A financial milestone was reached on May 6, 2004 when the

Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) paid, in full,

the balance of its groundbreaking 1997 loan with the U.S.

Department of Transportation (DOT) for the Alameda Corridor

project. The ACTA paid U.S. DOT nearly $573 million to retire

the $400 million loan plus accrued interest – 28 years ahead of its

scheduled final maturity in 2032.

Approved by Congress as part of U.S. DOT’s 1997 appropriations, the loan provided critical support for the project’s $2.4

billion financial plan. The subordinated nature of the Federal

loan allowed the ACTA to sell $1.16 billion in project revenue

bonds. Grant funds from the FHWA Federal-aid program contributed another $347 million to the project.

Opened on time and within budget in April 2002, the

Alameda Corridor comprises railroad and highway investments

that have significantly improved freight traffic access to the

Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California. The largest

component of the Corridor is a 20-mile grade-separated rail

expressway (including a 10-mile below-grade trench) that

connects on-dock terminals to key transcontinental rail yards

near downtown Los Angeles. By combining 90 miles of

branch railroads into one high-speed rail line, the Alameda

Corridor eliminated more than 200 railroad crossings where

cars and trucks previously had to wait for long freight trains.

May 14, 2004 marked the one-year

anniversary of the unveiling by Secretary

Mineta of the Bush Administration’s reauthorization bill – the Safe, Accountable,

Flexible, and Efficient Transportation

Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA). This

bill proposed fundamental changes in the

way America invests in its transportation

infrastructure and included provisions to

better leverage transportation dollars by

taking advantage of innovative financing

and public-private partnership options.

SAFETEA provided an excellent framework to tackle the surface transportation

challenges that lie ahead, providing a blueprint for investment in the nation’s surface

transportation system. Now the Senate

and House have both approved reauthorization measures. The next step is for

a House-Senate conference committee

to address the differences between the

two bills. While there is no predicting the

final outcome, the U.S. DOT is encouraged to see several innovative finance

provisions in the approved Senate bill

(S.1072, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, an

Efficient Transportation Equity Act of

2004) and in the approved House bill

(H.R. 3550, Transportation Equity Act:

A Legacy for Users).

Both bills authorize State Infrastructure

Banks (SIBs) for all states and territories.

The Senate bill simply extends the TEA-21

provisions allowing banks to be capitalized with funds from the major Federal

funding categories. The House version

tracks more closely with the pilot program authorized in 1995 by establishing

a 10 percent limit on funding from any

category and creating separate accounts

for highways, transit, and rail. The Senate

bill, on the other hand, does not include

a limit on Federal funds to capitalize a SIB.

Both the Senate and House versions apply

Federal requirements to all projects

financed from the bank.

Both bills provide for the continuation

of the Federal credit assistance program,

TIFIA, and both lower the minimum

project cost threshold allowing $50

million projects (down from $100

million) to qualify for TIFIA assistance.

In addition the House bill lowers the

threshold for Intelligent Transportation

System (ITS) projects to $15 million

from the $30 million level in current law.

The Senate bill also makes certain private

freight rail facilities that provide a public

benefit eligible for TIFIA assistance and

allows projects to be “bundled” for

eligibility. The House bill retains existing

REAUTHORIZATION

VOLUME 10, NUMBER 1 SPRING 2004

Innovative Finance Provisions in Reauthorization

Also in this issue...

TIFIA Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

New GARVEE Issues . . . . . . . . . . . .4

New Mexico Initiative . . . . . . . . . . .6

SIB Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Pennsylvania Creates

New Modal SIBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Kansas Transportation

Revolving Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

SIBs Assist Transit Projects . . . . . . .10

Minnesota’s Transportation

Finance Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

TIFIA TRAILBLAZERS

Landmark Loan for Alameda Corridor Repaid

continued on page 2

continued on page 11

“In 1997, we invested in a project that had a strong vision

for the future that included two compelling new concepts –

intermodalism and innovative financing. Now, seven years

later, we are seeing how much the Alameda Corridor is

contributing to the local, national, and global economy.

This, combined with effective use of taxpayer money, makes

the Alameda Corridor a model project for the country.”

– Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta
2

TIFIA UPDATE

Since the publication of the last issue of IFQ, the TIFIA Joint

Program Office (JPO) has received a new application and four

new Letters of Interest from sponsors considering the use of

TIFIA credit assistance. Under the current extension of

Federal surface transportation programs that runs through June

2004, the TIFIA program has approximately $1.95 billion in

credit assistance available for FY 2004.

In addition to applications received earlier in FY 2004 from

IdleAire Technologies and Louisiana Transportation Authority,

the TIFIA program has received an application from the Las Vegas

Monorail Company (LVMC) for the Las Vegas Corridor

Downtown Extension project. This project encompasses the

design and construction of a 2.3-mile dual guideway monorail

in downtown Las Vegas, which will extend the 3.7-mile first phase

of the system scheduled to begin service in FY 2004. The combined system will include six miles of dual guideway, 11 stations,

and operations, maintenance and storage facilities. Phase 1 of the

monorail system has been completely financed and built with

private funds. The total estimated cost of the downtown extension is $461 million of which $431 million are eligible TIFIA costs.

The LVMC proposes to fund the downtown extension with the

combination of a $144 million TIFIA loan, farebox-backed bonds,

a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) from the Federal Transit

Administration (FTA), and other grants and local monies.

New Letters of Interest

TIFIA kicked off the year by receiving Letters of Interest

(LOIs) from two projects in California: the OceansideEscondido Sprinter Rail project and the Transbay Terminal

project, and has now received four new Letters of Interest from

projects stretching across the nation. Starting in the west, the

Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound

Transit) submitted a Letter of Interest for a direct loan of up to

$700 million for the Central Link light rail program in Seattle.

The Central Link project is currently divided into three segments:

the Initial Segment will run 14 miles from Westlake Station, in

downtown Seattle, to South 154th Street near SeaTac Airport;

the North Link will extend seven to eight miles north of the

Initial Segment through the University of Washington to the

Northgate neighborhood; and the Airport Link will extend

three miles south from the Initial Segment through the SeaTac

International Airport to a terminal park-and-ride station in the

City of SeaTac. The Initial Segment has a $500 million FFGA

from the FTA and received an amended Record of Decision in

May 2002. Sound Transit anticipates receiving final

environmental clearances for the North Link and the Airport

Link in 2005. The total estimated cost of the Initial Segment

is $2.4 billion.

New TIFIA Application and Letters of Interest Received

The ACTA collects fees on each shipping container that moves

between the ports and the rail yards, and has pledged this

revenue as the principal source of repayment for the project

bonds and the Federal loan. By taking the position of a subordinate lender and by deferring debt service repayments in

the early years of project operation, the Federal loan made

possible market access for the project’s senior bonds at

reasonable interest rate costs.

The ACTA repaid the Federal loan with proceeds from a new sale

of subordinate lien taxable and tax-exempt revenue bonds,

allowing it to reduce significantly the 6.79 percent interest rate cost

of the Federal loan. The ACTA could sell these new bonds for two

primary reasons: 1) two years of operational performance that

confirmed traffic and revenue forecasts, and 2) a recent IRS ruling

that confirmed the tax-exempt eligibility of a portion of the project

bonds. Interest rates on the new tax-exempt bonds were more

than 100 basis points less than the Federal loan interest rate.

The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach together comprise the

largest shipping complex in the United States, handling more

than 40 percent of the nation’s imports by value. Studies estimate

that more than two million jobs nationwide are associated with

international trade moving through these ports. Building the

Corridor created 10,000 construction jobs in the Los Angeles area.

The Alameda Corridor loan demonstrated the constructive role

that direct Federal credit could play in meeting the financial needs

of expensive, complex, and important transportation projects.

The U.S. DOT’s experience negotiating the Federal loan fundamentally shaped the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and

Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA), a credit program authorized in

the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) that

establishes a systematic and consistent approach to evaluating

and selecting projects for credit assistance.

The TIFIA credit program has provided credit assistance of more

than $3.5 billion for 11 projects of national significance representing more than $15 billion in infrastructure investment.

These TIFIA projects include highway toll roads, transit systems,

rail stations, and intermodal facilities.

Contact:

Mark Sullivan, Chief

TIFIA JPO,

202/366-5785,

mark.sullivan,@fhwa.dot.gov

Alameda Corridor, continued from page 1

continued on page 3

TIFIA Team Welcomes Joanne McGowan

The TIFIA JPO is pleased to welcome aboard Joanne

McGowan who joined the TIFIA team in February 2004.

Joanne is detailed to the TIFIA office and brings invaluable

transportation experience from the Federal Railroad

Administration where she has worked closely with the

TIFIA JPO on TIFIA projects and was instrumental in the

implementation of the Railroad Rehabilitation Infrastructure

Financing program (RRIF). Joanne can be reached at

202/493-2906 or joanne.mcgowan@fhwa.dot.gov.
3

The Central Texas Regional Mobility

Authority (CTRMA) submitted a

Letter of Interest for the U.S. 183-A

project seeking $67 million in Federal

credit assistance. The project encompasses highway improvements in the

southwestern portion of Williamson

County, through the cities of Austin,

Cedar Park, and Leander, and extends

from the future State Highway 45 to

the South Fork of the San Gabriel

River, approximately 11 miles in total

length. The total cost for the project

will be approximately $290 million

and the facility will be a controlled

access north-south tolled highway generally traversing parallel to and east of

existing U.S. 183. The CTRMA

intends that 183-A will be designed

and constructed such that the ultimate

expansion of the facility can be

accommodated without substantial

reconstruction. The Record of Decision

for the project was issued in 2001.

The TIFIA JPO also received a Letter

of Interest from the Chicago Transit

Authority (CTA) for the Downtown

Intermodal Terminal project. The

project is a part of a mixed-use development currently planned at Block 37 in

the heart of the Central Loop in downtown Chicago. The project is bounded

on the west by CTA’s existing Blue

Line subway and on the east by CTA’s

existing Red Line subway. Stations on

each of these two lines are located

immediately adjacent to the site, and a

pedestrian tunnel that connects the

CTA stations currently bisects the site.

The subsurface levels of the development at Block 37 would be used to

build a Downtown Intermodal

Terminal, comprising platforms, subway track connections, and station

facilities. The overall development plan

calls for retail, office, hotel, and/or

residential space in addition to the

transit facility. CTA is seeking a $47.8

million TIFIA direct loan for this

$213.3 million project.

Finally, Safer Transport and Roadways

(STAR) Solutions, a strategic collaboration of construction, engineering,

design, and development companies,

submitted a Letter of Interest for the

Interstate 81 project in Virginia as

part of a public-private partnership

under the Commonwealth of Virginia

Public-Private Transportation Act.

STAR Solutions, recently selected by the

Virginia DOT to undertake the I-81

project, proposes to rebuild and increase

the capacity along the 325 miles of I-81

in western Virginia that stretch from

Bristol at the Tennessee border in the

south, to the West Virginia border near

Winchester in the north, and to create

two dedicated truck lanes in both the

north and south directions for heavy

commercial vehicles. The total estimated cost of the project is $9.7 billion

and STAR solutions would be seeking

$1.3 billion in TIFIA credit assistance.

Contact:

Duane Callender,

TIFIA JPO,

202/366-9644,

duane.callender@fhwa.dot.gov

New TIFIA Application and Letters of Interest Received, continued from page 2

The Finer Points of TIFIA

The “Finer Points of TIFIA” box provides responses to questions posed by our readers and other observers. We hope you

find this section useful and that you will submit questions to Mark Sullivan, Chief, TIFIA JPO, (202) 366-5785 or

mark.sullivan@fhwa.dot.gov.

Question

In addition to the requirement for an investment grade rating, what basic conditions does U.S. DOT impose on a project’s

senior debt vis-à-vis a TIFIA loan?

Answer

The TIFIA Program intends to be a minority project investor who benefits, via the investment grade rating on the senior

debt, from the discipline of the capital markets. If the senior debt is substantially less than the TIFIA loan, however, the

senior debt could obtain its rating on the basis of a speculative revenue source unlikely to cover total debt service – and thus

its investment grade rating would offer no benefit to the credit quality of the TIFIA loan. Therefore, in addition to the

statutory maximum of 33 percent of reasonably anticipated eligible project costs, the U.S. DOT limits the size of a TIFIA

loan to the amount of senior project obligations.

Similarly, the investment grade rating is meaningful to the U.S. DOT only if the same repayment source is pledged to both

the senior debt obligations and the subordinate TIFIA credit instrument. Therefore, the U.S. DOT requires that TIFIA

obtain a discrete security interest (albeit subordinate in cash flow), proportionate to the amount of senior debt, in each

pledged revenue source. This prevents grouping revenues of disparate credit quality into a single pledged source, with the

potential effect of securing the TIFIA debt with only the low quality revenues.
4

Since January 2004, six new Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle

(GARVEE) issues have been brought to market ranging from

Oklahoma’s $47.6 million issue to New Mexico’s $700 million

issue that was part of a $1.1 billion combined refunding/new

money bond sale. These six new issues brought total GARVEE

bond issuance since Ohio’s first issue in May 1998 to over $5

billion as reflected in the table below.

This issue of IFQ highlights the recent GARVEE bond sales and

features an article on New Mexico’s latest bond initiative to fund

a comprehensive program of highway projects across the state.

Arizona

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) in midMay issued $51 million of Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs)

to fund Arizona’s share of the cost to construct the Hoover Dam

Bypass Bridge. The construction project will be managed by the

Central Federal Lands Highway Division with funding provided by ADOT and the Nevada DOT. The GANs have an

average life of 6.8 years and a final maturity of July 1, 2014. The

True Interest Cost (TIC) for this issue is 4.116 percent. The

GANs are insured by AMBAC. ADOT expects to repay the

GANs, which are Arizona’s version of GARVEE bonds, with

future Federal reimbursements.

California

On March 10, 2004 the State of California issued $615 million

in Federal Highway Grant Anticipation Bonds Series 2004A.

The bonds received underlying ratings of Aa3, AA-, and AA- from

Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch Ratings, respectively. All

but the 2005 series were also backed by bond insurance, which

brought the ratings up to AAA.

The bonds will finance San Diego’s I-15 managed lanes;

Riverside’s SR-60 and SR-91/I-215; three Santa Clara projects

(I-880, and SR-87 North and South); and three Los Angeles

projects (I-5 HOV Lanes, I-405 Auxiliary Lanes, and

I-405/Highway 101 Gap Closure).

The bonds are structured with level debt service, with maturities

ranging from 2004 through 2015. The maximum annual debt

service is $73 million, in FY 2013.

GARVEE ROUNDUP

Six New GARVEE Issues Brought to Market

* $23.8 million of outstanding June 2000 bonds were refunded.

** Colorado DOT issued $400.2 million in June 2002 to refund prior bonds.

*** New Mexico refunded all prior GARVEEs as part of the 2004 bond sale.

GARVEE Transactions As of May 2004

Date Face Amount of Rating Projects

State of Issue Issue (in Millions) Moody’s/S&P/Fitch Financed Backstop

Alabama Apr. 2002 $200.0 Aa3/A/na County Bridge Program All Federal construction

reimbursements; also insured

Alaska Apr. 2003 $102.8 Aa2/AA/AA Eight road and bridge projects Full faith and credit of state

Arizona* Jun. 2000 $39.4 Aa3/AA-/AA- Certain sub-account transfers;

May 2001 $142.9 Aa3/AA-/AA- Maricopa Freeway Projects only 2004 issue insured

July 2003 $125.2 Aa3/AA-/AAMay 2004 $51.0 Aa3/AA-/AA Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge

Arkansas Mar. 2000 $175.0 Aa2/AA/na Interstate Highways Full faith and credit of state,

July 2001 $185.0 Aa2/AA/na plus state motor fuel taxes

July 2002 $215.0 Aa2/AA/na

California Mar 2004 $615.0 Aa3/AA-/AA- Eight road projects Insured except 2005 series

Colorado** May 2000 $537.0 Aa3/AA/AA Any project financed Highway users tax fund and

Apr. 2001 $506.4 Aa3/AA/AA wholly or in part by other state funds

Jun. 2001 $208.3 Aa3/AA/AA Federal funds

Aug. 2003 $100.0 Aa3/AA/AA

May 2004 $134.6 Aa3/AA/AA

New Mexico*** Sep. 1998 $100.2 A3/A-/na New Mexico SR 44 No backstop issues insured;

Feb. 2001 $18.5 A2/A/na U.S. 70 Project issues insured

Apr. 2004 $700.0 Aa2/AA+/na Statewide projects

Ohio May 1998 $70.0 Aa3/AA-/AA- Various projects including: Other available funds, including

Aug. 1999 $20.0 Aa3/AA-/AA- Spring-Sandusky and gas taxes, subject to appropriations

Sep. 2001 $100.0 Aa3/AA/AA- Maumee River Improvements

Sep. 2002 $135.0 Aa3/AA/AADec. 2003 $113.8 Aa3/AA/AAOklahoma Mar 2004 $47.6 Aa3/na/A Projects in 12 corridors None

Puerto Rico Apr 2004 $136.0 A2/A/na Various transportation projects No backstop; debt service reserve

Rhode Island Nov. 2003 $217.0 Aa3/A+/AA- Freeway, bridge, and freight None

rail improvement projects

Virgin Islands Oct. 2002 $20.8 na/na/AAA Enighed Pond Port Project Insured

and Red Hook Passenger

Terminal Building

Total $5,016.5

continued on page 5

}
California’s enabling legislation permits GARVEEs to be

issued only if the combined debt service on all outstanding

issues does not exceed 30 percent of the state’s historical

annual deposits of Federal funding into its highway trust fund.

In the Master Trust Indenture for this bond issuance, the

California Transportation Commission further strengthened

the security by reducing this test to 25 percent (legally) and 15

percent as a matter of policy. Using these tests under varying

market conditions, an April 2004 analysis of the State Treasurer

shows that the state has total capacity ranging from a low of

$2.8 billion to a high of $8.0 billion.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma also issued its first of a series of planned GARVEE

bonds this March in the amount of $47.575 million. With the

premium, Oklahoma realized $50 million in net proceeds that will

be used on projects located on 12 transportation corridors of economic significance across the state. The proceeds will be used for

right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, and construction. The

state Supreme Court’s decision that permitted issuance of the

bonds prohibited the state from seeking bond insurance, so the

bonds were not insured.

The stand-alone bonds, which will run for a term of 15 years,

achieved ratings of Aa3 and A+ from Moody’s and Fitch,

respectively. The issue was priced on March 4, 2004 and

closed on March 24 with an average cost of 3.59 percent. The

state anticipates a second issuance to occur in March 2005 for

a similar amount – $50 million. These proceeds will be used for

additional work within the 12 transportation corridors.

Colorado

On May 17, the State of Colorado completed its final new money

issuance of TRANs (Transportation Revenue Anticipation

Notes) bonds totaling $134.6 million. This is the culmination

of the state’s multibillion-dollar GARVEE program.

Additionally, the Colorado DOT sold $280.2 million of

refunding, noncallable revenue anticipation notes. The

refunding will save the state $9.8 million.

The bond proceeds and savings will allow a critical project to

proceed in Colorado Springs pending approval of an

Environmental Assessment. The project includes major

reconstruction and widening of I-25 through the heart of the

city, which follows on the success of the widening of I-25

through Denver known as the T-REX project. The Colorado

Springs I-25 project could start in spring of 2005 and is estimated to cost approximately $140 million.

Puerto Rico

On April 6, 2004, the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation

Authority priced its first series of GARVEEs as part of a $621

million transportation issue that also included new money

transportation bonds and refunding bonds. A total of $136.0

million in GARVEE bonds was sold, secured only by Federal

highway reimbursements. The maturities range from 2005 to

2021. The bonds were rated A2 by Moody’s and A by Standard

and Poor’s. A portion of the bond proceeds will be used to fully

fund a debt service reserve fund.

5

The Finer Points of GARVEEs

Each issue of IFQ features questions and answers on the GARVEE program. This issue focuses on whether regular Federalaid funds and GARVEE proceeds can be used on the same project.

Note that answers to these questions are not regulatory or legislative, but represent FHWA’s current administrative

interpretations. If you have questions or want to confirm any of this information, please contact your local FHWA Division

office. GARVEE guidance is also available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovativefinance/garvee.htm

Can Regular Federal-Aid Funds and GARVEE Proceeds Be Used on the Same Project?

The initial GARVEE guidance required states to choose between being reimbursed for debt service costs on a project, or

being reimbursed for construction costs. That provision was intended to prevent “double dipping” – states seeking

reimbursement for both construction and for the debt service for bond proceeds that financed the construction.

The revised guidance issued by FHWA in March 2004 clarifies that both types of financing could be used on the same

project, as long as there is only one type of reimbursement for each expenditure.

“At the time the project agreement is signed, the state will make an election to seek reimbursement for debt service and/or

related issuance costs in lieu of reimbursement for construction costs. FHWA prefers that each project be reimbursed either

on the basis of debt-related costs or on invoice costs (not both). However, FHWA will consider exceptions to this either/or

provision, if the state provides assurance that the project costs being reimbursed from the bond proceeds can be identified

and tracked. For example, the bond proceeds may used to fund a project phase or a specific activity, or be limited to a dollar

amount per project.”

Contact:

Jennifer Mayer, FHWA

National Resource Center,

415/744-2634,

jennifer.mayer@fhwa.dot.gov

GARVEE Issues, continued from page 4
6

New Mexico Launches Strategic Transportation Initiative

In 2003, the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation

Department became the New Mexico Department of

Transportation (NMDOT), a name that more accurately reflects

the increasingly diverse range of transportation services required

by the State of New Mexico. In the spirit of this new strategic

directive, Governor Richardson’s Investment Partnership, or GRIP,

was born – a $1.5 billion program of highway and mobility projects throughout the state.

The recent sale of $1.137 billion of fixed and variable rate bonds

by the New Mexico Finance Authority (NMFA) on behalf of

NMDOT marks an historical event in New Mexico, representing

the largest bond transaction in the history of the state.

Approximately $737 million of the bond proceeds (par amount

of $700 million plus premiums) will be used to fund the first phase

of GRIP with the balance used to restructure a portion of the New

Mexico State Transportation Commission’s outstanding debt.

GRIP will be fully funded with the proceeds from subsequent

sales, currently planned for 2006 and 2010.

Meeting Finance Challenges

NMDOT is a familiar name in the world of innovative finance,

having completed the first GARVEE transaction secured solely

by Federal revenues, being the first state to take advantage of program match provisions under TE-045, and the first to pledge

Federal Forest Highway funds (PLH-FH) to a bond issue. Since

1996, NMDOT has issued over $1 billion of bonds to finance the

Citizens Highway Assessment Task Force (CHAT), GARVEE,

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), and Highway Infrastructure

Fund (HIF) projects. Several years ago, NMDOT decided to

minimize the use of state road fund revenues to pay debt service

in order to preserve scarce state dollars for operations and maintenance. Declining gas tax revenues, which comprise approximately 60 percent of road fund revenues, and a reluctance by

the then-current Governor to implement any tax increases put

a severe strain on the limited resources available to the state and

reinforced the need for alternative revenue streams. The result

is that debt service has been paid from a combination of PLHFH funds, a Department of Energy grant, revenues dedicated to

the HIF, and Federal revenues. Of the total annual debt service

amount of approximately $122 million, $94 million has been paid

with Federal highway funds, representing 35 percent of the approximately $270 million per year New Mexico receives in obligation

authority. While NMDOT legally had capacity available to issue

additional debt, its conservative approach to debt management

and commitment to fund operations and maintenance meant that

additional debt would not be issued without new revenues.

GRIP Funding Plan

It was within these parameters that NMDOT was challenged

to fund GRIP. Authority for GRIP was provided by the legislature in its 2003 special session. The legislation provided the

financial platform for funding GRIP and created a new mechanism for the issuance of NMDOT debt. The legislation provided

that upon the direction of the Transportation Commission, all

debt would be issued through the NMFA, a strategy designed to

allow each participant in the transaction to stay within its core

competencies, namely NMDOT to manage the projects and

NMFA to manage the debt. In addition to providing authority

for NMDOT to issue up to $350 million in bonds per year,

the legislation also provided the much-needed new revenues to

the state road fund. These new revenues are estimated to bolster

the road fund by approximately $60 million per year, effectively

increasing state road fund revenues by almost 20 percent after

phasing in of all new fees. However, NMDOT decided to use

only a portion of these new revenues for debt service, preferring

to keep some new revenues to help meet the increasing demand

for operating and maintenance funds. Accordingly, NMDOT

charged its finance team to come up with a plan to implement

the $1.5 billion GRIP program by 2010 with only $40 million

of new revenues.

The solution was to restructure a portion of the outstanding debt

and to use an appropriate amount of “synthetic” debt to lower

interest costs. Annual debt service is capped at a maximum of

$162 million ($122 million currently being paid, plus $40 million

of new revenue).

The restructuring and refunding of outstanding debt accomplished two goals – it created the additional capacity required

to implement GRIP and it removed the lien on Federal revenues

created by the 1998 and 2001 GARVEE bonds. Removing prior

liens on Federal revenues allowed these revenues to be pledged

solely to the GRIP program.

The combined pledge of state and Federal funds and the resulting

high coverage levels provided the framework for the bonds to

achieve the same high ratings of Aa2/AA+ by Moody’s and

Standard & Poor’s, respectively, for the Senior Lien Bonds and

ratings of Aa3/AA- for the Subordinate Lien Bonds, a notch higher

than the previously issued subordinate lien bonds. These high

underlying ratings made the use of insurance extremely affordable and the Senior Lien Bonds were insured by MBIA, while

the Subordinate Lien Bonds were insured by AMBAC.

GRIP Funding Features

❖ A new Indenture of Trust was created in which all state

and Federal funds paid into the state road fund are

pledged to bondholders;

❖ Over $202.2 million of outstanding CHAT Bonds have

been restructured;

❖ All of the 1998 and 2001 GARVEE Bonds have been

refunded;

❖ Nearly $28.2 million of outstanding HIF Bonds have

been restructured; 

❖ The program will consist of a combination of fixed rate,

natural variable rate, and synthetic fixed rate debt; and

❖ Subsequent bond issues are anticipated in 2006

and 2010.

continued on page 7
7

A summary of each series of the 2004 transaction is shown below. The average all-in interest cost for all three series of bonds is

approximately 4.64 percent.

The long-term finance plan has been structured to maximize debt service at the senior lien level. Any variable rate or refunding bonds

will be issued at the subordinate lien level, while maintaining maximum annual debt service at less than $162 million.

The use of Federal highway revenues for debt service for the new GRIP program will be continued and was approved through a

new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with FHWA. The MOU permits NMDOT to continue the use of present value

methodology for calculating state match on the refunded bonds as had previously been approved through a TE-045 project, and

lays the framework for future management of GRIP.

The GRIP program will fund the Governor’s transportation initiatives in a prudent and fiscally responsible manner that has been

recognized by the rating agencies in their assignment of high double-A category ratings. The assignment of such ratings was based

on a review of the entire program as well as the fact that the pledged state and Federal revenues provide coverage in excess of four

times annual debt service. This level of coverage provides a high degree of liquidity for the Department to manage other areas of

operations and maintenance. Contacts:

Larry Viarreal,

New Mexico Department of Transportation,

505/827-5195,

larry.viarreal@nmshtd.state.nm.us

Carlos Rey Romera,

New Mexico Finance Authority,

505/984-1454,

cromero@nmfa.net

New Mexico GRIP, continued from page 6

Series Lien Par Amount (in Millions) Mode Purpose Final Maturity

Series 2004A Senior $700 Fixed GRIP Projects 2024

Series 2004B Subordinate $237 Fixed Refunding 2014

Series 2004C Subordinate $200 Synthetic Fixed Refunding 2024

EVENTS

AASHTO Project Finance Institute Workshop:

Assembling a Plan of Finance

Thursday and Friday, July 22 and 23, 2004

This practical-focused workshop will provide participants with a

blueprint of the essential elements of a project finance plan. The

workshop will be of significant value for an organization looking

beyond pay-as-you-go funding for capital infrastructure projects

and, in particular, for sponsors of projects that may fall into the

Federal “mega-project” designation requiring finance plans for

projects valued at $100 million or more under TEA-21 reauthorization proposals. The workshop is open to any project sponsor;

however, registration is limited to 25 participants. Online registration is available at http://transportation.org/aashto/calendar.nsf.

AASHTO Subcommittee on Financial Management

Saturday and Sunday, July 24 and 25, 2004

The AASHTO Subcommittee on Financial Management will

meet on Saturday, July 24, 2004, and then continue its meeting in

a joint session with the TRB Committee on Taxation and Finance

the morning of Sunday, July 25th. Topics to be discussed include

the U.S. DOT Inspector General’s report on inactive obligations

(“project closeouts”), funding and financing research agendas, the

innovativefinance.org web site, FHWA-state DOT relationships and

key issues in financial management from the FHWA perspective,

and TEA-21 reauthorization.

For more information on the AASHTO events, contact Janet

Kavinoky, AASHTO Project Director for Transportation

Finance and Business Development, (202) 624-5818 or

jkavinoky@aashto.org.

TRB Committee on Taxation and Finance

Sunday, July 25, 2004, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. / Monday, July

26, 2004, 10:15 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

On Sunday, the Committee on Taxation and Finance will hold its

first joint meeting with AASHTO’s Subcommittee on Financial

Management to address key financing issues, reauthorization, and

other areas of mutual interest, including future research needs.

On Monday, the Committee will hold its regular summer meeting,

focusing on the Committee’s strategic initiatives, plans for the

Annual Meeting, and future finance workshops and conferences.

TRB Joint Summer Meeting

Park City, Utah will be the venue for several transportation financing-related events in July 2004 sponsored by the American Association

of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Committee on Taxation

and Finance. These events are being held in conjunction with the TRB Joint Summer Meeting of the Planning, Economics,

Environmental, Finance, Freight and Management Committees. TRB’s Summer Meeting in Park City is from July 25 through 27, 2004

at the Grand Summit Hotel and Conference Center. For more information, visit TRB’s web site at http://www.trb.org/Conferences/Midyear/.
Pennsylvania Creates Two New

Modal State Infrastructure Banks

The success of Pennsylvania’s highway/bridge and transit

State Infrastructure Bank has not gone unnoticed by the

other transportation modes in the Commonwealth.

Pennsylvania’s airports and rail freight providers also have

tremendous financial needs. Responding to their financial

needs, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

(PENNDOT) recently established an aviation loan program.

The rail freight loan program will be available after July 1,

2004. All of these modal loan programs are managed under

the umbrella of the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Bank (PIB)

which is operated by PENNDOT.

The aviation bank, capitalized with state aviation funds, is

available to all of Pennsylvania’s 134 public use airports. The

money may be loaned for improvements such as hangar construction, runway extensions, and other airport amenities. This

new program will greatly enhance the Commonwealth’s ability

to foster needed economic development and will help ensure

the vitality of Pennsylvania’s aviation system.

During the very first month of the aviation bank’s operation,

six applications were received. The applicants are using the bank

to provide the necessary local match for approved Federal and

state grants. Loan application amounts ranged from $11,250

to $250,000. The loans will assist the Bradford County

Airport Authority, Clearfield-Lawrence Airport Authority, and

the Saint Marys Municipal Airport Authority in making

needed improvements.

Because of the instant success of the Aviation Bank, all of the

initial seed money has been loaned. Additional seed money

will be deposited into the bank with the passage of the next

state budget. This capitalization will continue until the program

becomes a self-sustaining revolving loan program.

Much of the growing success of the PIB can be credited to a

marketing effort that began in earnest in 2000. An initial study

of methods to market the bank was completed and many of the

study’s recommendations have been implemented. Brochures and

a Pennsylvania Infrastructure Bank Handbook were developed.

These documents and other information about the PIB may be

viewed at PENNDOT’s web site at www.dot.state.pa.us.

When the rail freight bank becomes operational this summer, the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will have a truly multimodal

loan program.

8

Contact:

James Smedley,

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation,

717/772-1772,

jsmedley@state.pa.us.

SIB HIGHLIGHTS

The first half of the Federal fiscal year brought continued

growth in the SIB program. As of March 2004, 32 states

have entered into 373 loan agreements with a total value of

just under $4.8 billion. This activity, which is shown in

the table to the right, represents 22 new loan agreements

valued at nearly $300 million since September 2003.

As evidenced by the increased loan activity, states continue

to become more adept at using and expanding their SIBs to

advance needed infrastructure projects. This issue of IFQ

features three articles on current SIB activity. First, a new

aviation loan program has been added to the already active

Pennsylvania Infrastructure Bank, with a new rail freight loan

program planned for the summer. Next, although not part

of the Federal SIB program, Kansas has modeled its new

Transportation Revolving Fund after similar programs

already established in the state. Finally, SIB credit assistance

is helping meet transit funding needs across the country.

States Increase SIB Activity

Contact:

Phyllis Jones, FHWA,

202/366-2854,

phyllis.jones@fhwa.dot.gov

State Infrastructure Bank Loan Agreements by State

As of March 31, 2004

Loan 

Number of Agreement Disbursements

State Agreements Amount ($000) to Date ($000)

Alaska 1 $2,737 $2,737

Arizona 45 521,442 406,849

Arkansas 1 31 31

Colorado 4 4,400 1,900

Delaware 1 6,000 6,000

Florida 45 747,210 246,861

Indiana 2 5,715 5,715

Iowa 2 2,879 2,879

Maine 23 1,635 1,635

Michigan 33 22,207 22,207

Minnesota 15 95,719 77,013

Missouri 15 92,057 72,854

Nebraska 2 6,792 6,792

New Mexico 2 14,600 14,600

New York 10 27,700 27,700

North Carolina 2 1,713 1,713

North Dakota 2 3,891 3,891

Ohio 41 185,095 138,050

Oregon 15 19,846 18,396

Pennsylvania 36 24,364 22,756

Puerto Rico 1 15,000 15,000

Rhode Island 1 1,311 1,311

South Carolina 8 2,605,000 1,765,000

South Dakota 3 28,776 28,776

Tennessee 1 1,875 1,875

Texas 44 257,860 250,683

Utah 1 2,888 2,888

Vermont 2 800 800

Virginia 1 18,000 17,985

Washington 3 2,376 487

Wisconsin 3 1,813 1,813

Wyoming 8 77,977 42,441

TOTAL 373 $4,799,709 $3,209,638
9

There’s a new option when it comes to paying for local transportation projects in Kansas. The Kansas Department of

Transportation (KDOT) has established a Transportation

Revolving Fund. The fund offers flexible, low-cost financial assistance for qualified transportation projects.

“This fund has the potential to become an important component of transportation financing for Kansas communities,”

said KDOT Secretary Deb Miller. “We are glad to offer this program to our local partners.”

All cities, counties, and other political subdivisions of the State

of Kansas are eligible to borrow from the Transportation

Revolving Fund. In addition, private enterprises are eligible if

they have a governmental unit as a partner.

Local communities identify their transportation needs. Each local

community decides its own priorities for transportation projects.

The fund may finance city streets and rural roads on or off the

state highway system. Local governments can also borrow their

portion of a KDOT-sponsored project. This allows local governments to move forward on construction of projects scheduled for

the future and to take advantage of other KDOT programs such

as KLINK (Kansas Connecting Links), Geometric Improvement,

and Economic Development. Should Federal funds be involved,

a project is subject to all Federal rules.

Enthusiastic Welcome

The fund received an enthusiastic welcome from the cities and

counties as it was marketed around the state. KDOT’s marketing

strategy is to provide speakers and presentations at meetings for

city and county officials. KDOT sent a letter to all city mayors,

county commission chairpersons, and public works directors in

the state announcing that the fund was ready to accept applications. KDOT’s web site, www.ksdot.org, will soon have

information about the fund.

KDOT received 16 applications covering 20 projects for a total

$23.1 million in loans in the first four months of the fund’s operation. Project costs range from $50,000 to $6 million. Projects

include bridges, reconstruction of streets and roads, right-of-way

acquisitions, and a railroad grade separation. The first applicant,

Franklin County, will be able to accelerate the County Highway

Improvement Plan (CHIP) by 15 years. “With this loan, it will

let us take the 15-year CHIP plan and move it all forward and

get the roads paved now,” said Ed Taylor, Franklin County

Commission Chairman. “And it won’t cost us any more money

because we’ll still have the future CHIP allotments, but we’ll have

the roads now.”

Fund Structure

Funds for the Transportation Revolving Fund were authorized

as part of KDOT’s Comprehensive Transportation Program.

The statute does not limit the amount of capitalization for the

fund and there is no sunset provision.

The Transportation Revolving Fund is patterned after existing

state water revolving funds. Local governmental units can repay

loans with various revenues including the local share of motor

fuel tax or locally raised revenues such as sales taxes.

The Transportation Revolving Fund currently uses only state

funds. Initial capitalization of the Transportation Revolving Fund

will be $25 million from the state highway fund. The fund will

be able to lend up to $30 million per year to local governments

by leveraging its assets. The fund is projected to reach a size of

approximately $100 to $120 million without additional capitalization. The fund will issue bonds through the Kansas

Development Finance Authority using its loans receivable as

security. The term of a loan is limited to the lesser of 20 years or

the design life of the project, including the construction period.

There is no penalty for early prepayment of a loan.

Currently, the fund limits loans to $6 million to any one borrower

for the fiscal year. This policy may be revised as the fund gains

experience and economic conditions change. The initial interest

rate is set at 80 percent of the 90-day average of the Bond Buyer

Index. At no time will the interest rate exceed current market rates.

The interest rate will be set on the date of the loan agreement.

Application Process

Eligible projects must be either a bridge, culvert, road, street,

or highway. All phases of a project are eligible for financing,

including preliminary engineering, rights-of-way acquisition,

design, planning, construction, and construction engineering.

Transit, aviation, railroad, and trail projects are not eligible for

financing by statutory restriction. Projects must be consistent

with the state highway system, as it exists now or in the future.

KDOT will not inspect purely local projects off the state

highway system. Instead, KDOT is relying on the assurances

of the licensed professional engineer contracted by the local

government to design and inspect the project.

Applications are processed as they are received on a first-come,

first-served basis. If the entire $30 million is committed in a

given fiscal year, KDOT will hold the application over for the

next fiscal year. Applicants will be contacted at the beginning

of the new fiscal year to determine if they still desire the loan.

They will not have to submit a new application.

Applications are considered on the following basis.

❖ Is the applicant a political subdivision of the State of Kansas?

❖ What impact does the project have on the state highway

system?

❖ Is the applicant creditworthy?

❖ Is the term of the loan equal to or less than the design life of

the project?

“Because economic conditions have been tight, we see this

revolving loan program as another way KDOT can help local communities leverage limited dollars to improve local transportation,”

said Secretary Miller.

Kansas Transportation Revolving Fund Offers New Financing Option

Contact:

Evelyn Fitzpatrick,

Kansas Department of Transportation,

785/296-4782,

evelynf@ksdot.org
10

Nearly $45 million of low-interest loans provided by seven SIBs

have assisted 12 transit projects valued in excess of $135 million.

The loans have supported a diverse spectrum of projects, including

bus purchases, rail modernization, intermodal facilities, an historic

landmark rehabilitation, and rural transportation improvements.

Many of the loans have assisted communities with local project

match requirements. This has enabled local governments to accelerate the implementation of transit infrastructure and services that

might otherwise have been postponed due to a lack of available

match funding.

Loan terms are tailored to the individual requirements of loan

applicants. Repayment sources have included urban renewal revenues, various sales taxes, and state appropriations.

Lending Obstacles Overcome

Some transit loan applicants encounter legal obstacles that must

be resolved prior to the conclusion of a loan. For example, loans

used to support the installation of particular technology, such as

buses equipped with traffic signal preemption devices, may require

state legislative approvals.

In North Carolina, because many small towns have municipal debt

limits, SIB loans have fulfilled a unique credit assistance niche by

lending funds to accelerate project delivery in advance of the

required project match.

Limited Federal funds have delayed the development of SIB

programs in some states. To overcome this problem, some states

have sought state appropriations for SIB capitalization. For example, in the future, North Carolina plans to capitalize its SIB

with 100 percent state funds.

Selected State-by-State Activity

States assisting transit projects with SIB loans include the following:

❖ Michigan’s SIB has supported four transit projects for a total

of $3.3 million in loans and $6.9 million in total project costs.

The projects have included bus purchases, a ferry boat replacement, a new transit system facility, and a garage for buses.

❖ Minnesota has executed the largest transit SIB loan to date.

The loan supported 53 transit capital improvement projects

in the seven-county Twin Cities Metropolitan area. The SIB

leveraged $4 million of transit account funds by using this

money to provide collateral for a $17 million bond issue for

the Metropolitan Council. This resulted in a total of $21

million in transit project support. If the Council had issued

bonds as an independent entity, they would have received

an interest rate less favorable than the 2.71 percent made

available through the SIB (a one percent discount from commercial rates was realized). Furthermore, the SIB was able to

access the state’s bond rating to obtain a competitive rate for

the bonds. The SIB has loaned all available transit funds

and is waiting for loan repayment money to accumulate to

a sufficient level before soliciting more transit applications.

❖ Missouri’s Transportation Finance Corporation issued a

loan for $11.1 million to cover the local match required

for the purchase of 217 transit buses for the Bi-State

Development Agency.

❖ North Carolina has used SIB money primarily to cover transit

local match requirements. Specifically, many small towns in

North Carolina lack the funds to meet local match requirements and must borrow the funds in order to accelerate

project delivery. Typical transit projects involve procurement of buses by public entities which are then used by

communities to transport students and employees to their

destinations. The city of Rocky Mount, NC is an example of

a community that has completed a SIB loan for this purpose.

❖ Ohio currently has $1.8 million available for transit lending.

Past Ohio SIB-sponsored transit projects have included a

transit center extension for the City of Cincinnati, and the

structural rehabilitation of the Cuyahoga River Viaduct. A

recent Ohio SIB transit loan will be used to assist in the rehabilitation of a railroad line that will provide passenger service

from Akron to Canton. The SIB is providing $1.5 million

of the $12.3 million total project costs in order to support

the project’s local match requirement. Approximately 20

percent of SIB transit loan requests are used to support

local match requirements.

❖ Oregon has used SIB money to support four transit projects.

These projects have included the installation of a bus turnout

in the City of Jacksonville, an intermodal center, and bus

and traffic signal purchases.

❖ Pennsylvania has approved a loan to the Berks Area

Reading Transportation Authority for $1.8 million to

renovate and expand the Authority’s main administrative

and operating facility. The total project cost is valued at

$4.4 million. This loan will deplete most of the available

funds in the Pennsylvania SIB for transit project assistance.

SIBs Assist Transit Projects

Contact:

Robena Reid,

FTA,

202/366-1973,

robena.reid@fta.dot.gov

New GARVEE Guidance Available

In March, FHWA published new GARVEE guidance with

minor changes. The changes include a clarification permitting use of regular Federal-aid funds and debt proceeds on

the same Federal-aid project, provided the funds can be separately

tracked; eliminating eligibility for reimbursement for

arbitrage rebates; and revising conformity guidelines to

conform with agency policy.

The new guidance can be found at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

innovativefinance/garvee.htm.
11

Innovative Finance Provisions in Reauthorization, continued from page 1

TECHNICAL CORNER

Minnesota’s Transportation Finance Package Builds More, Faster, Better

In June 2003, the Minnesota State Legislature passed Governor

Tim Pawlenty and Lieutenant Governor/Transportation

Commissioner Carol Molnau’s Transportation Finance

Package. The largest transportation investment in state history,

this package provides innovative financing and accelerated

construction of over $900 million of highway and transit

projects throughout the state.

The package consists of $400 million in bonds, $425 million in

Federal advance construction (AC) financing, and $100 million in

state funds, a significant increase over Minnesota’s regular highway

construction program. The $400 million in bonds will enable the

Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) to leverage

its Federal dollars. The 20-year bonds will be repaid with $36

million each year from internal Mn/DOT budget savings already

identified. The $100 million in state funds will come from

spending down the state’s dedicated trunk highway fund

balance over the next four years.

Of the $400 million in bonds, $36 million is targeted for transit

improvements in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, such as bus

shoulders and park-and-ride lots. The package also requires that

an additional $5 million of flexible funds be transferred from

FHWA to FTA for construction of transit capital investment

projects in Greater Minnesota. The $100 million in state funds

will be used to accelerate key projects that improve safety and help

preserve existing roadways.

The Legislature required that approximately 50 percent of this

package be spent on projects in the Twin Cities Metropolitan

Area and approximately 50 percent elsewhere in the state. The

projects were selected based on their ability to improve safety,

relieve congestion, and enhance mobility. In addition, project

readiness and appropriateness for debt financing were considered. This transportation package will enable Mn/DOT to

advance 12 major highway construction projects by a total of

more than 65 years. Individual project advancements ranged from

one to nine years.

The $425 million of AC will be converted to regular Federal

funds as actual project expenditures occur in order to minimize

the impact on the state’s cash balance. Expenditure estimates have

been developed for each of the 12 projects in order to plan for

the necessary AC conversions.

The finance package is expected to help pay for itself in terms

of saved inflationary costs and earlier delivery of road user

benefits compared to a traditional funding approach. Because

the $825 million of bonds and Federal advance construction

funds will accelerate projects by over five years on average, up to

20 percent of additional road user benefits are expected to be

generated, valued at $300 million. Further, using conservative

estimates of future inflation in the highway construction

industry, it is estimated that approximately $140 million in

construction inflation costs will be saved as a result of

accelerated project construction. These savings, together with the

road user benefits, will more than offset the $215 million interest

cost over the life of the bonds.

Contacts:

Brad Larsen, Minnesota Department of Transportation,

651/282-2170,

brad.larsen@dot.state.mn.us

Rabinder Bains, Minnesota Department of Transportation,

651/296-1658,

rabinder.bains@dot.state.mn.us

eligibility. In terms of funding, the House bill authorizes $900

million in contract authority to support $15.6 billion in credit

assistance. In comparison, the Senate bill authorizes contract

authority of $780 million, but has no limit on credit assistance.

Similar to the Administration’s SAFETEA proposal, the Senate

bill modifies the private activity bond provisions of the Internal

Revenue Code by including highway facilities and surface

freight transfer facilities as exempt facilities. This would allow

more private activity on these projects without losing the

authority to issue tax-exempt debt to finance the projects.

Bonds are not subject to the annual volume cap for private

activity bonds, but may not exceed $15 billion in aggregate.

The Senate bill, however, adds a requirement that the project(s)

funded with the bond proceeds must be receiving Federal

assistance under Title 23. No comparable provision for private

activity bonds is included in the House bill.

In the area of improved grant management, the Senate bill simplifies the calculation of the sliding scale Federal share and extends

authority for transferring funds. States can receive a higher Federal

share on projects based on the percentage of their land that is

classified as public lands, Indian lands, national forests, or national

parks or monuments. The Senate bill provides for a single calculation (currently three different rates are authorized) of this

increased Federal share, known as sliding scale. The Senate bill

also allows a state to request that its Federal funds be transferred

to another state or to a Federal agency including the FHWA.

This will simplify the administration of jointly funded projects.

Questions have arisen about the need to reauthorize GARVEE

bonds. Since the GARVEE bond program is codified in Title

23, United States Code, no new legislation is needed to

continue the program.

For more information on the House and Senate bills,

including information on other innovative approaches such as

tolling, visit FHWA’s reauthorization web site at http://www.fhwa.

dot.gov/reauthorization/index.htm.

Contact:

Max Inman,

FHWA,

202-366-2853,

max.inman@fhwa.dot.gov
12

A REMINDER TO READERS

FHWA DOES NOT MAINTAIN A MAILING

LIST AND DOES NOT DISTRIBUTE IFQ

DIRECTLY. IFQ IS AVAILABLE AS AN INSERT

TO THE AASHTO JOURNAL, AND IS

AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH

FHWA’s WWW HOME PAGE:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

innovative finance/

IFQ IS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE FOLLOWING

ORGANIZATIONS FOR REDISTRIBUTION

AND/OR AS INFORMATION FOR THEIR

MEMBERSHIP:

❖ American Public Works

Association (APWA)

❖ Surface Transportation Policy

Project (STPP)

❖ National Governor’s Association

(NGA)

❖ National Association of State

Treasurers (NAST)

❖ National Association of State

Auditors, Controllers, and

Treasurers (NASACT)

❖ National Association of Regional 

Council’s (NARC’s) Association

of MPOs (AMPO)

SUZANNE H. SALE, FHWA

CO-MANAGING EDITOR

602/379-4014

FAX: 602/379-3608

SUZANNE.SALE@FHWA.DOT.GOV

MAX INMAN, FHWA

CO-MANAGING EDITOR

202/366-2853

FAX: 202/366-7493

LAURIE L. HUSSEY, CS MANAGING EDITOR

CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS, INC.

617/354-0167

FAX: 617/354-1542

LHUSSEY@CAMSYS.COM

Reproduction (in whole or in part)

and broad distribution of IFQ is

strongly encouraged. Permission

from FHWA, the editor, or any

other party is not necessary.

Contributors to Vol. 10, No. 1 of IFQ include:

Rabinder Bains, Minnesota Department of Transportation

Roger Berg, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Duane Callender, TIFIA JPO

Lisa Fenner, RBC Dain Rauscher

Evelyn Fitzpatrick, Kansas Department of Transportation

Dale Gray, FHWA

Max Inman, FHWA

Phyllis Jones, FHWA

Janet Kavinoky, AASHTO

Sheri Koch, FHWA Minnesota Division Office

Brad Larsen, Minnesota Department of Transportation

Jennifer Mayer, FHWA National Resource Center

Robena Reid, Federal Transit Administration

Suzanne H. Sale, TIFIA JPO

James Smedley, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Mark Sullivan, TIFIA JPO

FTA Finance Workshops

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) will sponsor four finance-focused

workshops this summer to be held throughout the country. These workshops

will provide in-depth coverage of a range of topics, including:

❖ When a financing approach makes better sense than pay-as-you-go

❖ How to structure revenue bond financing with governmental and/or farebox

revenue streams

❖ How to utilize SIBs as a source of low-cost financing

❖ How to advance capital investment through grant anticipation borrowing

❖ What the TIFIA program is and how it can help finance major capital projects

❖ How to achieve win-win situations with well-structured joint development

and other public-private partnerships

❖ How to create joint development opportunities with New Start projects

❖ How to optimize development opportunities around existing transit stations

Each of these topics will be covered during the one and one-half-day workshop

program. In addition to presentations by nationally recognized experts and FTA

staff, the sessions will include presentations from system managers and practitioners involved in structuring financing and joint development programs in the

region. There will be ample opportunity for questions and answers and breakout

sessions to cover topics in a hands-on environment. The development of an

audience identified case study will be encouraged and used to foster discussion.

The four workshops are being offered free of charge. Workshops will be capped at

90 participants, and registrations will be accepted on a first come, first served

basis. The locations and dates are:

❖ Miami – June 9 and 10, 2004 ❖ Minneapolis – August 26 and 27, 2004

❖ Denver – August 19 and 20, 2004 ❖ Boston – September 13 and 14, 2004

More workshop information and online registration is available at: http://webservices.

camsys.com/ftaconf/index.htm.