Capital Improvement Plan Process Manual for …

1 CITY OF HOUSTON Public Works and Engineering Department Capital Improvement plan Process Manual for Infrastructure programs M Storm Drainage N Street & Traffic Control Revision Date: July 18, 2012 Version Acknowledgements Authors: Mark Board, City of Houston, Public Works & Engineering Carol Ellinger Haddock, City of Houston, Public Works & Engineering Reviewers: Eric K. Dargan City of Houston, Public Works & Engineering Daniel W. Krueger, City of Houston, Public Works & Engineering Mark L. Loethen, City of Houston, Public Works & Engineering Daniel R. Mendendez, City of Houston, Public Works & Engineering Dale A. Rudick, City of Houston, Public Works & Engineering Dane P. Schneider, City of Houston, Public Works & Engineering Jeffrey Weatherford, City of Houston, Public Works & Engineering Stakeholder Input: ReBuild Houston Oversight Committee AECOM USA GROUP, Inc.

2 Klotz Associates, Inc. Capital Improvement plan Process Manual TOC - 1 Version 07/18/2012 Table of Contents SECTION 1 - OVERVIEW .. 3 Purpose .. 4 Programming the Capital Improvement plan .. 5 Planning for the Capital Improvement plan .. 7 Infrastructure Categories .. 7 Annual CIP Update .. 8 SECTION 2 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING .. 9 Identify Needs .. 10 A) Storm Drainage Need Identification .. 11 B) Street and Traffic Control Need Identification .. 12 Prioritize Needs .. 13 A) Storm Drainage Need Prioritization .. 15 B) Street and Traffic Control Need Prioritization .. 15 Develop Solutions .. 16 Refer Candidate Projects .. 20 SECTION 3 Capital Improvement PROGRAMMING .. 22 Recommended Program Allocation .. 22 Transition to Recommended Allocation .. 23 Annual CIP Update .. 23 Project Prioritization for Programming.

3 24 Storm Drainage Prioritization Criteria .. 26 A) Area Drainage .. 26 B) Local Drainage Projects (LDP) .. 27 Street and Traffic Control Prioritization Criteria .. 28 A) Major Thoroughfares and Collectors .. 28 B) Local Streets .. 28 C) Focused Street and Traffic Projects .. 29 Intersections .. 29 Access Management .. 29 Capital Improvement plan Process Manual TOC - 2 Version 07/18/2012 Neighborhood Traffic Management .. 29 Railroad Safety and Quiet Zones .. 30 Sidewalks .. 30 Bikeways .. 30 Recommended 5+5 Capital Improvement plan .. 32 LIST OF TABLES .. 33 Table Storm Drainage Need Prioritization Weighting Factors .. 34 Table Major Thoroughfare and Collector Need Prioritization Weighting Factors .. 35 Table Local Street Need Prioritization Weighting Factors .. 36 Table Intersection Need Prioritization Weighting Factors .. 37 Table Area Drainage Candidate Project Priority Score Determination.

4 38 Table Major Thoroughfare and Collectors (Change in Classification) Candidate Project Priority Score Determination .. 39 Table Major Thoroughfare and Collectors (No Change in Classification) Candidate Project Priority Score Determination .. 40 Table Local Streets (Non-Residential) Candidate Project Priority Score Determination .. 41 Table Local Streets (Residential) Candidate Project Priority Score Determination .. 42 Process INVENTORY .. 43 Process Need Identification for Storm Drainage Systems .. 44 Process Storm Drainage Need Prioritization .. 45 Process Major Thoroughfare and Collector Need Prioritization .. 46 Process Solution Development by Need Area .. 47 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS .. 48 Capital Improvement plan Process Manual Section I - 3 Version 07/18/2012 SECTION 1 - OVERVIEW A healthy infrastructure is a necessary ingredient for a robust economy.

5 The growth and development of the City requires the provision of extensive Capital improvements to provide this infrastructure. Public Works infrastructure includes streets, bridges, traffic signals, drainage systems, drinking water systems and wastewater systems. These systems must work both independently, and in coordination, to support the needs of the residents and businesses in the City. These systems are designed as individual Capital projects that can cost millions of dollars, require acquisition of land and take years to design and construct. Once the investment is made, the resulting infrastructure asset can remain in service for decades with appropriate operations and maintenance. An infrastructure asset can be viewed through its life cycle, with the majority of the lifespan being spent in operations and maintenance. Planning is initiated to identify needs and develop projects for new infrastructure and for replacement or expansion of existing infrastructure.

6 Programming is the step of prioritizing specific infrastructure projects for allocation of funding by fiscal year. Delivery includes their design and construction. Once constructed, the department manages the operation and maintenance of the City s infrastructure, which is continually assessed through the planning Process for needed improvements or upgrades. PWE has existing formalized procedures for the delivery of infrastructure projects through the design and construction Process . This Manual is the formalization of processes and procedures for the identification and development of projects through planning and the prioritization of projects for programming in the Capital Improvement plan . Capital Improvement plan Process Manual Section I - 4 Version 07/18/2012 Purpose This Manual formally communicates a transparent Process to develop and prioritize infrastructure projects that will be recommended by the Department of Public Works and Engineering (PWE) for implementation of the Five-Year Capital Improvement plan (CIP).

7 When the ReBuild Houston implementation plan was presented to City Council and the public in December 2010, one of the key steps was to revise the methodology for Capital Improvement planning and programming, with a target date set for February 2011. The first version of this document and the inclusion of this document on the website was delivered in late January 2011 as the fulfillment of that key step and a commitment to progress made in the December 2010 report. This revision builds on the previous versions and continues to address comments, questions and input provided to PWE. This document will be updated as necessary to reflect lessons learned, advances in technology and tools, and changes in public priorities. It requires coordination between the various infrastructure categories such that Candidate Projects addressing separate needs (such as drinking water versus structural flooding) can be addressed through one project where possible.

8 It also aims to provide a mechanism to incorporate energy efficiency, environmental sensitivity and sustainable approaches into project planning and design. Consideration of full life-cycle costs will consider both the up-front and the long-term operations and maintenance costs. This approach will help identify the best investment for the City. Systematic planning will lead to defensible choices with design and construction that is not slowed by change orders and other unexpected expenses. It is important to note that this Process is not a new Process nor was it created in response to the voters passage of Proposition One on November 2, 2010. Rather it compiles, formalizes, refines and provides for the evolution of steps that have been, and will continue to be, performed at various levels within PWE. In 1983 City Council resolved that the City of Houston develop and annually revise a CIP (Resolution 83-91), requiring a systematic planning, financial and management Process in order to be efficient and effective.

9 Subsequently, the Mayor published Administrative Procedure 4-5 (formerly Administration Procedure 2-7) establishing a continuous CIP. Proposition One brought a heightened focus on transparency in identification and prioritization of needs, and the development of specific projects to address those needs. Additionally, the CIP horizon for streets and drainage was expanded from five years to a 10-year outlook (the 5+5 plan ). The first five years of this plan (years 1 through 5) conforms to the current project-specific plan and is prepared through the Programming Phase as detailed in Section 3. The second five years (years 6 through 10) presents prioritized need areas for streets and drainage where solutions for these defined problems or infrastructure deficiencies are developed into Candidate Projects. Planning is detailed in Section 2 of this Manual .

10 These Candidate Projects are compared and prioritized citywide in subsequent years based on specific criteria outlined in this document for funding in future CIPs (years 1 to 5). Capital Improvement plan Process Manual Section I - 5 Version 07/18/2012 Programming the Capital Improvement plan Administrative Procedure 4-5 establishes standards for preparation and review of the CIP. The CIP sets forth proposed Capital projects and related expenditures to be incurred in the succeeding fiscal year, and each fiscal year following, over a rolling period of five years. It describes each project, its source(s) of funding and the amounts allocated to the various stages, phases or aspects of the project. It is updated annually to reflect: Revised annual funding limits: based on projections from revenues (ad valorem (property) taxes, drainage charges, impact fees and third party funds) and bond capacity (water and wastewater Combined Utility System) supported by the City s debt models, where allowable; New and better data: including updated cost estimates, refined project scopes and revised delivery schedules based on available funding and other obstacles encountered during planning, design or acquisition of right-of-way (ROW); and Additional projects: new proposed design or construction starts, particularly within the fifth year of the CIP as years 1 through 4 continue to implement the intent of the most recently adopted CIP.