Neighborhood Conservation Program Review › wp-content › uploads › ... · 2019-09-27 · •...

Neighborhood ConservationProgram ReviewWorking Group Meeting #4

September 19, 2019

2

Meeting Agenda

1. Opening

2. Updates to Draft “Work Plan” document

3. Overview of Project Execution

4. Civic Engagement

5. Next Steps + Business

6. Adjourn

(approx. time)

5 min

5 min

75 min

25 min

5 min

3

Updates to Draft “Work Plan” Document

4

Introduction to Draft “Work Plan” Document

(see accompanying deck)

A. Policy and Planning Considerations

5



B. Infrastructure Delivery Programs

6

C. Prioritizing Projects to Advance

7



D. Project Execution

8



E. Funding, Costs and Timing: Then and Now

9



F. Spatial Distribution and Equity Aspects

10



G. Civic Engagement Elements

11



G. Tentative Schedule for DiscoveryMEETING POTENTIAL TOPICS

June 20, 2019 A. Policy and Planning Considerations

(including “Deep Dive” into NC Program / NCProject life cycle timeline and scoring)

July 25 B. Infrastructure Delivery Programs C. Prioritizing Projects to Advance G. Civic Engagement

Sept. 19 D. Project Execution G. Civic Engagement

Oct./Nov. – Two (2) Dates TBD

E. Funding / Costs / Timing: Then and Now F. Spatial / Equity Aspects G. Civic Engagement Other Remaining Items

12

Project Execution Overview

13

Discovery Questions

D. Project Execution

Follow-up Item

14

Transportation Projects

NC Project Process (typical)

Varies

• Pre-Scoping• Project Goals Identified• Clipboard Petition• Points Accumulation

3 to 9 Months

• Scoping• Preliminary Concept Plan• Neighborhood Input• Preliminary Concept Plan Revisions

3 to 6 Months

• Concept Design• Final Concept Plan• Resident Approval (Civic Association Letter of

Support)

2 – 3 Months

• Funding• NCAC Approval• Board Approval

15

Notes / Risk Factors

• Level of community involvement has inverse relationship with length of time for this phase

TIMELINE(slide 1 of 2)

TRANSPORTATION

NC Project Process (typical), cont’d

16

9 to 12 Months

• Final Engineering• 90% Plan • Neighborhood Review Meeting• 90% Plan Revisions and Final Plans

3 to 6 Months • Permits

• County Land Disturbance Permits• State Land Use Permits (e.g. VDOT, etc.)

3 to 12 Months

• Right-of-Way (ROW)• Temporary Construction Easements• Wall Maintenance Agreements

3 to 12 Months

• Utility Clearance• Relocate Known Underground Utility Conflicts• Relocate Overhead Utility Pole Conflicts



TIMELINE

(slide 2 of 2)

TRANSPORTATION

• Permits• County Land Disturbance Permits• State Land Use Permits (e.g. VDOT, etc.)


• Utility Clearance• Relocate Known Underground Utility

Conflicts• Relocate Overhead Utility Pole Conflicts

• Procurement

3 to 24 Months

• Some of these processes can run concurrently/overlap, depending on alignment of critical paths

• ROW and Utility Clearance is done only if required; work may not apply in all cases

NON - NC Project Process (typical)

Varies

• Sector / Area / Corridor Plan / Capital Improvement Plan

• Needs identified based on future vision• Projects identified

3 to 9 Months

• Scoping• Preliminary Concept Plan• Community Outreach• Preliminary Concept Plan Revisions

3 to 6 Months

• Concept Design• Final Concept Plan

17


• Outreach after preliminary concept plan is with community, not just residents

TIMELINE

• Final concept plan arrived at based on community input, but does not require “community approval” a la “resident approval” with NC projects

• County-led planning efforts can take several years, depending on scope / scale

(slide 1 of 2)

TRANSPORTATION

Non- NC Project Process (typ.), cont’d

18

9 to 12 Months

• Final Engineering• 90% Plan • Neighborhood Review Meeting• 90% Plan Revisions and Final Plans

3 to 6 Months


3 to 12 Months


3 to 12 Months

• Utility Clearance• Relocate Known Underground Utility Conflicts• Relocate Overhead Utility Pole Conflicts



TIMELINE

(slide 2 of 2)

TRANSPORTATION



• Utility Clearance• Relocate Known Underground Utility

Conflicts• Relocate Overhead Utility Pole Conflicts

• Procurement

• Some of these processes can run concurrently/overlap, depending on alignment of critical paths

• ROW and Utility Clearance is done only if required; work may not apply in all cases

3 to 24 Months

NC vs. Non-NC Process

19

KEY Difference between two processes

NC PROJECTS

NON - NC PROJECTS

TRANSPORTATION

• Duration of Pre-Scoping for each project is Neighborhood-Driven to a large degree

• Once plan/policy is set, duration of Pre-Scoping for each project is largely driven by staff/program capacity

• Community involvement happening in real-time with pre-scoping of NC projects

• In most cases, past community involvement helped inform plans/policy decisions, with additional (yet different) community input going forward

CPHD Staffing for NC Program

NC Program Manager

Project Manager

Project Manager

Project Manager

Budget & Finance Support

Landscape Architect

20

TRANSPORTATION

NC-Dedicated Staff

DES Staffing for NC Program

Engineering Supervisor

Engineer Engineer

Engineer

Engineering Supervisor

Engineer Engineer

Engineer

21

TRANSPORTATION

NC-Dedicated Staff

Survey Supervisor

Pool of Surveyors

Construction Management Supervisor

Pool of Construction

Managers

Contract Inspector

Contract Inspector

22

DES Staffing for NC Program

Construction Contractor

Construction Contractor

COUNTYSTAFF

CONTRACTORS TO COUNTY

TRANSPORTATION

Staff Not Dedicated to the NC Program

Current Staffing Model

Primarily Dedicated Staff with Some Pooled Staff & Contractor Support

– Advantages• Program Knowledge= Efficiency• No Competing Priorities for Project Management

and Design

– Disadvantages• Challenge to Operate with Varying Funding Levels• Construction Volume Varies = Overload or

Underuse of Construction Management Staff• Higher Inspection Costs

23

TRANSPORTATION

Contractor Staffing Model

Primarily Contractors w/Some Staff Oversight

– Advantages• Effective for Varied Funding Levels• Effective for Varied Volume of Construction

– Disadvantages• More Costly for Program• Erosion of Knowledge Base and Capability

Creates Reliance on Contractor’s Quality• Contractor Turnover More Likely = Less Program

Knowledge and Retained Experience24

TRANSPORTATION

Cost Estimating and Funding

Funding Allocated to Individual Projects Based on Cost Estimate From Concept Design

• General Project Information is Known• Details Not Known - Assumptions Based on Typical

Conditions• Forecasting Contractor’s Likely Prices in Future

• Assumptions Based on Recent Pricing• Adjust for Project Timing- Forecast Future Market Conditions Based

on Recent Observations • Contingency to Account for Risk

25

TRANSPORTATION


Final Engineering Uncovers New Information that Impacts Cost

• Example: Project area is more flood prone than typical-more storm drain pipe and larger size is needed

• Example: Depth of gas main differs from record information- our storm drain pipe needs to be buried deeper

• Example: Lot re-developed and retaining wall needs to be longer and higher than typical

26

TRANSPORTATION


Procurement Results Display True Cost

• Market Conditions Become Evident• Construction Contractors Tell Us How Much We Must Pay

For the Work• Measuring Against Forecast Estimates from A Few Years

Prior• Savings from Other Projects Fill Funding Gap• County requirement to select responsive contractor with

lowest bid

27

TRANSPORTATION


Reliability of Estimates

• Greatest Exposure is to Construction Cost Inflation

• Adequate Staffing Levels Reduce Time Between Preliminary Cost Estimate and Construction Start = Less Exposure to Inflation

• Higher Contingencies Can Accommodate More Uncertainty at a Cost

• Higher Contingencies Tie Up Funding that Could Otherwise be Allocated to Other Projects

28

TRANSPORTATION


Value Engineering and Scope Reduction• Little Opportunity for Value Engineering

• Most Project Elements are Discrete• Example: Sidewalk, Storm Sewer Pipe, Pavement Cannot be Value

Engineered

• Limited Opportunity for Scope Reduction• Most Project Elements Essential to Project Goals

• Example: Sidewalk, Storm Sewer Pipe, Pavement Needed as a Whole to Meet Project Goals

• Some Scope Reduction Opportunities• Streetlights• Multi-block Projects (reduce geographic extent of project)

29

TRANSPORTATION

Pilot Funding Approach

Fund Projects After Final Engineering

• More Project Details Known and Fewer Assumptions• Less Exposure to Cost Inflation Because Project is

Closer to Procurement• Still Forecasting Contractor’s Likely Prices

30

TRANSPORTATION

*** Staff are currently piloting this approach with several NC projects in progress ***

Alternate Funding Approaches

Fund as a Program- Allocate to Projects After Procurement

– Advantages• No Predictive Element to Cost Estimating

– Disadvantages• Uncertainty Over Timing of Funds Availability for Projects

31

TRANSPORTATION

32

Parks Projects

NC Project Process

33

PARKS

Varies

• Pre-Scoping• Project Goals Identified• Points Accumulation

3 to 9 Months

• Project Scoping• Civic Association/Neighborhood input• Project Goals or Features identified• Prelim. Site Assessment / Cost Estimates• Civic Association Approval

2 to 3 Months

• Scope Funding• NCAC Approval• County Board Approval

3 – 6 Months

• Concept Design Phase• Public design meetings• Conceptual Design Plan (30%)• Civic Association Approval

33



TIMELINE

• Minimum of two scoping meetings in addition to CA meeting for final approval

• Typically 2 -3 meetings, but can vary depending on the public engagement level

NC Project Process

34

PARKS

6 to 9 Months

• Construction Documents• 30% - 100% Plans and Specifications• Design and Engineering

3 to 6 Months

• Permitting• Land Disturbance Activity (LDA)• Civil Engineering Plan (CEP)• Building Permits (where applicable)• Stormwater Management• State Permits (DEQ, VSMP, SWPPP)

3 to 6 Months

• Procurement• Prepare bidding documents and post bid

announcement• Bids opened and reviewed• County Board award of contract• Contract signed

34

Notes / Risk FactorsTIMELINE

Parks Maintenance Capital Project Process

3 to 9 Months

• Identification and Scoping (CIP)• Maintenance Requirements• Current Condition (age, life, safety, ordinance code compliance)• Preliminary Cost Estimate• Funding Approved (CIP)

3 to 6 Months

• Preliminary Design Phase • Topographical Survey Conducted• Community Engagement Plan (Six-Step Public Engagement Guide)• Online Survey (gather public feedback)

3 to 6 Months

• Design Phase• Public Design Meetings (typically 2-3, but can vary depending on the public

engagement level)• Conceptual Design Plan (30%)

35

TIMELINE

PARKS

Parks Maintenance Capital Project Process

6 to 9 Months

• Construction Documents • 30%-100% Plans and Specifications• Design and Engineering

3 to 6 Months

• Permitting• Land Disturbance Activity (LDA)• Storm Water Management• State Permits (DEQ VSMP, SWPPP)

3 to 6 Months

• Bidding Phase • Prepare bidding documents and post bid announcement• Bids open and reviewed.• County Board Award of Contract• Contract signed

36

PARKS

TIMELINE

CPHD Staffing for NC Program

NC Program Manager

Project Manager

Project Manager

Project Manager

Budget & Finance Support

Landscape Architect

37

NC-Dedicated Staff

PARKS

DPR Staffing

Planning Supervisor

Construction Manager

Park Development Division Chief

Facilities and NC Studio Supervisor

Project Manager/Landscape Architect

38

PARKS

NC-Dedicated

NC-Dedicated

* Actual # of DPR staff dedicated to NC varies based on project volume

Project Manager/Landscape Architect

NC-Dedicated (at times)*

Current Staffing Model

Dedicated Staff with Architectural & Engineering (A&E) Support Services Outsourced

39

Advantages• Effective for Varied Funding Levels• Effective for Varied Volume of Construction

Disadvantages• More Costly for Program• Erosion of Knowledge Base and Capability Creates Reliance on

Contractor’s Quality• Contractor Turnover More Likely = Less Program Knowledge and

Retained Experience

PARKS

Alternative Staffing Model

Dedicated Staff with Internal Staff A&E Support

– Advantages• Program Knowledge = Efficiency• No Competing Priorities for Project Management

and Design– Disadvantages

• Challenge to Operate with Varying Funding Levels (although some opportunity to reduce impact)

40

PARKS


Funding Allocated to Individual Projects Based on Cost Estimate From Scoping Approved by NCAC

• General Project Scope is Known• Details Not Known- Stormwater management cost

Forecasting Contractor’s Likely Prices in Future• Assumptions Based on Recent Pricing• Adjust for Project Timing- Forecast Future Market Conditions

Based on Recent Observations

• Contingency to Account for Risk

41

PARKS


Procurement Results Reveal True Cost • Market Conditions Become Evident

• Bids indicate How Much We Must Pay For the Work

• Cost estimates are based on bids received during the previous year

• Greatest Exposure is to Construction Cost Inflation

• Higher Contingencies Can Accommodate More Uncertainty at a Cost

• Higher Contingencies Tie Up Funding that Could Otherwise be Allocated to Other Projects

42

PARKS


Value Engineering and Scope Reduction• Opportunity for Value Engineering happens during the

Construction Document Phase• Many Project Elements are Discrete

• Generally, No Scope Reduction After Funding Approval• Most Project Elements Essential to Project Goals

43

PARKS

44

Civic Engagement

51

Next Steps and Business Items

52



G. Tentative Schedule for DiscoveryMEETING POTENTIAL TOPICS

June 20, 2019 A. Policy and Planning Considerations

(including “Deep Dive” into NC Program / NCProject life cycle timeline and scoring)

July 25 B. Infrastructure Delivery Programs C. Prioritizing Projects to Advance G. Civic Engagement

Sept. 19 D. Project Execution G. Civic Engagement

Oct./Nov. – Two (2) Dates TBD

E. Funding / Costs / Timing: Then and Now F. Spatial / Equity Aspects G. Civic Engagement Other Remaining Items

53



G. Next Meeting Candidate Dates?

10/8 10/9 10/16 10/17 11/5 11/7

4 of 7 4 of 7 3 of 7 4 of 7 5 of 7 7 of 7

7 community working group members responding thus far

Can attend

Neighborhood Conservation Program Review › wp-content › uploads › ... · 2019-09-27 · •...

Documents

Transcript of Neighborhood Conservation Program Review › wp-content › uploads › ... · 2019-09-27 · •...