service provider collaboration: coordination of infrastructure investments
DESCRIPTION
Service Provider Collaboration: Coordination of Infrastructure Investments. MTPA Annual Conference July 15, 2011. The Bigger Picture. Creating success through shared outcomes Infrastructure: key component of success Collaboration: key to quality infrastructure. Our shared outcomes. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Service Provider Collaboration: Coordination of Infrastructure Investments
MTPA Annual ConferenceJuly 15, 2011
The Bigger Picture
• Creating success through shared outcomes
• Infrastructure: key component of success
• Collaboration: key to quality infrastructure
Our shared outcomes
Economic Prosperity
Desirable Communities
Reliable, QualityInfrastructure
AttractiveEnvironmental
Assets
Fiscally Sustainable
Public Services
Access to Jobs, Markets,
Services, and Amenities
Interdependency of the outcomes
Interdependency of the outcomes
DesirableCommunities
Economic Prosperity
We’re working toward our shared outcomes
How will our work be used?
• Connect our actions to outcomes• Direct the wise use of limited resources• Create certainty, predictability
and reliability• Build rationale and support for
tough decisions
What’s SEMCOG’s part?
• Focus our work on the shared outcomes• Evaluate and prioritize the measures• Engage others in ‘signing on’
Example activities
• DWSD “New Normal” planning• Transportation congestion management• Local government assistance• HUD sustainability grant• Infrastructure collaboration
Creating a Sustainable Infrastructure System in
Southeast Michigan
Goals
• Quality infrastructure that is fiscally sustainable
• Quality infrastructure that supports the region’s economy
Three parts to the approach
• Description of the problem• Components of the solution• Action steps
Description of the problem
• Rate/revenue base is declining• Current revenue is inadequate to
maintain infrastructure we have• Underinvestment results in an increased
cost, not a savings• Revenue formulas and policies are
outdated
Water sales Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Avg
. mill
ion
gallo
ns p
er d
ay
Source: The FOSTER Group
Michigan gasoline sales 1994-2009
Source: MDELEG, Michigan Energy Appraisal reports 1996-2009
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20093,800
4,000
4,200
4,400
4,600
4,800
5,000
5,200
Mill
ions
of G
allo
ns
Impact of new fuel economy standards on gas tax revenue
Southeast Michigan
20102011
20122013
20142015
20162017
2018201
92020
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
Tax Revenue w/current fuel economy Tax Revenue w/new standards
Ann
ual R
even
ue (i
n m
illio
n)
Yearly percent change in home price, SEV, and taxable value
Southeast Michigan
Source: SEMCOG
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
-10.8%
-6.7%
Home Values SEV Taxable Value
Description of the problem
• Rate/revenue base is declining• Current revenue is inadequate to
maintain infrastructure we have• Underinvestment results in an increased
cost, not a savings• Revenue formulas and policies are
outdated
Transportation need vs. revenueSoutheast Michigan
Total Transportation
Need$2.8 billion
per year
Revenue Shortfall
$1.5 billion per year
Revenue Available
$1.3 billion per year
Unit costs are increasing DWSD water
Average Day in FY 2003-04 Average Day in FY 2010-110
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
Dai
ly c
ost o
f pro
vidi
ng w
ater
Source: The FOSTER Group
Description of the problem
• Rate/revenue base is declining• Current revenue is inadequate to
maintain infrastructure we have• Underinvestment results in an increased
cost, not a savings• Revenue formulas and policies are
outdated
We're under-investing…Changing pavement condition
Good Fair Poor0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
200420052006200720082009Pe
rcen
t of L
ane
Mile
s
…and it’s costing us Pavement Management Funding Needs
2004 2008$0
$500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$2,500,000,000
$996 million
$2.35 billion
Description of the problem
• Rate/revenue base is declining• Current revenue is inadequate to
maintain infrastructure we have• Underinvestment results in an increased
cost, not a savings• Revenue formulas and policies are
outdated
We’re on a collision courseRevenues require
consumptionPolicies require
conservation
Description of the problem
• We have more than we need, so we must right size
• Constrained fiscal resources are not temporary
• Region’s fiscal capacity is still declining• Our needs and expectations of service
drive costs
Description of the problem
• We have more than we need, so we must right size
• Constrained fiscal resources are not temporary
• Region’s fiscal capacity is still declining• Our needs and expectations of service
drive costs
Description of the problem
• We have more than we need, so we must right size
• Constrained fiscal resources are not temporary
• Region’s fiscal capacity is still declining• Our needs and expectations of service
drive costs
Description of the problem
• We have more than we need, so we must right size
• Constrained fiscal resources are not temporary
• Region’s fiscal capacity is still declining• Our needs and expectations of service
drive costs
Components of the solution
Restructured revenue collection systems
Reduce costs Collaboration amongst providers
Strategically invest funds to maximize all
infrastructure performance
Legislative Strategy
Holistic view of needs and outcomes
Proposed action steps Collaboration amongst providers
• Implement pilot project to serve as model•Seek formal agreement to cooperate from
service providers•Identify specific areas of cooperation:
Maintenance/asset management; etc.
•Emphasize cost savings
Infrastructure Collaboration Summits
Structure for collaboration
• Bring local governments, transportation agencies, and private utilities together
• Share planning process• Disclose project plans• Promote early and ongoing coordination
Summit agenda
• Regional context• Service provider presentations• Sample project lists• Group discussion of how coordination
can be improved
Summit agenda
• Regional context• Service provider presentations• Sample project lists• Group discussion of how coordination
can be improved
• How and when are projects identified and prioritized?
• What factors drive your decision-making process?
• What data informs these decisions (e.g. Asset Management rating of pavement condition)?
Identifying & prioritizing projects
Project timing
• Is project selection an annual process or do you plan for multiple years?
• What time of year does project selection occur?
• What time of year does budgeting for these projects occur?
• How are emergency needs addressed between budget cycles?
Addressing emergency needs
• How are impacted parties currently involved in the planning process or informed of project decisions?• Other service providers• Neighboring communities
• Does existing coordination/collaboration take place before project decisions are made or afterward?
Coordination with other organizations
• What is working or not working with the current coordination/collaboration process?
Strengths & weaknesses of current process
• Information improvements – what is being shared
• Communication improvements – how it is being shared
• Other ideas
How process can be improved
• What are the benefits that your organization would derive from improved coordination /collaboration?
Outcomes/benefits
Summit agenda
• Regional context• Service provider presentations• Sample project lists• Group discussion of how coordination
can be improved
Project list
• Project Name• Project Limits• Proposed Work
– Project type (transportation, water, etc.)– Work Type (repair, new, maintenance, etc.)
Project list
• Jurisdiction• County/Community• Fiscal Year • Start/End Date
Project list
• Grade• ROW• Contact information
Summit agenda
• Regional context• Service provider presentations• Sample project lists• Facilitated discussion
Facilitated discussion
• Is the information on the sample lists useful? What other information is needed?
• When does this information need to be known to make it most useful?
• How should we collect/distribute this information regionally?
Facilitated discussion
• Is this type of collaboration helpful?• How often should collaboration occur
and when?• Who else should be involved?• How can we communicate better with
our customers/constituents?
Positive feedback
• Useful; conduct at least annually• Interaction among agencies• Support for sharing project lists
– Update annually– Contact information most important
Potential outcomes
• Centralized information– Service areas and contacts– Project lists
• Regular meetings• Network of communication• Written agreements among major
providers
More information
• Infrastructure report … http://www.semcog.org/SustainableInfrastructure.aspx
• Collaboration summit … http://www.semcog.org/infrastructuresummit.aspx
• Jennifer Evans– [email protected]– 313-324-3306