Thoughts on evaluation criteria

Recommend adding the following:- proximity to schools- population growth rate in 1-2mile distance - # of deaths, severe accidents, minor incidents

Per our discussion today, attached is an example of weighting selection criteria that forces non-neutral selections.

The concern with assessing public benefit via asset level (neighborhood - regional) is it doesn't accurately capture the important data. An example, a neighborhood facility may in actuality be located in a more suitable place or have better offerings, etc., resulting in more foot traffic, impact, etc., than a regional facility - which is presumed to have the greater volume and impact.

Thanks, Rajeev, for starting this discussion and Kodi and Larry for joining in.  Here are some preliminary thoughts, stimulated by this discussion, I’ve had regarding prioritization criteria.

1.     Time Sensitive:  Commissioners Court (CC) made it clear their reason for having a bond election this year was their concern about the decreasing availability of land and its rising cost, making land acquisition for parks and right-of-way a top priority.

2.     Project Completion: Citizens and the CC made investments in projects they valued and prioritized for investment, a commitment that we should honor (barring no good reason for not doing so).  This would include shovel-ready projects as well as projects that have legitimate need for additional funding (due perhaps to Covid spike in construction costs or supply chain issues).

3.     Consistent with/included in adopted plans: adopted plans articulate county values, have been vetted by the public, and approved by the court for implementation.  A project’s Inclusion in multiple plans represents a consistency of values. Funding them with voter-approved bonds is a logical extension of a previous commitment by the public and court, and although partnerships and other funding sources should always be pursued, voter-approved bond funds are the intended source of the lion’s share of funding for these CIP projects.

4.     Public Benefit: Perhaps this could be measured in general terms relative to the level of service of the facility being provided (e.g., is it a regional, community, or neighborhood facility) rather than number of people impacted or ROI which I fear would be hard to calculate and would exclude difficult to quantify cost benefits.

5.     Improve/Maintain functionality of existing facility:

I haven’t addressed equity as a criterion because I’d first like to hear the county’s presentation on the topic

Thanks again for starting this conversation.
Wendy

Very true, although a desired regional focus is preferred based on the current and future growth of the county; we must also factor in how many people are positively impacted by a project whether it's a road, land acquisition, etc.

The level of impact should have multiple factors outside of how many plans (i.e., CAMPO, TXDPT, RMA, etc.) it is written into as all cities and communities don't have the same level of voice or outsider interest.

Will certain projects create new levels of opportunity (economic opportunity, decreased road congestion, etc.) in the long term than immediate relief?

Additionally, what projects if approved could result in partnering or add-on projects by other entities and governments because its best to do it while construction is occurring making it individually less costly.

Thank you Rajeev. These are very good. I plan to spend time thinking through what you present here and respond with questions or comments.