Irv Griffin) Objective 2.5: Provide computers and training
for inspectors. (Bud Snodgrass) Objective 2.6: Establish Construction Senior Technical Coordinator. (Alberta Blair-Robinson) Objective 2.7: Utilize a streamlined process of obtaining
property tax maps and related data using GIS technology. (Craig Marek) Objective 2.8: Improve service to our public customers and partners through planning, design and implementing a
PW home page as part of Dallas County web-based service. (Edith Ngwa) Objective 2.9: Prepare to execute the first phase of the Public Works CIP by ensuring that all designers, technicians
and drafters are trained in Microstation J. (Jack Hedge and Toni Bacchus) GOAL #3 REVITALIZE PARTNERSHIPS: Objective 3.1: Plan and execute general partnering workshops with key private
sector and public works organizations during FY 00. (Don Holzwarth) AAR Objective 3.2: Assure effective contract partnering for construction projects initiated in FY 99 and FY 00.. (Project
Managers) Objective 3.3: Reestablish and recharge strong ties with intemal partners within Public Works and Dallas County. (Don Holzwarth) Objective3.4:J Improve the Property Division
information distribution process. (Pam Easterling) AAR Objective 3.5: . Work to help streamline the multijurisdictional review process. (Don Holzwarth) (Continued on opposite page)
construction prol,.J and PM processes for CIP projects. (Don Holzwarth, AD's &Jack Hedge) Objective 4.4: Achieve and sustain a "trusted agent" relationship with TxDOT (Irv Griffin) Objective
4.4. 1 Develop alessons-learned database for sharing knowledge. (Craig Goodroad) Objective 4.5: Establish procedures and respond to GASB 34 requirements. (Edith Ngwa) Objective 4.6:
Develop Dallas County Thoroughfare Plan. (Edith Ngwa) Objective 4.7: Transition CMAQ Contractor support to department personnel. (Sam Wilson) Objective 4.8: Develop process to accurately
estimate the cost of CIP projects. (Jack Hedge &Edith Ngwa) Objective 4.8.1: Refine cost-engineering to assure competitive unit prices. (Kasem Elkhalid) Objective 4.9: Develop a process
to track newly proposed legislation, etc. (Edith Ngwa) Objective 4.10: Create single source reporting document for all financial processes. (Shirley Rapp) Objective 4.11: Develop a Public
Works Informational Brochure. (Isela Rodriguez) GOAL #5 INVEST IN PEOPLE: Objective 5.1: 5.1: Establish a professional development system. (Director, AD's, Toni Bacchus &Irv Griffin)
Objective 5.1.1: Develop and implement efforts to use TxDOT's training. (Irv Griffin) Objective 5.2: Improved Public Works facilities and furnishings to increase personal productivity.
AAR Objective 5.3: Assure all PW Team Members have Performance Objectives in place. (All Supervisors) Objective 5.4: Developed Safety Manual for County personnel. AAR Objective 5.5:
Develop and implement improved Construction Document Procedures. (Irv Griffin) Issue 3, Number 4 Revised 10/01/02 ) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 1999 to 2005 Mission Statement:
Our mission is to improve the quality of life of our customers --the citizens, taxpayers, transportation users, communities, and internal County partners -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
management services. Vision Statement: Dallas County Public Works Department........ .A recognized leader in regional transportation planning and coordination. • An effective agent and
valued partner for planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of high value-added regional transportation projects. • Avital part ofDallas County government. • A values
based organization; -Respected, Responsive, Reliable; -demonstrating extraordinary caring.. ... caring leadership of our County people; -caring partnerships focused on our customers;
caring stewardship of the fiscal and natural resources we manage. DALLAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS Dallas County experienced a surge of economic growth and population expansion in the late
nineties. Critical to the success of sustainable growth is the transportation infrastructure in the County. With over 2 million people and 32 cities, Dallas County is preparing for the
21st Century with a renewed sense of energy and excitement. The men and women of the Public Works Department enthusiastically accept the challenge to be proactive leaders in delivering
transportation projects in a manner that truly delights our customers. Our Strategic Plan consists of our Mission, Vision, Goals and Objectives. DIRECTOR'S INTENT: "Our Strategic Plan
represents our best thinking on what should be driving our collective change efforts. As we work the day-to-day tasks in our job descriptions, our vision and goals are the beacon and
aligning force we all need to assure that our efforts are orchestrated. Our mission is basic, that we improve the quality of life of our customers through our value-added transp.ortation
projects and related services. Our vision is about what we aspire to be. We have a slgnfflcant role to p-Iay in the unique and exciting environment of Dallas County. Our cities need
us to be proactive leaders since we have the perspective of the whole County. Our customers -the citizens and transportation users -need us to have the County and region-wide transportation
p'icture in in focus. In order to be a good leader and a good partner we need to be robust and sfrong Intema(ly -Respected, ResRonsive, ana Reliable. We need to be revolutionary in our
thinking in how to deliver projects while the environment in which we work has become more complex. Given the p.olitical, environmental, and bureaucratic constraints we face, we need
extraordinary efforts to succeed. We aspire to be indispensable to our customers. Their elected representatives, the Commissioners and Judge, should view us as their team of professionals
whom they can count on to deliver vitally needed transportation projects and services on-time and within budget. When we truly delight those whom we serve, our future will be assureo."
STRATEGIC GOALS While our vision is a beacon, the Goals guide us to more specific action. They become the major categories of effort in which we need to progress. We expect the Goals
to change only infrequently as we proceed up the path of change. As opportunities arise, we may discover other other major categories of work that we need to accomplish to achieve our
vision. Our five Goals guide us to achieve revolutionary progress for the beneftt of our customers and partners. GOAL #1 REV 0 L UTI 0 N I Z E EFFECTIVENESS: Dramatically improve our
project delivery capability. Use the 3 R's of Restructuring, Reengineering, and Reinvention to assure we are optimally organized, have the most efficient processes and have the right
core competencies to meet future needs. GOAL #2 LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGY: Use the new information management, design and project management tools to help revolutionize our productiVity. GOAL
#3 REVITAUZE PARTNERSHIPS: Improve the effectiveness of our extemal partnerships and internal County teamwork. GOAL #4 PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE: Prepare for the next capital investment
program through extensive coordination and assuring we learn from insights gained in executing the 1991 Bond Program. GOAL #5 INVEST IN PEOPLE: Show extraordinary care for our people,
assuring that we recruit, develop and retain the best possible team members for Public Works.
) STkAtEGIC OBJECTIVES Our Vision and Goals are ultimately achieved through specific actions -our Objectives. These are concrete plans of action with process and product improvement
as the targeted results. They are aimed at the heart of our business -delivering projects to customers in concert with our partners. We initially tackled a finite number of Objeotives
in order to stretch but not overwhelm our people. As Objectives are successfully completed, an After Action Review (AAR) is written to explain 'What Happened· and ·Lessons Learned·.
Often these reveal the need for new or modified Objectives. As a result we have more than doubled the number of Objectives. By continuing to select the right Objectives, achieving the
milestones, and incorporating measures of progress into our regular processes, we can achieve the kind of lasting and beneficial change to achieve our Vision. GOAL #1 REVOLUTIONIZE EFFECTIVENESS:
Objective 1.1: Achieved effective and efficient financial program management. AAA Objective 1.2: Achieve FY 02 & FY 03 targets for encumbering funds in each of the 3Program areas. Objective
1.2.1: Achieve FY 02 & FY 03 design completion and construction award targets. (Alberta Blair-Robinson) Objective 1.2.2: Achieve FY 02 & FY 03 targets for encumbering funds in property
acquisition activities. (Selas Camarillo) Objective 1.2.3: Achieve FY 02 & FY 03 Targets for encumbering planning, transportation and CMAQ funds. (Don Cranford) Objective 1.3: Reengineered
our utility coordination process. AAR Objective 1.3.1: Increase capability through Indefinite Delivery Quality Contract (IDQ) for Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE). AAR Objective
1.3.2: Increased capability through Strategic Utility Partnering. AAR Objective 1.3.3: Utility relocation Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). (David McSwain) Objective 1.4: Instituted
evaluation systems for design consultants and construction contractors. AAR Objective 1.5: Revised and improved contracts with consultants and cities. AAR Objective 1.5.1: Revised ILA
contract documents with cities/other agencies for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). AAA Objective 1.5.2: Developed systems to bring consultants on-board for CIP. AAR Objective 1.6:
Assigned designers to work as construction project engineers. AAR Objective 1.7: Increase capability to do lab, survey, design, and SUE services through IDQ Contracts. (Jack Hedge &Alberta
Blair-Robinson) Objective 1.7.1: Increase capability to do Minor Engineering with IDQ Contracts. (Jack Hedge) Objective 1.8: Fill vacant designer positions. (Jack Hedge, Alberta Blair-Robinson
&Don Holzwarth) Objective 1.9: Increased ROW acquisition capability for Bond Program and CIP projects. AAR Objective 1.10: Revised the Dallas County overall ROW policy. AAA Objective
1.11: Developed a structured and documented constructibility review process. AAA Objective 1.12: Developed new change order policy and procedures. AAA Objective 1.13: Established aPavement
Quality Team to evaluate County procedures. AAA Objective 1.14: Dramatically Improved Public Works Financial Management Processes. AAR Objective 1.14.1: Establish a division for finan-.
cial &engineering management (Noah New) Objective 1.14.2: Develop written Financial Procedures for department. (Matrix Team) Objective 1.14.3 Establish procedures for program/engineering
management. (Matrix Team) Objective 1.15: Establish and maintain a Department Technical Library. (Jack Hedge &Sid Horner) Objective 1.16: Continue to train/develop matrix team process
to incorporate the 5-Phase CIP. AAR Objective 1.17: Develop New Public Works Design Guidelines and Manual. (Jack Hedge) Objective 1.17.1: Document &standardize elements of the design
process. (Toni Bacchus) Objective 1.17.2: Develop, document &standardize checklist plan sets. (Dale Davidson) Objective 1.18: Revise/update subdivision policy. (Jack Hedge, David McSwain
&Doug Keesey) Objective 1.19: Developed a Manufactured Home Rental Community Policy. AAR Objective 1.20: Fill senior inspector and current vacant inspector positions. (Alberta Blair-Robinson)
Obiective 1.21: Established Construction Utility Coordinator. AAA Objective 1.22: Approved for a Department-wide restructuring initiative for the new CIP. AAR Objective 1.23: Review
permitting requirements for permits issued by DCPW. (David McSwain) Objective 1.24: Review permitting requirements for permits obtained by DCPW. (Jim Smith) Objective 1.25: Revise the
Consultants Guidelines for preparing ROW documents. (Irv Griffin) Objective 1.26: Plan for implementation of SWPPP II Requirements. (David McSwain) Objective 1.27: Develop a business
plan and incorporate business practices. (Noah New) GOAL #2 LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGY: Objective 2.1: Upgraded Public Works computer resources and tools. AAR Objective 2.2: Obtained Cell phones
for appropriate people in Public Works. AAR Objective 2.3: Revised and Implemented New Project ManagementTools. AAR Objective 2.4: Improve our project delivery capability through the
use of web-based or other computer linked solutions for project management. (Irv Griffin) ) Obiective 2.5: Provided computers and training for inspectors. AAR Objective 2.6: Establish
Construction Senior Technical Coordinator. (Alberta Blair-Robinson) Objective 2.7: Obtain property tax maps and related data using GIS technology. (Craig Marek) Objective 2.8: Improve
service to our public customers & partners through a PW home page (Edith Ngwa) Objective 2.9: Insure all designers, technicians and drafters are trained in Microstation J. (Jack Hedge
& Toni Bacchus) Objective 2.10: Implementation of Public Works Domain. (Toni Bacchus &Team) GOAL #3 REVITAUZE PARTNERSHIPS: Objective 3.1: General partnering workshops with private sector
and PW organizations FY 00. AAR Objective 3.2: Contract partnering for construction projects initiated in FY 99 and FY 00. AAR Obiective 3.3: Reestablish and recharge strong ties with
internal partners within PW and Dallas County. (Don Holzwarth) Objective 3.4: Improved the Property Division information distribution process. AAR Objective 3.5: Worked to help streamline
the multijurisdictional review process. AAR Objective 3.6: Share lessons learned in CIP process with City partners. (Alberta Blair-Robinson) GOAL #4 PREPAREFOR THE FUTURE: Objective
4.1: Partnered on the 1999 TEA-21 Call for Projects by NCTCOG for CIP. AAR Objective 4.2: Develop recommended transportation elements for the Dallas County CIP. (Don Cranford) Objective
4.3: Reengineer our design, ROW, and (Continued on reverse OQf!e)
CITY OF ADDISON KICKOFF MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2000 NAME COMPANY E-MAIL ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER I AcJ:. lJ.Het:>GE .2>£ CQ PW ../JJeclqea 􀁀􀀾􀁾􀀯􀁫􀀻􀀮􀁳􀀼􀁤􀁖􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀧 ar7 z /4,
􀁾􀁓􀁾􀀬􀀶􀀾􀀴􀀭􀁾􀁯 Z/4,""S3" '-445 JilrJa iJ ;1/􀁾􀀩 J) II , I 􀁁􀀡􀁁􀁊􀁾uJe dcr/hs QOCU1 􀁾􀀮 Drq ;)/4 􀁾􀁳 3 7/Sj :;(/1 􀀶􀁳􀀭􀁾 co C;-C(..)-C!tvTCIIIAt1/--' 5f-evc yoWtV t:/F 􀁁􀀮􀁰􀀮􀁴􀀺􀁲􀀮􀀾�
�􀁾 .sc IIIt Ie It'tlI1(iV) c.,;. tlclcl/.sOh -Ix. t{ (, 17 2-􀀴􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀲􀁊􀀧􀀳􀀿 C/72.-􀀴􀀭􀀹􀁾 zgffb 􀁍􀀬􀁛􀁴􀁾 Mue:plfi{ " II " 􀁭􀁭􀁷􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁉􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁨􀂷􀁾 472..· 4t;04 􀁚􀀸􀀱􀁾
H l)' VIA {i€.V'UJ i • l' I\, I p,-eY'c..o .. ' ( • l k 􀁾􀀷􀀿 I' 􀁁􀁬􀁨􀀻􀁊􀁾􀀭􀁨 D·􀁾􀁄􀁾Ot n$1l1 mill/.J U 􀁾􀁫 -'i.􀁾􀀨􀀩􀁾 􀁨􀀬􀁓􀁬􀁊􀀱􀀱􀀱􀁾da fk511#-􀁾􀁁􀁌 .OYq !.)I'/) 􀁾􀁲􀀩
71S/􀁾􀁾􀀳 􀁾􀁥􀀻􀁴􀁉􀁳􀀭 , "-'" v J ""-.: --;7 -
) . ) ....-􀀮􀁾􀀧 District 1 II ! Attachment to Court Order No, 2002-1261, page 2 i Public Works Major Capital Improvement program, Approved July 9, 2002 09.Jul-02 FundinglCost Forecast
-Revision #3 , -,I " . , ' Funding Project ' Year " Program Year .. County Funding Only I Countyl By Total County Project City , Source', , Type', Selected' 2004 ',2005 2007 ' 2008 '
2009::' 2010: Totals! , Others " i 2006 Cost ,Share " ' " , ' ',"I ' , , .1 ,'. . ,r· .... " .... .. .. " " . .. I " : , .. '·l MClp'Funding Authorized I " I ' ' , . . ' ! . . "I TEA
-21 Funding Available .. ! MCIP-T21 2,227,161 0 1,250,000 1,250,000, 1,250,000 1,250,000 I 7,227,161 I Thoroughfare Funding Available MCIP-Thor 1 I 1,522,839 j 3,750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
5,000,000 5,000,000 I 25,272,839 I Major Impact Funding Available MCIP-MI I 1,666,500: 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1 I 9,999,000 I -Total Transportation Funding
Available i 5,416,5OO i 5,416,500' 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500J 0 1 42,499,000 -i I II Projected Project Costs I I 1 I , I i Intersection Group 1 Dallas MCIP-T21 !Intersection
I 1999 51,917 i 51,917' 207,667 259,584 --20:0% 1 I Belt Line Rd -SH 289/Preston to Dallas Pkwy Dallas MCIP-T21 Widening i 1999 102,670 444,778 I i I 547,448 2,189,787 2,737,235 -20:0%
Inwood Rd @Lovers Lane Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 1999 75,713 75,713 302,847 378,560 20.0% Valley View Ln -Nicholson to IH 635 Farmers Branch MCIP-T21 Widening 1999 520,001 I 520,001
2,079,999 2.600.000, 􀀭􀀭􀁾 Campbell Rd -Jay Ell Rd to US 75 Richardson, MCIP-T21 Grade Sep. iI 1999 3,519,700, I i 3,519,700 19,944,963 23,464,663 15.0% Belt Une -Maryland to Denton
Dr Carrollton MCIP-T21 Thoroughfare 2002 4,000,000 I 4.000,000 16,000,000 20,000,000, -20.0% ! I ; I !I i 0-i , Northwest Corridor Participation Irving MCIP-MI Thoroughfare ! 2002 500,000
500,000 59,500,000 60,000,000 i 0.8% f I " . ,-" Midway -Spring Valley to Dooley . Addison MCIP-Thor· Signal I ·.2000 ' , 196,000 . , 196,0001 ' 196,000 392,000-' 50.0% I ' , , Arapaho
-.Addison Rd to SurVeyor Addison. MCIP-Thor ·1 New Facility , 2000 , ., , 1,432.812l 1,432,812 , ' 12,895,308 14,328,120I 10.0% " ' Old Denton 􀁾 Whitlock to Trinity Mills Carrollton
MCIP-Thor Reconstruct i 2000 -.. . 2,500,000 j 2,500,000 2,500,000 5,000,000 , . 50.0% IH 35E -Spur 348/NW Hwy to Spur 4821Storey Dallas MCIP-Thor Frontage Rd 2000 i 899,000 899,000
2,201,000 3,100,000 29.0% Hillcrest -Royal to Loop 121NW Hwy Dallas MCIP-Thor Tum Lanes -I 20001 737,5001 I 737,500 737,500 1,475,000 50.0% Collins @Plano Rd Richardson , MCIP-Thor Intersection
i 2000 175,000 175,000 175,000 350,000 50.0% Spring Valley @WeathElrred/Goldmark Richardson MCIP-Thor Intersection ! 2000 475,000 , 475.000 ' 475,000 950,000 .. 50.0% Belt Une -Plano
Rd to JupiterRd Richardson MCIP-Thor Rehab. 2000 277,721 55,479 I 333,200 346,800 680,000'; 49.0% Main StlBelt Line -Interurban Rd to US 75 Richardson MCIP-Thor Tum Lanes II 2000 , 200,0001
! I ! 200,000 200,000 400,OOO! _.-50.0% . Belt Une @Dal/as Parkway Addison MCIP-Thor Intersection Intersection I 2002 838,174 ! I 838,174 3,352,701 4,190,875 20.0% I Preston Rd -Mimosa
to N ofRoyal Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 2002 2,363,130j i I 2,363,130 2,363,130 4,726,260 1 50.0% Royal -Webb Chapel to Marquis Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare Ii 2002 i 1,216,116 i
! 1,216,116 1,216,116 2,432,2321 50,0% Mockingbird -Hillcrest to W ofDNT Highland Park MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 2002 2,145,293 II 2,145,293 2,622,026 4,767,319 45.0% Campbell @Plano Rd
Richardson MCIP-Thor Intersection 2002 267,395 i 267,395 267,395 534,790 50.0% I I I .. I ---I I I III Total Estimated Costs Per Year I ,, 4,487,5001 3,550,674 3,297,874 7,795,942' 3,861,409
01 0' 􀀲􀀲􀀬􀀹􀀹􀁾􀀬􀀳􀀹􀀹 129,773,239 152,766,6381 15.1% I I , Estimated In-house Project Delivery Costs (25% of Total) ! 374,250: . 591,500 .514,0001 529,435' 545,296 561,572: 578,504:
3,694,557 2,421,444 6,116,000 1 􀀬􀁾 1 I --Annual Unprogrammed Balance " I 554,750: 1,274,326! 4,104,626 -408,877 3,509,796 7,354,928! -578,5041 ' 15,811,045, ---i I I I Cumulative Unprogrammed
Balance I 554,750: 1,829,076' 5,933,702 5,524,825 9,034,621 16,389,549 : 15,811,045; I i ; 1 I I ! I I .. i .-Notes: TEA-21 Project cost estimates are the latest, adjusted for inflation,
estimates from NCTCOG. I I I District 1 I A 50% minimum match is assumed for City of Carrollton projects. All other Thoroughfare projects listed meet or exceed the 50% minimum. i -,
The Campbell Road Grade Separation TEA·21 Proiect may take longer to develop than estimated above which would increase the funding available for thoroughfares in the early years. I
.. \ ,; ) ) 1--4 FQr Briefing Qn OctQber 10. 2000 Public: Works 0400c:t-110 FundlnglCQst FQrecast Funding PrQject PrQgram Year -CQunty Funding Only CQunty By Total County Project District
Source Type 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Totals Others Cost Share MCIP Funding Authorized TEA· 21 FundinQ Available 1 MCIP-T21 2,227,161 0 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000
0 7,227,161 2 2,227,160 0 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 0 7,227,160 3 2,227,161 0 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 0 7,227,161 4 2,227,160 0 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000
1,250,000 0 7,227,160 Tolal 8.908,642 0 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 0 28,908,642 ThorouQhfare Fundina Available 1 MCIP-Thor 1,522,839 3,750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
5,000,000 0 25,272,839 2 1,522,840 3,750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 0 25,272,840 3 1,522,839 3,750,000, 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 0 25,272.839 4 1,522,840
3.750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 0 25,272,840 Tolal 6,091,358 15,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 0 101,091,358 Maior Impact Fundina Available
1 MCIP·MI 1.666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 0 9,999,000 2 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 0 9,999,000 3 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500
1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 0 9,999,000 4 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 0 9,999,000 Tolal 6,666,000 6,666,000 6,666,0006,666,000 6,666,000 6,666,000 0 39,996,000 Total Transportation Funding Available 21.666,000 21,666.000 31,666,000 31,666,000 31,666,000 31,666,000 0 169,996,000 I Projected Project
Costs TEA·21 Profects 1 MCIP·T21 3,750,000 964,779 0 0 0 0 0 4,714,779 24,725,263 29,440,042 16.0% 2 0 1,181,857 0 0 0 0 0 1,181,857 4,727,426 5,909,283 20.0% 3 598,550 1,853,745 0 0
0 0 0 2,452,295 11,626,445 14.078,740 17.4% 4 542,673 0 0 0 0 0 0 542,673 7,000,687 7.543,360 7.2% Tolal 4,891,223 4,000,381 0 0 0 0 0 8,891,604 48,079,821 56,971,425 15.6% Major Imoact
Proiects 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25.0% Tolal 2,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,000,000
15,000,000 20,000,000 25.0% Thoroughfare Proiects 1 MCIP-Thor 0 2,785,221 6,250,000 5,763.291 0 0 0 14,798,512 40,451,608 55,250,120 26.8% 2 3,750,000 2,573,000 5,282,500 0 0 0 0 11,605,500
11,605,500 23,211,000 50.0% 3 3,176,666 1,895,000 2,050,000 0 0 0 0 7,121,666 7,121,666 14,243,332 50.0% 4 2,936,000 2,395,550 3,336,000 0 0 0 0 8,667,550 13,839,550 22,507,100 38.5%
Tolal 9,862,666 9,648,771 16,918,500 5,763,291 0 0 0 42,193,228 73,018,324 115,211,552 36.6% Total Estimated Costs Per Year 16,753,889 16,649,152 16,918,500 5,763,291 0 0 0 56,084,832
136,098,145 192,182,977 29.2% Annual Unprogrammed Balance 4,912,111 5,016,848 14,747,500 25,902,709 31,666,000 31,666,000 0 113,911,168 Summary Estimated AdmInIstrative Cost Ranges Estimated
Annual AdmIn Charges, 5% Annual Inflation 2,461,000 3,445,000 3,617,000 3,798,000 3,989,000 4,188,000 4.398,000 25,896,000 0 25,896,000 100% Same 5% Inflation, Assume 50·50% Cost Sharing
1,230,500 1,722,500 1,808,500 1,899,000 1,994,500 2,094,000 2,199,000 12,948,000 12,948,000 25,896,000 50% Estimate Annual Admin Charges, 3% Annual Inflation 3,040,000 3,131,000 3,225,000
3,322,000 3,422,000 3,525,000 3,631,000 23,296,000 0 23,296,000 100% Same 3% Inflation, Assume 50·50% Cost SharIng 1,520,000 1,565,500 1,612,500 1,661,000 1,711,000 1,762,500 1,815,500
11,648,000 11,648,000 23,296,000 50%
District 2 For Briefing Qn October 10, 2000 Public Works Major Capital Improvement program 04-Qct-oo Funding/CQst FQrecast Funding Project PrQgram Year -CQunty Funding Only County By
Total CQunty Project City Source Type 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Totals Others Cost Share MCIP Funding Authorized TEA -21 Funding Available MCIP-T21 2,227,160 0 1,250,000 1,250,000
1,250,000 1,250,000 7,227,160 Thoroughfare Funding Available MCIP·Thor 1,522,840 3,750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 25,272,840 Major Impact Funding Available MCIP-MI 1,666,500
1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 9,999,000 Total Transportation Funding Available 5,416,500 5,416,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 0 42,499,000 Projected
Project Costs IH 635 Frontage Rds -Kingsley to LaPrada Garland MCIP-T21 Frontage Rds 1,181,857 1,181,857 4,727,426 5,909,283 20.0% Mockingbird Lane -W Lawther to E Lawther Dallas MCIP·Thor
PcIIBike Brdg 710,000 710,000 710,000 1,420,000 50.0% Northwest Hwy -Centerville to LaPrada Garland MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 722,500 722,500 722,500 1,445,000 50.0% **Miller Rd. -Centerville
to Garland City Lim Garland MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 458,000 458,000 458,000 916,000 50.0% Military Pkwy -IH 635 to Cannack Mesquite MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 1,750,000 1,750,000 1,750,000
3,500,000 50.0% Tripp Rd at Collins Rd Sunnyvale MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 109,500 168,000 277,500 277,500 555,000 50.0% Lawson Rd -Scyene to US 80 Sunnyvale MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 590,000
590,000 590,000 1,180,000 50.0% Pioneer Rd -Bruton to Belt Line Mesquite MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 4,100,000 4,100,000 4,100,000 8,200,000 50.0% Country Club -Walnut to Commerce Garland
MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 930,000 1,182,500 2,112,500 2,112,500 4,225,000 50.0% Skillman/Audelia • Whitehurst to Adleta Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 885,000 885,000 885,000 1,770,000 50.0%
Sachse MCIP-Thor 0 0 Total Estimated Costs per Year 3,750,000 3,754,857 5,282,500 0 0 0 0 12,787,357 16,332,926 29,120,283 43.9% Annual Unprogrammed Balance 1,666,500 1,661,643 2,634,000
7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 0 29,711,643 Notes: TEA-21 Project cost estimates are the latest, adjusted for inflation, estimates from NCTCOG. District 2 A 50% minimum match is assumed
all city projects. ** Miller Rd. Reimburses '91 Bond Program for funds advanced to these limits. I I
) District 3 For Briefing on October 10, 2000 Public Works Major Capital Improvement program O4-Oct-oo Funding/Cost Forecast Funding Project Program Year -County Funding Only County
By Total County Project City Source Type 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Totals Others Cost Share MCIP Funding Authorized TEA -21 Funding Available MCIP-T21 2,227,161 0 1,250,000
1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 7,227,161 Thoroughfare Funding Available MCIP-Thor 1,522,839 3,750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 25,272,839 Major Impact Funding Available
MCIP-MI 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 9,999,000 Total Transportation Funding Available 5,416,500 5,416,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 0 42,499,000
Projected Project Costs Beckley @Commerce & Colorado (COG Gr 22) Dallas MCIP-T21 Inters/Signal 59,489 59,489 237,951 297,440 20.0% Buckner@Scyene Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 31,651
31,651 211,817 243,468 13.0% Camp Wisdom @Houston School & Polk (Gr 5) Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 59,489 59,489 237,951 297,440 20.0% Colorado @Jefferson Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection
43,265 43,265 173,055 216,320 20.0% Gaston @Munger Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 48,673 48,673 194,687 243,360 20.0% Gaston @Washington Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 54,081 54,081 216,319
270,400 20.0% Red Bird @Hampton & Polk (GR 6) Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 58,407 58,407 233,625 292,032 20.0% IH 301 RL Thornton -Munger to Carroll Dallas MCIP-T21 Service Rd 263,804
263,804 1,765,451 2,029,255 13.0% Inwood Rd -Lemmon to Hines Dallas MCIP-T21 Widening 1,321,648 1,321,648 5,286,591 6,608,239 20.0% Loop 121Buckner -Lake June to US 175 Dallas MCIP-T21
Widening 268,293 268,293 1,795,495 2,063,788 13.0% Hines -Motor to Oak Lawn Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 132,237 132,237 528,945 661,182 20.0% Oak Lawn @IH 35E Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection
40,953 40,953 274,063 315,016 13.0% Olive @Woodall Rodgers Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 28,122 28,122 188,198 216,320 13.0% Pearl @Woodall Rodgers Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 42,183
42,183 282,297 282,297 324,480 13.0% IH 635 Service Rd -Lake June to Quail Rd Balch Springs MCIP-Thor Service Rd 796,666 796,666 796,666 1,593,332 50.0% Cockrell Hill Rd -LaReunion to
IH 30 Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 120,000 1,000,000 1,120,000 1,120,000 2,240,000 50.0% Fair Park Link -Exposition to Hall Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 1,475,000 1,475,000 1,475,000
2,950,000 50,0% Linfield -SH 310 to Illinois Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 600,000 600,000 600,000 1,200,000 50.0% Routh -Ross to US 75 SB Service Rd Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 1,050,000
1,050,000 1,050,000 2,100,000 50.0% Jim Miller-Elam to Loop 12 Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 1,180,000 1,180,000 1,180,000 2,360,000 50.0% Military Pkwy -Lawnview to Forney Rd Dallas
MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 600,000 300,000 900,000 900,000 1,800,000 50.0% Total Estimated Costs 3,775,216 3,748,745 2,050,000 0 0 0 0 9,573,961 18,748,111 28,322,072 33.8% Annual Unprogrammed
Balance 1,641,284 1,667,755 .5,866,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 0 32,925,039 -Notes: TEA-21 Project cost estimates are the latest, adjusted for inflation, estimates from NCTCOG.
District 3 A 50% minimum match is assumed for all projects.
\} District 4 For Briefing on October 10.2000 Public Works Major Capital Improvement Program 􀀰􀀴􀀭􀀰􀁣􀁴􀁾􀁏 Funding/Cost Forecast Funding Project Program Year -County Funding Only
County By Total County Project City Source Type 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Totals Others Cost Share MCIP Funding Authorized TEA -21 Funding Available MCIP-T21 2,227,160 0 1,250,000
1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 7,227,160 Thoroughfare Funding Available MCIP-Thor 1,522,840 3,750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 . 5,000,000 25,272,840 Major Impact Funding Available
MCIP-MI 1,660,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 9,999,000 Total Transportation Funding Available 5,416,500 5,416,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 0 42,499,000
Projected Project Costs Yannouth @Zang Bid. Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 48,673 48,673 194,687 243,360 20.0% IH 30 Service Rds -MacArthur to TRA RR Spur Grand Prairie MCIP-T21 Service
Rd. 494,000 494,000 6,806,000' 7,300,000 6.8% Mountain Creek Pkwy -IH 20 to Spur 408 Dallas MCIP-MI Thoroughfare 2,000,000 3,000,000 5,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25.0% . Clark Rd.
-S of Danieldale to Couch (Part) Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 934,133 934,133 934,133 1,868,266 50.0% Clark Rd. -S of Danieldale to Couch (Part) Duncanville MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 436,664
436,664 436,664 873,328 50.0% Clark Rd. -S of Danieldale to Couch (Part) Cedar Hill MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 529,203 529,203 529,203 1,058,406 50.0% IH 30 WB Frontage Rd -MacArthur to
Belt Line Grand Prairie MCIP-Thor Service Rd 384,000 384,000 1,536,000 1,920,000 20.0% IH 30 EB Frontage Rd -Belt Line to Bagdad Grand Prairie MCIP-Thor Service Rd 652,000 652,000 2,608,000
3,260,000 20.0% Cockrell Hill Rd -Wintergreen to Pleasant Run DeSoto MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 2,065,550 2,065,550 2,065,550 4,131,100 50.0% Hampton Rd @Bear Creek Rd Glenn Heights MCIP-Thor
Intersection 330,000 330,000 330,000 660,000 50.0% Houston School Rd -Wheatland to Belt Line Lancaster MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 3,336,000 3,336,000 5,400,000 8,736,000 38.2% Total Estimated
Costs per Year 5,478,673 5,395.550 3,336,000 0 0 0 0 14,210,223 35,840,237 50,050,460 28.4% Annual Unprogrammed Balances -62,173 20,950 4,580,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 0 28,288,777
District 4 Notes: TEA-21 Project cost estimates are the latest, adjusted for inflation, estimates from NCTCOG. A 50% minimum match is assumed all city projects.
􀁗􀁪􀁾 /, /cr District 1 -For Briefing on October 10, 2000 //􀁐􀁵􀁢􀁬􀁬􀁣􀁗􀁯􀁾 Major Capitallmproyement Program I I 04-Qct-oo Funding/Cost Forecast I I /I I Funding Project wi"" Program
Year -Cc􀁾􀁬􀁉􀁮􀁴􀁹 Funding Only County By Total County Project City Source Type 2004 11 2005 2006 "l 2007 2008 2009 2010 Totals Others Cost Share I MCIP Funding Authorized TEA -21
Funding Available MCIP-T21 2,227,161 0 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 7,227,161 Thoroughfare Funding Available MCIP-Thor 1,522,839 3,750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
25,272,839 Major Impact Funding Available MCIP-MI 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,!i00 1,666,500 1,666,500 9,999,000 Total Transportation Funding Available 5,416,500 5,416,500 7,916,500
7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 0 42,499,000 Projected Project Costs Intersection Group 1 Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 51,917 51,917 207,667 259,584 20.0% Belt Line Rd -SH 289/Preston
to Dallas Pkwy Dallas MCIP-T21 Widening 102,670 444,778 547,448 2,189,787 2,737,235 20.0% Inwood Rd @Lovers Lane Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 75,713 75,713 302,847 378,560 20.0% Valley
View Ln -Nicholson to IH 635 Farmers Branch MCIP-T21 Widening -520,001 520,001 2,079,999 2,600,000 20.0% Campbell Rd -Jay Ell Rd to US 75 Richardson MCIP-T21 Grade Sep. (3,519,700 􀁾
􀁾 􀁾 3,519,700 19,944,963 23,464,663 15.0% ...... j /"-􀁾 ,I. ) /Midway -Spring Valley to Dooley Addison MCIP-Thor Signal .& 196,000 J "" , I I 196,000 196,000 392,000 50.0% Arapaho
-Addison Rd to Surveyor Addison MCIP-Thor New Facility '" /I.-4!. 1,432,812 J 1,432,812 12,895,308 14,328,120 10.0% Old Denton -Whitlock to Trinity Mills Carrollton MCIP-Thor Reconstruct
........... ./2,500,000 " V 2,500,000 2,500,000 5,000,000 50.0% Broadway -Belt Line to Trinity Mills Carrollton MCIP-Thor Widening 419,521 􀁾􀀸􀀳􀀰􀀬􀀹􀀹 4,250,000 4,250,000 8,500,000
50.0% Sandy Lake -Denton Tap to SH 121 Coppell MCIP-Thor Widening I/. 􀁾 1,300,000 1,300,000 6,975,000 8,275,000 15.7% IH 35E -Spur 348/NW Hwy to Spur 4821Storey Dallas MCIP-Thor Frontage
Rd r' <899.000 899,000 2,201,000 3,100,000 29.0% Hillcrest -Royal to Loop 121NW Hwy Dallas MCIP-Thor Tum Lanes \.. -"'737,5001) 737,500 737,500 1,475,000 50.0% Las Colinas Blvd -Colwell
to Lake Carolyn Pkwy Irving MCIP-Thor New Facility 1,500,000 500,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 20.0% Sh 121 Bypass -County Line to Denton Tap Rd Lewisville MCIP-Thor New Facility
300,000 300,000 1,500,000 1,800,000 16.7% Collins @Plano Rd Richardson MCIP-Thor Intersection 175,000 175,000 175,000 350,000 50.0% Spring Valley @Weatherred/Goldmark Richardson MCIP-Thor
Intersection 475,000 475,000 475,000 950,000 50.0% Belt Line -Plano Rd to Jupiter Rd Richardson MCIP-Thor Rehab. 277,721 55,479 333,200 346,800 680,000 49.0% Main St/Belt Line -Interurban
Rd to US 75 Richardson MCIP-Thor Tum Lanes 200,000 200,000 200,000 400,000 50.0% Total Estimated Costs Per Year 3,750,000 3,750,000 6,250,000 5,763,291 0 0 0 19,513,291 65,176,871 84,690,162
23.0% Annual Unprogrammed Balance 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 2,153,209 7,916,500 7,916,500 0 22,985,709 Notes: TEA-21 Project cost estimates are the latest, adjusted for inflation,
estimates from NCTCOG. District 1 A 50% minimum match is assumed for City of Carrollton projects. All other Thoroughfare projects listed meet or exceed the 50% minimum. The Las Colinas
Blvd project includes $2.0 million thoroughfare participation and assumes an additional $1.0 million in right-of-way exchange. The Campbell Road Grade Separation TEA-21 Project may take
longer to develop than estimated above which would Increase the funding avaDable for thoroughfares In the early years.
District 2 For Briefing on October 10,2000 Public WOrks Major Capital Improvement Program 04-0et.{)o Funding/Cost Forecast Funding Project Program Year· County Funding Only County By
Total County Project City Source Type 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Totals Others Cost Share MCIP Funding Authorized TEA -21 Funding Available MCIP-T21 2,227,160 0 1,250,000 1,250,000
1,250,000 1,250,000 7,227,160 Thoroughfare Funding Available MCIP-Thor 1,522,840 3,750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 25,272,840 Major Impact Funding Available MCIP-MI 1.666,500
1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 9,999,000 Total Transportation Funding Available 5,416,500 5,416,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 0 42,499,000 Projected
Project Costs IH 635 Frontage Rds -Kingsley to LaPrada Garland MCIP-T21 Frontage Rds 1,181,857 1,181,857 4,727,426 5,909,283 20.0% Mockingbird Lane -W Lawther to E Lawther Dallas MCIP-Thor
PdlBike Brdg 710,000 710,000 710,000 1,420,000 50.0% Northwest Hwy -Centerville to LaPrada Garland MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 722,500 722,500 722,500 1,445,000 50.0% ··Miller Rd. -Centerville
to Garland City Lim Garland MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 458,000 458,000 458,000 916,000 50.0% Military Pkwy -IH 635 to Carmack Mesquite MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 1,750,000 1,750,000 1,750,000
3,500,000 50.0% Tripp Rd at Collins Rd Sunnyvale MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 109.500 168,000 277,500 277,500 555,000 50.0% Lawson Rd -Scyene to US 80 Sunnyvale MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 590,000
590,000 590,000 1,180,000 50.0% Pioneer Rd -Bruton to Belt Line Mesquite MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 4,100,000 4,100,000 4,100,000 8,200,000 50.0% Country Club -Walnut to Commerce Garland
MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 930,000 1,182,500 2,112,500 2,112,500 4,225,000 50.0% Skl1lman/Audelia -Whitehurst to Adleta Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 885,000 885,000 885,000 1,770,000 50.0%
Sachse MCIP-Thor 0 0 Total Estimated Costs per Year 3,750,000 3,754,857 5,282,500 0 0 0 0 12,787,357 16,332,926 29,120,283 43.9% Annual Unprogrammed Balance 1,666,500 1,661,643 2,634,000
7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 0 29,711,643 Notes: TEA-21 Project cost estimates are the latest, adjusted for inflation, estimates from NCTCOG. District 2 A 50% minimum match is assumed
all city projects. •• Miller Rd. Reimburses '91 Bond Program for funds advanced to these limits. I
District 3 For Briefing on October 10, 2000 I Public Works Mitior CapitaLImprovement program O4-Oct-oo EundinglCost Forecast I Funding Project Program Year -County Funding Only I County
By Total County Project City Source Type 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010; Totals Others Cost Share MCIP Funding Authorized II TEA -21 Funding Available MCIP-T21 2,227,161 0 1,250,000
1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 7,227,161 Thoroughfare Funding Available MCIP-Thor 1,522,839 3,750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 25,272,839 Major Impact Funding Available
MCIP-MI 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 9,999,000 Total Transportation Funding Available 5,416,500 5,416,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 01 42,499,000
Projected Project Costs Beckley @Commerce & Colorado (COG Gr 22) Dallas MCIP-T21 Inters/Signal 59,489 59,489 237,951 297,440 20.0% 􀁂􀁵􀁣􀁫􀁮􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁓􀁣􀁹􀁥􀁮􀁥 Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection
31,651 31,651 211,817 243,468 13.0% Camp Wisdom @Houston School & Polk (Gr 5) Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 59,489 I 59,489 237,951 297,440 20.0% Colorado 􀁾 Jefferson Dallas MCIP-T21
Intersection 43,265 43,265 173,055 216,320 20.0% Gaston @Munger Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 48,673 I 48,673 194,687 243,360 20.0% Gaston 􀁾 Washington Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 54,081
54,081 216,319 270,400 20.0% Red Bird @Hampton & Polk (GR 6) Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 58,407 58,407 233,625 292,032 20.0% IH 30/RL Thornton -Munger to Carroll Dallas MCIP-T21 Service
Rd 263,804 I, 263,804 1,765,451 2,029,255 13.0% Inwood Rd -Lemmon to Hines Dallas MCIP-T21 Widening 1,321,648 I! 1,321,648 5,286,591 6,608,239 20.0% Loop 121Buckner -Lake June to US
175 Dallas MCIP-T21 Widening 268,293 268,293 1,795,495 2,063,788 13.0% Hines -Motor to Oak Lawn Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 132,237 132,237 528,945 661,182 20.0% Oak Lawn @IH 35E Dallas
MCIP-T21 Intersection 40,953 40,953 274,063 315,016 13.0% <I Olive @Woodall Rodgers Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 28,122 i 28,122 188,198 216,320 13.0% 􀁾 Pearl @Woodall Rodgers Dallas
Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 42,183 42,183 282,297 324,480 13.0% I IH 635 Service Rd -Lake June to Quail Rd Balch Springs MCIP-Thor Service Rd 796,666 796,666 796,666 1,593,332 50.0%
Cockrell Hill Rd -LaReunion to IH 30 Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 120,000 1,000,000 1,120,000 1,120,000 2,240,000 50.0% Fair Park Link -Exposition to Hall Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare
1,475,000 1,475,000 1,475,000 2,950,000 50.0% Linfield -SH 310 to Illinois Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 600,000 600,000 600,000 1,200,000 50.0% Routh -Ross to US 75 SB Service Rd Dallas
MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 2,100;000 50.0% Jim Miller -Elam to Loop 12 Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 1,180,000 1,180,000 1,180,000 2,360,000 50.0% Military
Pkwy -Lawnview to Forney Rd Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 600,000 300,000 900,000 900,000 1,800,000 50.0% Total Estimated Costs 3,775,216 3,748,745 2,050,000 0 0 0 0 9,573,961 18,748,111
28,322,072 . 33.8% Annual Unprogrammed Balance 1,641,284 1,667,755 5,866,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 0 32,925,039 Notes: TEA-21 Project cost estimates are the latest, adjusted
for inflation, estimates from NCTCOG. District 3 A 50% minimum match is assumed for all projects.
District 4 For Briefing on October 10. 2000 Public Works Major Capital Improvement Program 04-0ct-oo Funding/Cost Forecast Funding Project Program Year -County Funding Only County By
Total County Project City Source Type 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Totals Others Cost Share MCIP Funding Authorized TEA -21 Funding Available MCIP-T21 2,227,160 0 1,250,000 1,250,000
1,250,000 1,250,000 7,227,160 Thoroughfare Funding Available MCIP-Thor 1,522,840 3,750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 25,272,840 Major Impact Funding Available MCIP-MI 1,666,500
1,666,500 1,666,50Q 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 9,999,000 Total Transportation Funding Available 5,416,500 5,416,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 0 42,499,000 Projected
Project Costs Yannouth @zang Bid. Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 48,673 48,673 194,687 243,360 20.0% IH 30 Service Rds -MacArthur to TRA RR Spur Grand Prairie MCIP-T21 Service Rd. 494,000
494,000 6,806,000' 7,300,000 6.8% Mountain Creek Pkwy -IH 20 to Spur 408 Dallas MCIP-MI Thoroughfare 2,000,000 3,000,000 5,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25.0% . Clark Rd. -S of Danieldale
to Couch (Part) Dallas MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 934,133 934,133 934,133 1,868,266 50.0% Clark Rd. -S of Danieldale to Couch (Part) Duncanville MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 436,664 436,664 436,664
873,328 50.0% Clark Rd. -S of Danieldale to Couch (Part) Cedar Hill MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 529,203 529,203 529,203 1,058,406 50.0% IH 30 WB Frontage Rd -MacArthur to Belt Line Grand
Prairie MCIP-Thor Service Rd 384,000 384,000 1,536,000 1,920,000 20.0% IH 30 EB Frontage Rd -Belt Line to Bagdad Grand Prairie MCIP-Thor ServiceRd 652,000 652,000 2,608,000 3,260,000
20.0% Cockrell Hill Rd -Wintergreen to Pleasant Run DeSoto MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 2,065,550 2,065,550 2,065,550 4,131,100 50.0% Hampton Rd @Bear Creek Rd Glenn Heights MCIP-Thor Intersection
330,000 330,000 330,000 660,000 50.0% Houston School Rd -Wheatland to Belt Line Lancaster MCIP-Thor Thoroughfare 3,336,000 3,336,000 5,400,000 8,736,000 38.2% Total Estimated Costs per
Year 5,478,673 5,395,550 3,336,000 0 0 0 0 14,210,223 35,840,237 50,050,460 28.4% Annual Unprogrammed Balances -62,173 20,950 4,580,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 0 28,288,777 District
4 Notes: TEA-21 Project cost estimates are the latest, adjusted for inflation, estimates from NCTCOG. A 50% minimum match is assumed all city projects.
,1-4 For Briefiog 00 October 10,2000 Public Works 􀁬􀁍􀁾􀁩􀁦􀀧􀁬􀁲 r...nlbl 04-0ct-GO FundjoglCost Forecast Funding Project Program Year· County Funding Only County By Total County Project
District Source Type 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Totals Others Cost Share MCIP Funding Authorized TEA· 21 FundinCl Available 1 MCIP-T21 2,227,161 0 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000
1,250,000 0 7,227,161 2 2,227,160 0 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 0 7,227,160 3 2,227,161 0 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 0 7,227,161 4 2,227,160 0 1,250,000 1,250,000
1,250,000 1,250,000 0 7,227,160 Total 8,908,642 0 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 0 28,908,642 Thoroughfare Fundino Available 1 MCIP·Thor 1,522,839 3,750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
5,000,000 5,000,000 0 25,272,839 2 1,522,840 3,750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 0 25,272,840 3 1,522,839 3,750,000, 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 0 25,272,839
4 1,522,840 3,750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 0 25,272,840 Total 6,091,358 6,091,358 15,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 0 101,091,358 Major ImDact
Fundina Available 1 MCIP·MI 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 0 9,999,000 2 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 0 9,999,000 3 1,666,500
1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 0 9,999,000 4 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 0 9,999,000 Total 6,666,000 6,666,000 6,666,000 6,666,000
6,666,000 6,666,000 0 39,996,000 Total Transportation Funding Available 21,666,000 21,666,000 31,666,000 31,666,000 31,666,000 31,666,000 0 169,996,000 I iProjected Project Costs TEA·21
ProJects 1 MCIP·T21 3,750.000 964,n9 a 0 0 0 0 4,714,779 24,725,263 29,440,042 16.0% 2 0 1,181,857/0 0 0 0 0 1,181,857 4,727,426 5,909.283 20.0% 3 598,550 1,853,745, 0 0 0 0 0 2,452,295
11,626,445 14,078,740 17.4% 4 542,673 0 0 0 0 0 0 542,673 7,000,687 7,543,360 7.2% Total 4,891,223 4,000,381 a 0 0 a 0 8,891,604 48,079,821 56,971,425 15,6% Major ImDact Proiects 1 0
a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 2 0 a a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 3 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 a 4 2,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 a 0 5,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25.0% Total 2,000,000 3,000,000 a 0 a a a 5,000,000 15,000,000
20,000,000 25.0% Thoroughfare Proiects 1 MCIP-Thor a 2,785,221 6,250,000 5,763,291 0 0 0 14,798,512 40,451,608 55.250,120 26,8% 2 3,750,000 2,573.000' 5,282,500 a 0 0 a 11,605,500 11,605,500
23,211,000 50,0% 3 3,176,666 1,895,000 2,050,000 a 0 0 0 7,121,666 7,121,666 14,243,332 50.0% 4 2,936,000 2,395.550 3,336,000 0 a a 0 8,667,550 13,839,550 22,507,100 38.5% Total 9,862,666
9,648,771 16,918,500 5,763.291 0 0 0 42,193,228 73,018,324 115,211,552 36,6% Total Estimated Costs Per Year 16,753,889 16,649,152 16,918,500 5,763,291 0 0 0 56,084,832 136,098,145 192,182,9n
29.2% Annual Unprogrammed Balance 4,912,111 5,016,848 14,747,500 25,902,709 31,666,000 31,666,000 0 113,911,168 Summary Estimated Administrative Cost Ranges Estimated Annual Admin Charges,
5% Annual Inflation 2,461,000 3,445,000 3,617,000 3,798,000 3,989,000 4,188,000 4,398,000 25,896,000 0 25,896,000 100% I Same 5% Inflation, Assume 50·50% Cost Sharing 1,230,500 1,722,500
1,808,500 1,899,000 1,994,500 2,094,000 2,199,000 12,948,000 12,948,000 25,896,000 􀀵􀀰􀁾 I Estimate Annual Admin Charges, 3% Annual Inflation 3,040,000 3,131,000 3,225,000 3,322,000
3,422,000 3,525,000 3,631,000 23,296,000 0 23,296,000 100% T Same 3% Inflation, Assume 50-50% Cost Sharing 1,520,000 1,565,5001 1,612,500 1,661,000 1,711,000 1,762,500 1,815,500 11,648,000
11,648,000 23,296,000 50%
District 1 FQr Briefing Qn OctQber 10, 2000 Public Works MajQr CapitallmprQyement PrQgram 04-Qct..()O Funding/CQst FQrecast Funding PrQject PrQgram Year -CQunty Funding Only CQunty By
TQta'l CQunty PrQject City SQurce Type 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TQtals Others CQst Share MCIP Funding Authorized TEA -21 Funding Available MCIP-T21 2,227,161 0 1,250,000 1,250,000
1,250,000 1,250,000 7,227,161 Thoroughfare Funding Available MCIP-Thor 1,522,839 3,750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 25,272,839 Major Impact Funding Available MCIP-MI 1,666,500
1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 9,999,000 Total Transportation Funding Available 5,416,500 5,416,500 7,9i6,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 7,916,500 0 42,499,000 Projected
Project Costs IntersectionGroup 1, "" " Dallas MCIP-T21 IntersectioQ 51,917 " ,51,917 207,667 259,584, 20.0% Belt Line Rd -SH 289/Preston to Dallas Pkwy Dallas MCIP-T21 Widening 102,670
444,778 547,448 2,189,787 2,737,235 20.0% Inwood Rd @Lovers Lane Dallas MCIP-T21 Intersection 75,713 '" , '" 75,713 '302,847 378,560 20.0% Valley View Ln -Nicholson to IH 635 Farmers
Branch MCIP-T21 Widening 520,001 520,001 2,079,999 2,600,000 20.0% Campbell Rd -Jay Ell Rd to US 75 Richardson MCIP-T21 Grade Sep. 3,519,700 3,519,700 19,944,963 23,464,663 15.0% Midway
-Spring Valley to Dooley Addison MCIP-Thor Signal 196,000 196,000 196,000 392,000 50.0% Arapaho -Addison Rd to Surveyor Addison MCIP-Thor New Facility 1,432,812 1,432,812 12,895,308
14,328,120 10.0% Old Denton -Whitlock to Trinity Mills Carrollton MCIP-Thor Reconstruct 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 5,000,000 50.0% Broadway -Belt Line to Trinity Mills Carrollton
MCIP-Thor Widening 419,521 3,830,479 4,250,000 4,250,000 8,500,000 50.0% Sandy Lake -Denton Tap to SH 121 Coppell MCIP-Thor Widening 1,300,000 1,300,000 6,975,000 8,275,000 15.7% IH
35E -Spur 348/NW Hwy to Spur 482/Storey Dallas MCIP-Thor Frontage Rd 899,000 899,000 2,201,000 3,100,000 29.0% Hillcrest -Royal to Loop 121NW Hwy Dallas MCIP-Thor Tum Lanes 737,500 737,500
737,500 1,475,000 50.0% Las Colinas Blvd -Colwell to Lake Carolyn Pkwy Irving MCIP-Thor New Facility 1,500,000 500,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 20.0% Sh 121 Bypass -County Line
to Denton Tap Rd Lewisville MCIP-Thor New Facility 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 1,800,000 16.7% Collins @Plano Rd Richardson MCIP-Thor Intersection 175,000 175,000 175,000 350,000 50.0%
Spring Valley @Weatherred/Goldmark Richardson MCIP-Thor Intersection 475,000 475,000 475,000 950,000 50.0% Belt Line -Plano Rd to Jupiter Rd Richardson MCIP-Thor Rehab. 277,721 55,479
333,200 346,800 680,000 49.0% Main SUBelt Line -Interurban Rd to US 75 Richardson MCIP-Thor Tum Lanes 200,000 200,000 200,000 400,000 50.0% Total Estimated Costs Per Year 3,750,000 3,750,000
6,250,000 5,763,291 0 0 0 19,513,291 65,176,871 84,690,162 23.0% Annual Unprogrammed Balance 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 2,153,209 7,916,500 7,916,500 0 22,985,709 Notes: TEA-21 Project
cost estimates are the latest, adjusted for inflation, estimates from NCTCOG. District 1 A 50% minimum minimum match is assumed for City of Carrollton projects. NI other Thoroughfare
projects listed meet or exceed the 50% minimum. The Las Colinas Blvd project indudes $2.0 million thoroughfare participation and assumes an additional $1.0 million in right-of-way exchange.
The Campbell Road Grade Separation TEA-21 Project may take longer to develop than estimated above which would increase the funding available for thomughfares in the early years.