WE16 - Project Collaboration in a Changing World

Editor's Notes

• #2 <number>
• #3 Nicole (Nicki) Bartelt, over 12 years of experience in transportation. 2 years with MDOT, 10 years with MnDOT. Most of my experience is in Hydraulic Design. Here are some pictures of my “real job”. 2 kids (Clay and Viv), 1 husband, 1 dog. <number>
• #4 I’m going to walk through a recent flood mitigation project where I was the MnDOT project manager, to show how these 3 objectives were implemented. So really more of a case study in using these principles. <number>
• #5 A little bit of background on the project I’ll be talking about. Here is a picture of the SW metro – to the upper right is Minneapolis. During major flooding, there is only 1 route left open over the MN river for this entire area, detours are over 25 miles in some areas. Losses of over $XXXK per day in user costs. MnDOT and the community (and legislators) had had enough when it closed in 2010-2011 three separate times, for 2-4 weeks each time – major impacts to the transportation system and its users. Went through a feasibility study to select a preferred alternative, and selected the middle roadway on your scree, Hwy 101. <number>
• #6 South on upper right, north on lower left, main channel of the MN River is on the far upper right (rows of trees lining the banks). Entire roadway goes under at about a 10-year event, the Wye intersection has much to be desired from a traffic standpoint. Needed to do something! <number>
• #7 Picture of that same area during flooding in spring 2010. So now that we’ve selected the project, lets get down to business. <number>
• #8 Keep contacting those agencies, stakeholders, groups that you want informed consent for the project – head off most problems/issues before then even become problems. Have prepared items to be able to bring new people up to speed relatively quickly. Share your contacts list (and all of your stuff) with everyone. Transparency, or at least the effort to be transparency, is key. In this project, there were many stakeholders identified. We had many different types of meetings: Open Houses (general public), Project Meetings (cities, counties, project partners), Resource Agency meetings (DNR, USFW, USACE, etc), and then we had targeted meetings as needed. We missed some people at the beginning: Cultural Resources/Historic/Archeology – it was one of the major schedule issues in the project. <number>
• #9 This was one of the ways we identified potential stakeholders, and conflicts between those stakeholders – Conflict Scoping Process <number>
• #10 One of the things we focused on during communications with the stakeholders was the overall goals of the project: Get the road up out of the 100-yr water surface and reconnect the floodplain on either side of the current causeway – lead to the project name “Southwest Reconnection Project”. These themes surfaced again and again through the project. <number>
• #11 Now that we’ve got the project purpose, identified the partners and stakeholders, who is going to do what (in a true partnership project). In this project, we got to a “turning point” – where MnDOTs project desires didn’t match up with some of the other project partners. We negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding with Carver County to outline project responsiblities. At that point, Carver County became the lead agency for the project. MnDOT agreed to transfer the road to Carver County, and transfer the funds to complete the bridge portion of the project (a specified amount) – this was important, although problematic once we got near the end of the project design (became a bit of a legal tap dance to work it correctly). Other specific responsibilities were laid out: MnDOT got bridge design, contract administration, geotechnical, etc. Carver County got the project management, roadway design, specs and special provisions, the balance of the project cost. Outside of the MOU: other project partners were identified to do certain things (although not “contractually”). Scott County would provide ~$2M for project costs and Business liaison services, both cities would pitch in a certain percentage of the roadway costs (based on state aid formulas and any other “wants” they had) and would provide meeting spaces and other community involvement help. All project partners would be actively involved in project review and all community involvement. <number>
• #12 As you can imagine, with a large project with so many partners and stakeholders, there were a fair number of issues. Here is few examples and how the project righted itself to move forward. Road way design conflict – resolution was the MOU Archeological discovery – resolution was MnDOT provided the staff expertise and some funding, Carver Co provided the balance of funding (and could do it quicker – more flexible scheduling and design constraints than MnDOT) ROW and Fed vs. State permitting – resolution was essentially pestering the DNR to complete a ROW transfer from the USFW service, and then move forward for that land to be transferred to MnDOT through a legislative committee. Then the land was transferred to the County through the Cooperative Agreement just prior to construction. Geotechnical/Foundations unknowns: tried 2 times to get a test pile program prior to construction, didn’t happen, ended up needing it during construction and forced cost overruns to pay for construction accelaration after project delays during bridge construction. An example of where although intentions were good, the initial $$ over road the decision to complete it. In hindsight, we would have been better off spending the money in advance -- in part because of whose pot of money it was coming out of. <number>
• #13 Open, honest, and consistent communication is key! <number>
• #14 Walk through the 3 objectives and the main points (consistent message, open and honest communication, consistently talking with the stakeholders and engaging them often). Changing world part: Partners (or their representatives) changed often, Talk about climate change a little bit! <number>